Cecilia Dapaah saga: Domelevo, Kpebu and others drag EOCO to Parliament

EOCO Grilled Over Dapaah Investigation

Prominent Ghanaians, such as former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, have petitioned Parliament to look into the conduct of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and why it didn’t look into the money stash discovered in the home of former Sanitation Minister Cecilia Dapaah.

The investigation is bipartisan in nature. The group, which also includes prominent anti-graft activist Martin Kpebu, security analyst Dr. Adam Bonaa, political science professor Ransford Gyampo, and more than a hundred other Ghanaians from various backgrounds, contends that EOCO had more than enough justification to look into the former Minister for money laundering because of her inconsistent behavior and her inability to identify the source of the substantial sum of money that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) discovered at her home.

READ: Ignore Franklin Cudjoe’s false narrative; we didn’t disenfranchise SALL residents – EC

The petition, which was sent to Parliament on Thursday, May 16, 2024, among other things, stated that “the failure to explain the source of the money should have been the cornerstone of the investigation.” Concerns were also voiced regarding what the group perceived to be EOCO’s purposeful failure to take action to safeguard the funds that the OSP had taken from the former minister’s home.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has publicly criticized the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) for its inaction in seizing funds intended for Madam Cecelia Dapaa, as part of an ongoing investigation. According to the OSP, EOCO failed to act promptly in retrieving the funds, which were being returned to Madam Dapaa upon receipt of the docket. This development highlights the impasse between state anti-corruption agencies investigating the former Minister’s money hoard.

Furthermore, the petition alleges that EOCO’s public statements and investigative actions have been contradictory, raising concerns about the agency’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Despite presenting thorough information to the OSP, EOCO’s efforts have been met with disinterest, as the OSP has reportedly stated that it is not motivated to further investigate the matter.

READ ALSO: The race to raise blood money to halt an execution

This turn of events is concerning, as it suggests a lack of coordination and cooperation between state agencies tasked with combating corruption. The public expects these agencies to work together effectively to address corruption and ensure accountability, particularly in high-profile cases involving former government officials.

The OSP’s criticism of EOCO’s inaction is particularly noteworthy, as it highlights the need for prompt action in seizing funds related to ongoing investigations. The delay in retrieving these funds may have allowed for potential evidence to be destroyed or tampered with, undermining the integrity of the investigation.

Moreover, the contradictory public statements and investigative actions by EOCO raise questions about the agency’s credibility and trustworthiness. The public relies on these agencies to provide accurate and timely information, and any discrepancies in their statements and actions can erode confidence in the investigation process.

The impasse between the OSP and EOCO is a setback for the fight against corruption in the country. It is essential for state agencies to work together seamlessly to ensure that corruption cases are investigated thoroughly and promptly. The public expects nothing less than a coordinated effort to address corruption and ensure accountability, and any shortcomings in this regard can have far-reaching consequences for the integrity of the investigation process.

In conclusion, the OSP’s criticism of EOCO’s inaction and the contradictory public statements and investigative actions by EOCO are concerning developments that highlight the need for improved coordination and cooperation between state agencies tasked with combating corruption. The public expects prompt action, transparency, and accountability in corruption investigations, and any shortcomings in this regard can undermine trust in the investigation process.

FOR MORE; CLICK Here

About The Author

Prince Nti Adu

See author's posts