Amid the economic hurricane that Ghana has been experiencing since the start of year 2022, further exacerbated by conflicts within the government, the president, Nana Addo DankwaAkufo-Addo, sacked his Minister of State for Finance, Charles Adu Boahen.
The now–former minister was captured in an expose by Anas Aremeyaw Anas and his Tiger Eye Private Investigative team in which he intimated to some ‘supposed businessmen’, in a meeting held in Dubai, that he could get them a sit-down with the Vice President, Alhaji Mahamudu Bawumia, to discuss some investment propositions at a fee.
According to Anas, the minister “revealed to Tiger Eye that the Vice President, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, needs just USD200,000.00 token as an appearance fee and some positions by an investor for the Vice President’s siblings to get his backing and influence in establishing a business in Ghana.”
While there are still debates about the fate of the country at this turn of events, more so in the middle of discussions with the IMF for a bailout, the never-dying argument about Anas’ approach to conducting investigations has resurfaced.
Critics argue that Anas’ style of exposing wrongdoing is unethical, to say the least, and a breach of privacy. Others maintain that his methods are crude and make him complicit in the same crime he exposes others because he offers bribes. Those arguers call it entrapment.
They argue that Anas sets people up to fall. They say “You tempt a cat with sardine and accuse it of stealing when it eats. Per this modus, even the holiest Saint would fall.” But is that the case?
In 2015, when Anas released the “Ghana In the Eyes of God” documentary exposing judges and magistrates taking bribes, still there were judges who did not accept the bribes. Three years later, when he shook the foundations of football in Africa with his “Number 12” documentary, showing football association executives and referees collecting bribes to fix players and matches, there were officials who stood tall against the temptation.
Thus, the argument that no one can escape unscathed from Anas’ modus operandi proves to be untrue. Besides, if a cat is being offered sardines, I would ask: Was the cat a sardine eater beforethe offering? Was it wrong for the cat to eat the sardine? Did the cat have the free will to avoid the sardine?
If it is the case that a cat would always eat sardines placed before it, then it only proves that the cat is inherently an eater of sardines, right? Therefore, the sardine giver only exposed the real nature of the cat, right? Why then vilify the giver as though it is he who made the cat an eater of sardines?
In the case of Anas and the sacked minister of state, the contents of the documentary only expose the latter’s nature, just as Anas exposed the embattled former Ghana Football Association (GFA) president, Kwasi Nyantakyi’s character.
My theory is: if a fish (money or power) is thrown at a cat (a corrupt person), whether cameras are recording or not, the cat will eat and over-miaoo (say what you should not). Saints are saints because they are able to overcome temptation.
In Journalism, there are defences against defamation and privacybreaches, both of which Anas has been accused of multiple times. The best defence is TRUTH. Is the report the TRUTH: did it actually happen and are the sounds and visuals of good enough integrity?
If Anas’ camera was not there, Ghanaians might never have seen that deal and the money Adu Boahen took. Imagine how many deals this man supervised as Deputy Minister and Minister of State? If he was taking a cut in all those deals, can you estimate how many good deals the nation may have lost because some investors might not be willing to pay the cut?
What other methodology could be used to expose a person who abuses their authority, spreads falsehood and collect bribes shamelessly? Can such a person be easily exposed without an undercover investigation?
Still, some critics opine that Anas’s documentaries cannot betaken for the truth because the videos he publishes are shorter versions of what is recorded during the investigations.
This argument is a non–starter. In journalism, selectivity is ethical as long as it does not temper the truthfulness and accuracy of the information.
Journalism is the watchdog of society. Watchdogs watch day and night. If cats will eat sardines, they should eat ones that are reserved for them. Whenever cats eat sardines reserved for the whole society, the dogs must be there to name and shame. Charles Adu Boahen has been named and shamed for eating sardines that he should have resisted. Case closed!
