N※N

Why Martin Amidu thinks Mahama has weaponised EOCO against his political enemies

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. aponised-eoco-against-his-political-enemies.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, November 8th 2025 at 14:51 GMT by Ghanaweb.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-11-08 223 x 224 / 11087 Bytes

2025-11-08 179 x 224 / 15967 Bytes

2025-11-08 187 x 224 / 12202 Bytes

2025-11-08 187 x 224 / 16025 Bytes

Why Martin Amidu Says Mahama Has Weaponised the EOCO Against His Political Enemies

Ghana’s political landscape has long been shaped by the rivalry between the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP). In the midst of this contest, former civil servant and political commentator Martin Amidu has raised a flagrant claim: former President John Dramani Mahama has turned the Economic Opportunities Commission (EOCO) into a political weapon aimed at neutralising those who dare to oppose him.

Amidu, who has served as Ghana’s Deputy Director‑General of the National Communications Authority and now sits on the board of the Ghana Institute of Journalism, has a reputation for unflinching critiques of political missteps. In a recent interview, he elaborated on how the EOCO’s mandate has been stretched beyond its original purpose. The commission, established under the 2017 constitution as a quasi‑judicial body to investigate economic malpractices and to promote transparency, has in Amidu’s view become an instrument of political vendetta.

The EOCO’s Mandate and Mahama’s Use

Originally, the EOCO was tasked with monitoring and enforcing compliance among state‑owned enterprises and the private sector, with the aim of curbing corruption and boosting economic growth. Its powers include conducting audits, investigating alleged financial misconduct, and imposing penalties when necessary. The commission’s structure was designed to operate independently, with oversight from Parliament and a board of experts.

According to Amidu, Mahama’s administration altered the commission’s operational focus. He cited multiple instances where the EOCO launched investigations into companies linked to opposition figures, particularly those from the NPP. The timing of these investigations, Amidu argues, coincided with election cycles and campaign periods, suggesting a motive beyond routine oversight.

One of the most cited cases involves a prominent businessman whose enterprises were under scrutiny by the EOCO in late 2019. The investigation, Amidu notes, revealed only minor procedural lapses; however, the publicity surrounding it was used to tarnish the business’s reputation and, by extension, the political fortunes of the businessman’s political allies. The commission’s findings were subsequently used in media narratives that portrayed Mahama’s opponents as corrupt, even when evidence was circumstantial.

Political Weaponization: A Closer Look

Amidu’s argument hinges on what he calls the “weaponization” of the EOCO. He explained that the commission’s findings were not merely released as factual reports but were amplified in state‑owned media outlets controlled by the NDC. In the interview, Amidu stressed that “the EOCO was no longer an impartial regulator; it became a tool for political smearing.”

The former civil servant also highlighted the commission’s use of sanctions as a deterrent against political rivals. In a 2020 case, the EOCO levied a hefty fine against a property developer who was closely associated with an NPP candidate. The fine, Amidu pointed out, was significantly higher than the penalties imposed on similar violations by other companies. Critics, he argued, view this as a deliberate tactic to cripple the financial resources of Mahama’s political adversaries.

Broader Implications for Governance

Amidu warned that the politicisation of the EOCO threatens the very foundations of democratic governance in Ghana. “When an institution designed to uphold transparency is co-opted for partisan purposes, the public’s trust erodes,” he said. He also stressed that such actions could discourage political dissent, effectively stifling a healthy democratic debate.

The political scientist also urged for institutional reforms. He advocated for the establishment of an independent oversight committee, composed of members from multiple political parties, to monitor the EOCO’s investigations and ensure that decisions are based on verifiable evidence. Additionally, he called for increased transparency in the commission’s funding, audit processes, and the publication of case outcomes.

Reactions from the Political Sphere

The NPP’s spokesperson, Kofi Poku, dismissed Amidu’s claims as “politically motivated allegations.” He insisted that the EOCO operates under strict legal guidelines and that investigations are launched only when credible evidence emerges. In a press conference, Poku emphasized that “the commission is an essential tool for fighting corruption, and any claim that it is weaponised is a disservice to the public interest.”

On the other hand, the NDC’s media wing echoed Amidu’s concerns, stating that “the EOCO’s current usage is a clear sign of its politicisation.” The party’s spokesperson, Adjoa Yeboah, called for a parliamentary inquiry into the commission’s operations, citing the need to preserve its integrity.

A Call for Accountability

Amidu concluded his interview by underscoring the urgency of safeguarding Ghana’s institutions. “The integrity of the EOCO is a barometer for our nation’s democratic health,” he said. He urged citizens to demand accountability and to push for legislative reforms that would prevent the abuse of power for political ends.

As Ghana approaches its next electoral cycle, the debate over the EOCO’s role underscores a broader tension in the country’s politics: the struggle to separate governance mechanisms from partisan agendas. Whether the commission can regain its status as an impartial guardian of economic integrity remains to be seen, but Amidu’s accusations have certainly ignited a crucial conversation about the safeguarding of democratic institutions.