The recent “Ghana Ministers of State Excellence Honours” has generated significant public debate.
While recognizing excellence in public service is generally commendable, concerns raised about the nomination and sponsorship requirements associated with the awards have prompted important questions regarding credibility, transparency, governance, and the integrity of public recognition systems.
The public reaction, coupled with the decision by Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte, Chief Executive Officer of the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA), to reportedly decline the award because he did not consider himself as the “Best CEO” in Public Service as there are more work to be done and discovering the financial obligations attached to participation, provides an opportunity for a broader national conversation about how excellence should be measured and rewarded in public administration.
As governance practitioners, we must look beyond personalities and politics and examine the governance implications of such awards.
The purpose of excellence awards
In both the public and private sectors, awards serve several legitimate purposes:
Encouraging high performance.
Recognizing exceptional leadership.
Promoting innovation and service delivery.
Creating role models.
Reinforcing accountability and ethical conduct.
However, these objectives can only be achieved when the award process itself is governed by principles of transparency, fairness, independence, objectivity, and integrity.
Where these principles are absent, awards risk becoming mere ceremonial exercises that undermine rather than enhance public confidence.
The governance questions that must be asked
From a corporate governance perspective, several critical questions arise:
- Who Established the Award Criteria?
Any credible award system must have clearly documented eligibility requirements and measurable performance indicators.
The public deserves answers to questions such as:
What specific achievements qualified a Minister for nomination?
What methodology was used in assessing performance?
Were independent assessors engaged?
Was the evaluation evidence-based or perception-based?
Good governance requires transparency in decision-making processes.
- Who conducted the evaluation?
An award’s credibility depends heavily on the independence of the assessors.
Best practice requires:
Independent evaluation panels.
Absence of political influence.
Avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Objective assessment mechanisms.
Without independence, the award may be perceived as self-serving rather than merit-based.
- Was public value created?
The ultimate responsibility of a Minister is not merely activity but impact.
Governance evaluation should focus on:
Improved service delivery.
Fiscal responsibility.
Regulatory effectiveness.
Economic outcomes.
Social impact.
Value for taxpayers’ money.
A Minister who launches numerous initiatives but delivers limited measurable outcomes should not necessarily rank above one who quietly delivers transformational results.
- Why Are Financial Contributions Linked to Recognition?
Perhaps the most controversial issue emerging from public discussions is the alleged requirement for sponsorship commitments or the purchase of tables.
While fundraising is common in award events, governance concerns arise when recipients of awards are expected to make substantial financial commitments.
This creates the perception that recognition may be influenced by financial participation rather than merit.
In governance terminology, perception often becomes reality.
Even where no wrongdoing exists, the appearance of a conflict can damage public trust.
What should be the corporate governance criteria for ministers of state?
If Ghana is to establish a truly credible excellence framework for Ministers, the assessment criteria should be anchored on governance principles rather than popularity or visibility.
- Accountability
Ministers should demonstrate:
Effective use of public resources.
Achievement of policy objectives.
Compliance with legal mandates.
Transparent reporting of performance.
- Transparency
Assessment should consider:
Openness in decision-making.
Accessibility of information.
Responsiveness to public inquiries.
Publication of measurable outcomes.
- Ethical leadership
A Minister worthy of recognition should exhibit:
Integrity.
Respect for public office.
Avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Ethical conduct in public administration.
- Strategic leadership
Recognition should reward:
Visionary thinking.
Policy innovation.
Effective implementation.
Long-term developmental impact.
- Stakeholder management
Effective Ministers must demonstrate the ability to engage:
Citizens.
Businesses.
Civil society.
Development partners.
Parliament and oversight institutions.
- Risk management and governance
Modern governance demands that Ministers actively identify and manage:
Financial risks.
Operational risks.
Reputational risks.
Regulatory risks.
Recognition should reflect competence in these areas.
- ESG and sustainability impact
Increasingly, public institutions are assessed based on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) outcomes.
Ministers should therefore be evaluated on:
Social impact.
Inclusivity.
Environmental stewardship.
Long-term sustainability of programs.
From a Corporate Governance perspective, the Office of the Chief of Staff occupies a unique position within the Presidency and therefore has an important reputational and governance interest whenever Ministers of State are being publicly assessed, recognized, or awarded.
The Office of the Chief of Staff serves as the principal coordinating mechanism for the Presidency and plays a central role in monitoring the performance of Ministers and government appointees.
Consequently, any public recognition of ministerial excellence inevitably raises questions about the relationship between such awards and the government’s own performance management architecture.
From a governance standpoint, the Office of the Chief of Staff should not necessarily organize or endorse private award schemes.
However, it has a responsibility to ensure that public recognition of Ministers aligns with principles of accountability, transparency, and merit.
The Office should be concerned with the following:
- Protecting the integrity of public office
Ministers are custodians of public trust. The Chief of Staff’s Office should be vigilant against situations where awards may create perceptions that public recognition can be influenced by financial contributions, sponsorships, or other non-performance-related considerations.
- Ensuring consistency with government performance assessment systems
Government already maintains formal mechanisms for evaluating ministerial performance through sector targets, policy implementation reviews, key performance indicators (KPIs), and periodic reporting. Any award claiming to recognize ministerial excellence should ideally demonstrate consistency with these measurable performance outcomes.
- Safeguarding the reputation of the presidency
Because Ministers serve under the authority of the President, any controversy surrounding awards conferred upon them can indirectly affect the image and credibility of the Presidency. The Office of the Chief of Staff therefore has a legitimate interest in ensuring that awards associated with Ministers meet acceptable standards of transparency and credibility.
- Promoting a culture of evidence-based recognition
Recognition should be based on verifiable achievements rather than popularity, political visibility, or public relations activities.
The Chief of Staff’s Office can encourage a governance culture where excellence is demonstrated through measurable outcomes, service delivery improvements, prudent management of public resources, and citizen impact.
- Managing reputational risk
One of the key responsibilities of modern governance is reputational risk management.
Where an award process lacks transparency or attracts public skepticism, Ministers should be advised to exercise caution before accepting such honours.
Protecting institutional credibility is often more valuable than receiving public accolades.
Lessons for award organizers
The controversy surrounding the awards offers valuable lessons.
Award organizers should:
Publish assessment criteria in advance.
Disclose evaluation methodologies.
Constitute independent judging panels.
Publish scoring frameworks.
Avoid financial arrangements that create perceptions of pay-for-recognition.
Subject the process to external assurance where necessary.
Transparency is not merely a governance requirement; it is the foundation of credibility.
Lessons for public officials
Public officials should exercise due diligence before accepting awards just as demonstrated by Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte.
Before accepting recognition, public office holders should seek clarity on:
Selection criteria.
Evaluation methodology.
Sponsorship expectations.
Potential reputational implications.
An award that enhances reputation today can become a governance liability tomorrow if questions arise about its integrity.
Conclusion
Perhaps the most important lesson is that in public service, credibility is earned through performance and accountability. An award should merely affirm excellence that is already evident to citizens.
Where the process of conferring the award becomes the subject of controversy, the focus shifts from achievement to the integrity of the recognition itself.
Recognition of excellence in public service remains an important tool for encouraging performance and celebrating achievement.
However, the credibility of any award depends not on the glamour of the event but on the integrity of the process.
Good governance teaches us that accountability, transparency, fairness, independence, and ethical conduct are not optional principles; they are the pillars upon which public trust is built.
For Ministers of State, excellence should not be measured by attendance at award ceremonies or media visibility.
It should be measured by demonstrable public value, responsible stewardship of national resources, ethical leadership, and lasting developmental impact.
As Ghana continues to strengthen its governance architecture, the nation must insist that any recognition of public officials reflects not only excellence in appearance but excellence in substance.
Only then will such honours command public confidence and serve as genuine symbols of national achievement.
In the final analysis, the Office of the Chief of Staff should champion systems that make ministerial excellence measurable, transparent, independently verifiable, and worthy of public confidence.
That is the essence of good governance and responsible public administration.
By DIVINE AKOTIA
About the author:
Divine Akotia is a Certified Governance Auditor. Until recently he was the Ag. COO and Corporate Governance Lead at the Chartered Institute of Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners, Ghana (CIRIP-GHANA)
He is currently the National President of International Human Rights Protection Service-Ghana (IHRPS-Ghana) and Director of Projects and Infrastructure at KYC NATIONS, GHANA
Email: divineakotia2014@gmail.com
