The recent allegations of ghost names within the National Service Authority (NSA) system have sparked intense public debate. While the need for transparency and accountability in governance cannot be overstated, it is equally important to allow due process to take its course before rushing to conclusions.
The state investigative body must be given the free hand to thoroughly probe the matter before any form of judgement is passed.
Deviation
Any deviation from this principle risks turning what should be an objective inquiry into a witch hunt, potentially leading to the miscarriage of justice.
The concern over ghost names in public institutions is not a novel issue. Past administrations have dealt with similar cases, and the necessary institutions have always been tasked with unearthing the truth.
If indeed there were unresolved issues concerning ghost names under previous NSA leadership, then the proper course of action is to let the relevant investigative authorities undertake a comprehensive and unbiased examination.
Prematurely pointing fingers at the former Director-General and Deputies, as was seemingly done in a recent press conference, is counterproductive and undermines the credibility of the process.
Press conference
A press conference is meant to inform the public of factual developments, not to predispose them to a narrative that aligns with a particular agenda.
Watching the recent press briefing, one could easily sense that it was more of an attempt to indict the past Director-General and his two Deputies rather than an objective presentation of facts.
Such an approach raises concerns about the impartiality of the investigation and suggests that it may be driven more by political or personal interests than by a genuine pursuit of justice.
It must be clear that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done. When investigations are manipulated to malign individuals before the full facts are known, we risk setting a dangerous precedent—one that allows for the reputation of individuals to be tarnished without concrete evidence. The essence of justice lies in fairness, and fairness dictates that no one should be condemned until thorough and unbiased investigations are completed.
Implications
Moreover, it is worth considering the broader implications of such public accusations. If every new administration makes it a point to discredit its predecessors based on allegations rather than verified facts, then we create an environment of instability and mistrust within our governance structures.
Institutional memory and the continuity of policies are essential for national development, and a culture of persistent accusations only disrupts the efficiency of state agencies.
The NSA, like any other national institution, must operate with integrity and efficiency. If there are ghost names in the system, then the state institutions responsible for carrying out investigations must be allowed to operate through a proper investigative process. It is in the interest of the nation that the state investigative body be allowed to perform its role without any external pressure or influence.
As citizens, our role should be to demand transparency and due process. It is premature and unfair to cast aspersions on the past NSA leadership before the investigative body has concluded its work. If the past administration is found culpable, then appropriate legal actions should follow.
However, if they are innocent, no amount of public accusations should have been allowed to stain their reputation.
The path of justice is not one of hasty conclusions but of thorough scrutiny. It is, therefore, imperative that we allow the investigative body to work independently, free from undue influence. Only then can we ensure that the truth prevails and that the principles of justice and fairness remain upheld in our national discourse.
