Nana Ohene Ntow, a campaign aide for the Movement for Change, has voiced strong opposition to the government’s decision to proceed with the sale of several hotels owned by the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT). The controversy centers on the sale to Rock City Hotel, a business owned by Bryan Acheampong, who is not only the Minister of Agriculture but also serves as the Member of Parliament for the Abetifi Constituency.
This contentious issue came to light during an interview with Citi FM where Ohene Ntow expressed his dismay over the government’s inaction despite significant public disapproval. The focal point of his concern is the proposed sale of the Labadi Beach Hotel, a property noted for its consistent profitability and strategic importance to the nation’s tourism sector.
Ohene Ntow argued that the sale of such a valuable and profitable state asset lacks transparency and is highly inappropriate, especially when the buyer is a current cabinet minister. “The sale of a state agency to a cabinet minister is improper,” he stated, clarifying that while the transaction might not be illegal or unconstitutional, it certainly does not seem proper or logical. He emphasized the illogic of claiming that the hotels are loss-making entities when, in fact, the opposite appears to be true, particularly in the case of Labadi Hotel.
The campaign aide supported his argument with financial figures, noting that in the year 2022 alone, Labadi Hotel declared a dividend of GHC25 million to SSNIT, its sole shareholder. This financial performance highlights the hotel’s capacity to generate significant revenue, making the decision to privatize it even more questionable.
The sale has incited debate over the appropriateness of such transactions but also raised broader concerns about governance and the management of public assets in Ghana. The transaction is seen by many as a potential conflict of interest that could undermine public trust in government operations and the equitable management of state resources.
The government’s reluctance to halt or reconsider the sale in light of public opposition suggests a disconnect between governmental actions and public sentiment. This situation emphasizes the need for greater transparency and accountability in transactions involving state assets, especially when such transactions could be perceived as benefiting individuals within the government.
