By Mashoud Bawa
Introduction: A Question of Fairness
I am a Ghanaian writer passionate about environmental sanitation and the work of private waste management companies, especially the prestigious Zoomlion Ghana Limited. I am concerned when people, including Manasseh Azure Awuni, appear to undermine a company that has created jobs, helped address sanitation challenges and contributed to Ghana becoming the West African regional hub for sanitation, waste management, and circular economy policy support.
For more than a decade, Manasseh has unjustifiably criticised Zoomlion and its owner, Dr. Joseph Siaw Agyepong, through articles and commentaries that, in my view, have focused almost exclusively on alleged wrongdoing while rarely acknowledging the company’s achievements or its owner’s ingenuity.
That raises a fundamental question: Can journalism be considered fair and balanced when its scrutiny of one company remains overwhelmingly negative over many years?
Constructive criticism, we all know, should identify problems, offer suggestions and acknowledge achievements where appropriate. Has Manasseh ever examined Zoomlion’s job creation, investments in waste-management infrastructure, technological initiatives, recycling operations, expansion beyond Ghana or contribution to environmental sanitation? If so, what did he find?
The Audit Discrepancy
These questions bring me to Manasseh’s current investigation, “Auditing the Auditor-General: How Special Audit Understated a COVID-19 Expenditure.”
The central issue is serious: Why did the Auditor-General’s special audit reportedly record GH¢96.3 million as fumigation expenditure when documents claim from the Ministries of Education, Local Government and Transport allegedly show expenditure of at least GH¢780 million?
That discrepancy requires careful examination.
How did the Auditor-General arrive at GH¢96.3 million? Who supplied and reviewed the figures? Which ministries submitted expenditure records? What methodology determined what qualified as COVID-19 expenditure? Why were some expenditures allegedly audited but not reflected in the reported fumigation figure? Who within the Audit Service made those decisions?
These questions go directly to the investigation’s central premise. If the allegation is that the Auditor-General understated COVID-19 expenditure, the audit process itself must receive detailed scrutiny.
Institutional Responsibility
My concern begins when a question about the Auditor-General’s alleged under-reporting gradually becomes a story about Zoomlion primarily.
The Auditor-General did not award Zoomlion the contracts. Zoomlion did not write the special audit report or determine which expenditures should be included or excluded.
Therefore, if the central allegation concerns an understatement by the Auditor-General, who should answer for it: Zoomlion or the Ghana Audit Service?
If the concern is procurement, equal attention should be given to the ministries and public officials who initiated the procurements, selected the contractor, obtained approvals, supervised the work, certified performance, approved invoices and authorised payment.
Zoomlion does not award itself government contracts. Ministries and public institutions must answer for the decisions they made; the procurement authorities for approvals and ratifications; public officials for supervision, certification and payment; and contractors for the work they were paid to perform.
Accountability should cover every institution and individual involved.
Zoomlion’s Relevance
Manasseh reports that approximately GH¢775 million of the GH¢780 million in fumigation expenditure he identified went to Zoomlion. That makes the company materially relevant to the investigation.
However, relevance does not eliminate the need for proportionality and fairness. The question is whether Zoomlion receives extensive attention because the evidence requires it, or whether the Auditor-General controversy has become another opportunity to revisit longstanding criticisms of the company.
The article also discusses previous Zoomlion contracts, World Bank sanctions, GYEEDA, earlier fumigation arrangements, a 2025 ministerial report and other controversies. This raises a legitimate question: Is it principally an investigation of the Auditor-General’s COVID-19 audit, or another broad prosecution of Zoomlion through journalism?
If Zoomlion received approximately GH¢775 million, it is reasonable to investigate whether it performed the contracted services, whether public authorities certified the work, whether the prices complied with procurement requirements and whether the state obtained value for money. But those questions should be addressed through evidence and accompanied by equal scrutiny of the institutions that awarded and paid for the contracts, not the contractor.
Journalistic Fairness and Consistency
The issue is broader than Dr. Otabil or Zoomlion. It concerns whether journalists apply consistent standards when reporting on people and institutions with whom they have different relationships.
When the Capital Bank saga broke out, some people, including me, called on Manasseh to comment on his pastor and godfather, Dr. Mensah Otabil’s involvement as then chairman of the board of directors. He responded that he would not do so because of their relationship.
That raises questions about consistency. Should the standard of scrutiny change depending on a journalist’s relationship with the person or institution involved? If personal relationships justify recusal in one case, should personal history, previous disputes or long-running negative campaigns against another organisation also be disclosed so readers can assess possible bias?
Rather than allege, without evidence, that Manasseh has paymasters who benefit from attacks on Zoomlion, I would ask him directly:
What explains the persistence and intensity of your focus on Zoomlion over more than a decade? Are there interests, relationships, funding arrangements or institutional considerations that readers should know about?
After years of predominantly negative reporting about the same company and entrepreneur, readers are entitled to examine not only the subject of the journalism but also its consistency, proportionality and fairness.
Conclusion: Auditor-General or Putting Zoomlion on Trial Again
Zoomlion should not be immune from scrutiny because it is Ghanaian, employs people or operates in an important sector. Companies handling public money must answer questions about procurement, performance and value for money.
But accountability cannot be selective. The Auditor-General must answer for the audit report. Ministries must answer for contracts they awarded. Procurement authorities must answer for approvals. Public officials must answer for certification and payment. Contractors must answer for the work they performed.
Journalists, too, should be open to legitimate questions about consistency, conflicts of interest, proportionality and fairness.
If we genuinely want accountability, the same torch must shine in every direction.
Are we auditing the Auditor-General, investigating COVID-19 expenditure, or simply putting Zoomlion on trial again?
