The petition submitted to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) over the alleged impersonation of former Dome-Kwabenya Member of Parliament, Sarah Adwoa Safo, has reopened an issue that has remained in the public domain for several years.
The petitioners are asking investigators to establish the identity of the woman seen in parliamentary footage and to determine whether she was actually Sarah Adwoa Safo or another person who allegedly assumed her identity.
This is not an ordinary allegation. If the investigation establishes that someone other than the duly elected Member of Parliament entered the parliamentary chamber and was presented as the MP, it would raise fundamental questions about parliamentary security, identification procedures, institutional oversight and the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.
However, the facts surrounding the two incidents must be separated.
The widely circulated footage of a masked woman associated with Adwoa Safo relates to the approval of the 2022 Budget on November 30, 2021, according to a GhanaFact review. The E-Levy Bill was subsequently passed on March 29, 2022. GhanaFact reported that Adwoa Safo was absent on the day of the E-Levy vote.
The E-Levy issue itself was politically significant at the time. The Akufo-Addo administration had introduced the levy as part of its revenue measures, while the Minority opposed it. Parliament’s numbers were particularly important because the 2020 election had produced a hung Parliament, with the NPP and NDC each holding 137 seats, alongside the independent Fomena MP.
On March 29, 2022, the Minority walked out before the E-Levy vote, and the bill was subsequently approved by the Majority side. Contemporary reports show that the question of whether there was a sufficient quorum became a major point of dispute.
That history explains why questions surrounding Adwoa Safo’s presence in Parliament attracted so much attention.
But five years later, the central issue should not be whether one political party can use the matter against another.
The central issue is the truth.
Who was the woman in the disputed footage?
Was she actually Sarah Adwoa Safo?
If she was Adwoa Safo, what evidence conclusively establishes that fact?
If she was not Adwoa Safo, how did another person allegedly gain access to the parliamentary chamber?
Who facilitated that access?
What identification procedures were followed?
Were parliamentary security officers aware of the person’s identity?
Were parliamentary officials aware of any irregularity?
And if an impersonation actually occurred, was it an isolated act by an individual or was there a wider arrangement behind it?
These are questions that cannot properly be answered through political arguments, social-media commentary or partisan accusations.
They require evidence.
The CID investigation therefore presents an opportunity to establish the facts once and for all. Investigators should examine the original parliamentary video, photographs, Hansard, Votes and Proceedings, parliamentary attendance records, access records and any other relevant evidence.
The petition itself reportedly asks investigators to establish whether Adwoa Safo was physically present and whether she entered Parliament through an authorised access point. It also calls for the authenticity and provenance of the disputed recordings to be examined.
Parliament also has an important role to play.
If the investigation establishes that there was no impersonation, that should be clearly communicated to the public with the evidence necessary to settle the matter.
If, on the other hand, the investigation establishes that another person impersonated a sitting Member of Parliament, then the matter becomes much bigger than the individual who allegedly carried out the impersonation.
It would raise questions about how such a person could enter one of Ghana’s most important constitutional institutions, sit in the Chamber and allegedly be mistaken for an elected legislator.
That would inevitably affect public confidence in Parliament.
The question would then become: who knew what, and when did they know it?
Was Parliament deceived?
Were parliamentary authorities unaware?
Did anyone facilitate the alleged impersonation?
Or was the incident simply the result of mistaken identity?
These questions should not be answered before the evidence is examined.
There is also another important question for Ghanaians: what, if anything, would be the legal consequence for decisions taken during proceedings if it were established that a person had unlawfully assumed the identity of a Member of Parliament?
That is a matter for investigators, Parliament and the appropriate legal authorities to determine. It should not be decided through political commentary.
Similarly, it would be premature to conclude that the alleged incident automatically invalidates the E-Levy or means that every Ghanaian who paid the levy would be entitled to a refund. Those consequences would depend on the facts established and the applicable constitutional and legal framework.
What is clear, however, is that public institutions gain credibility when serious allegations are investigated transparently rather than allowed to remain unresolved.
The petitioners themselves have reportedly stressed that they want the facts established rather than beginning with a predetermined conclusion.
That is the approach the country needs.
The CID should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Parliament should cooperate with any lawful investigation while respecting parliamentary privilege and constitutional procedures.
And the public should allow the investigation to establish whether the allegation is true or false.
If Sarah Adwoa Safo was indeed the woman in Parliament, the investigation should establish that conclusively and clear her name.
If someone else impersonated her, then the country deserves to know how it happened, who was responsible and whether anyone else was involved.
Ghana’s Parliament is one of the central institutions of our constitutional democracy. Its credibility matters regardless of which political party controls the Majority or Minority.
This is therefore bigger than the NPP, bigger than the NDC and bigger than Sarah Adwoa Safo.
Ghanaians deserve the truth.
The time has come for the relevant authorities to leave no stone unturned, examine the evidence objectively and bring this long-running controversy to a definitive conclusion.
Writer: Stephen Kwaku Owusu Mintah
Ahotoronline, Accra