This Saturday on Newsfile: GH₵49.72m evacuation money, EC appointments, sex abuse in schools and Afenyo’s GH₵15m suit

This Saturday on Newsfile, there are four major stories that delve into accountability across various sectors of Ghana's society. First, GHȼ49.72 million spent on evacuating Ghanaians from South Africa raises questions about whether the funds are missing or if the records are being misread. The government claims all the money is accounted for, while the opposition argues the records do not add up and calls for an independent audit.

The Electoral Commission is also under fire for President John Mahama's appointment of two new Deputy Chairpersons. The NPP rejects Emelia Afi Agbenyo's appointment, citing her past involvement in NDC politics and demanding the President withdraw the appointment. Government defends its decision, arguing that the appointees are qualified and the Commission's composition should be considered.

President Mahama charges the new officials to work independently and impartially, but the question remains whether political affiliation should disqualify someone from serving on the Electoral Commission.

In another case, JoyNews investigates allegations of sexual abuse at Obuasi Senior High Technical School. The investigation reveals that complaints about the school's headmaster's misconduct reached education officials months before his suspension. The Education Minister has ordered the headmaster's suspension and requested a police investigation.

However, the delay in addressing the abuse raises doubts about the effectiveness of existing safeguarding procedures and whether those who were alerted should face investigations themselves.

Finally, a High Court dismisses Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin's GHȼ15 million defamation suit against GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi, ruling the suit procedurally defective and incompetent. While the ruling does not decide whether the statements at the center of the dispute are defamatory, Afenyo-Markin's lawyers argue the procedural objections raised by the defense should be reconsidered.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how political criticism differs from statements that could damage a person's reputation, leaving questions about the line between criticism and defamation unanswered.