Corruption Watch has defended its publication on vote-buying during NPP Primaries in which it cited Awutu Senya West MP, George Nenyi Andah.
According to Corruption Watch, the grounds upon which the Deputy Communication Minister is demanding it to retract and apologise are unfounded and untrue.
Legal aides to the Awutu Senya West MP had written to Corruption Watch in response to their vote buying expose in which George Andah was cited, to demand a retraction and apology.
In the said publication, Corruption Watch had indicated that following their investigation into the primaries, they had discovered that both George Andah and his opponent had given money to delegates in the election which he had won by 438 votes.
Though he later denied the allegation when they interviewed him on the matter, he had told JoyFM’s Kwesi Parker Wilson that he gave a ‘token’ to delegates.
However, in the letter written by the MPs legal aides, they claimed Corruption Watch had stated that the MP had given ¢1000, a 32 inch Nasco Flat-screen TV and a standing fan to each delegate in the constituency.
“We wish to state that our report which we published on our website on 24th July 2020 did not cite Mr Andah for distributing “an amount of ¢1,000, a 32- inch Nasco Flat-screen TV and a Standing Fan to each delegate in the [Awutu Senya West] constituency” in the NPP primaries,” Corruption Watch stated in a press statement.
The anti-corruption agency said they gave all the parties cited in the publication an opportunity to address the findings of their investigations which he did, thus it sees no basis for retracting and apologizing.
“Indeed, in keeping with Corruption Watch’s principles of accuracy, balance, fairness and ethical journalism, Corruption Watch contacted both Mr. Andah and his challenger in follow-up interviews and put certain specific allegations to them three weeks before publishing our story.
“Our follow-up interview with Mr. Andah was part of the normal processing routine of Corruption Watch in which we gave him and all candidates who were to be featured in our story an opportunity to respond to findings of our field investigators.” Corruption Watch stated.
Therefore, they do not deem it fit to retract and apologise for a publication which “Mr. Andah himself caused to be published.”