Deputy MASLOC CEO denies using state money to campaign for primaries


Deputy MASLOC CEO, Hajia Abibata Shanni Mahama Zakariah, says media reports suggesting that she admitted to using state funds for political campaigning and vote-buying are completely false.

WhatsApp Image 2020-09-08 at 8.19.50 PM





She says she is not a custodian of any state money and therefore could not have used public money to run her campaign or buy votes in the parliamentary primary of the governing New Patriotic Party in the Yendi Constituency of the Northern Region.

Corruption Watch last week published what they said were findings of alleged vote-buying during the NPP primaries weeks earlier.




Hajia Abibata was accused of distributing “state money under the MASLOC loans to delegates…” an allegation she flatly rejected as baseless.

WhatsApp Image 2020-09-08 at 8.22.17 PM




She said there are well-known laid down procedures for the disbursement of loans under the scheme.

WhatsApp Image 2020-09-08 at 8.19.51 PM

“On the said date, an event was organized to present loans to 35 groups of 25 each, and as is the practice, and as someone from the area, I supervised the disbursement and addressed the gathering.



READ  Joe Mettle Cries Bitterly As He Announced The Death Of His ‘Son’


“I advised the beneficiary groups to utilize the loans judiciously and to invest in their farming activities. I explained that I had to plead with my bosses to release their disbursements ahead of time because it was the farming season and they needed to till the soil and sow their crops. This was a public event. How could I have organized such an event to distribute state money? She asked.

Hajia Abibata narrowly lost the slot to Farouk Aliu Mahama, said the beneficiaries were not chosen on political grounds as claimed by the publication.

“When the lady called me from Corruption Watch, she said from their information, delegates from the Yendi constituency were given MASLOC loans. In a very candid response I said, of course, there were delegates [as] part of the beneficiaries but they were not only delegates.”





The Deputy MASLOC CEO says despite this clear and unambiguous statement, Corruption Watch without any contrary evidence stated categorically that the beneficiaries were all delegates, which is patently false.

“I must emphasize that the beneficiaries were not delegates as claimed. Unless they were purposely excluded, some of the beneficiaries of a transparent loan scheme were always going to be members of the various political parties including the NPP and some would be delegates. So to generalize that all the beneficiary groups were party delegates because some of them may have been was utterly unfair,” she said in a rejoinder issued in Accra.

READ  Prof. Gyampo reacts to PPP presidential candidate rumours

Explaining her comments that she secured early release of the loans to the beneficiary groups, the failed parliamentary aspirant said, “I did that because it is in the interest of the scheme itself that beneficiaries get the loans when they need them. It is the only way they can repay. With May being the most critical period of farming in the northern parts, it was the most prudent thing to do to give them their loans at that time.”




“..And for the avoidance of doubt, many constituencies in the Northern Region and elsewhere had far larger number of MASLOC loan beneficiary groups than Yendi and this is verifiable. Tamale Central – 117 groups; Tamale South – 69 groups; Tamale North – 56 groups; Yendi – 35 groups,” Hajia emphasized.

Touching on the accusation of conflict of interest and abuse of office, Hajia Abibata said she does not determine who benefits from MASLOC loans and whose application is approved.

READ  NPP suspends parliamentary primaries in Gushiegu, scouts for a compromised candidate






“I had no power to manipulate the process and I couldn’t possibly say people whose applications have been approved by the Board should be denied because they are delegates. That would be an unfair and unconstitutional discrimination.”

She said the claim by Corruption Watch that when they “contacted her for her response, she admitted to the findings but insisted that I didn’t err in her decision to give state money to induce delegates,” is most unfair and unethical.

“I made no such admission. I specifically refuted the claims that I gave state money to delegates. I said so repeatedly because I did not give, could not have given, any state money to delegates. And yet Corruption Watch unfairly claimed I made an admission.”








Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here