IMANI, Cudjoe Under Fire . . . To Disclose Source Of Funding
Pressure is mounting on founding President of IMANI Ghana, Franklin Cudjoe to disclose the source of funding the activities of his policy think tank which prides itself of been ranked among the top 10 most influential policy think tanks in Africa in the past five years.
The demand follows a damning report by Think Tank Transparency’s 2016 report which ranked IMANI Ghana 21st out of 24 selected renowned policy think tanks in Africa as having questionable source of funding for their activities.
In the report released Friday, June 29, the Institute of Statistical, Social & Economic Research (ISSER), was the only organization among five other Ghanaian Think Tanks categorized as highly transparent.
The ISSER was rated Five Star while IMANI Ghana dropped to the bottom with One Star rating, prescribed by the research group as “highly opaque.”
The 2016 report which looks at think tanks that take money behind closed doors, had three categories; highly transparent (five stars), broadly transparent (four to two stars) and highly opaque (1-0 star).
Apart from ISSER of the University of Ghana, two other African institutions, the Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute and the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) fell within the top ten Think Tanks in the world that are highly transparent.
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) fell within the second category, classified as broadly transparent while the Centre for Policy Analysis (CEPA) and Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) were also placed together with IMANI Ghana in the highly opaque category.
But in a response to the report on his Facebook wall, Mr Cudjoe described the report as fraudulent, “there is a very fraudulent publication about IMANI's "unknown" partners and funders. Please ignore the fraudulent and disingenuous publication. The link here provides details about all our major partners, funders, projects they fund and how we use the fund,” he noted.
However, many Ghanaians are not convinced with the IMANI boss’ explanation. One of those displeased with Mr Cudjoe’s explanations and demanding that he comes clear on their source of funding is a columnist, Fonibi Larnor.
In an article published on a number of online news portals, Mr Larnor raised a number of issues regarding IMANI Ghana’s source of funding. Read below the full article.
I Am Seriously Disappointed In IMANI GHANA!!
I visited the Washington Post and Heritage Foundation in the USA and I was very pleased as a Ghanaian researcher to hear some nice things said about IMANI Ghana and the niche it has carved for itself in the public space in contemporary Ghana. I took time to visit the website of Imani Ghana and I enjoyed reading the following heaps of praise on the Ghanaian Think Tank:
IIMANI sic) has been consistently been(sic) ranked among the top 10 most influential policy think tanks in Africa for the past five years.
IMANI is the number one African think tank with the Most Innovative Policy Ideas/Proposals. ---(Lauder Institute of the University of Pennsylvania)
IMANI has been ranked the most influential think tank in Ghana and the second most influential think tank in Sub-Saharan Africa. --- (Lauder Institute of the University of Pennsylvania).
IMANI has grown to become a stalwart for encouraging reality-based solutions to a complex array of economic and social problems in and beyond Ghana. --- Ishac Diwan, World Bank.
It came as a surprise and shock to read the damning verdict according to the latest Think Tank Transparency 2016 report, IMANI Ghana placed 21st out of 24 selected renowned policy Think Tanks in Africa. What was more demining was the statement that IMANI was high opaque in declaring its revenues and expenses.
In the release last Friday, June 29, the Institute of Statistical, Social & Economic Research (ISSER), was the only organization among five other Ghanaian Think Tanks categorized as highly transparent. It was rated Five Star while IMANI Ghana dropped to the bottom with One Star rating, prescribed by the research group as highly opaque. How could that be possible, judging by the image Franklyn Cudjoe and IMANI have tried to carve for themselves?
As I write this piece, Imani Ghana has not clarified the situation. I visited its website, and there is no comment on the report, neither has the Think tank been very proactive to take steps to make the disclosures required of it. It is important for IMANI to note that as the damning report notes, “the number of organizations who still consider it acceptable to take money from hidden hands behind closed doors is rapidly dwindling. They are running out of excuses,
According to the report, it discovered that an unprecedented number of policy research and advocacy organizations are now broadly or highly transparent, publishing the names of their donors and information on the amounts given by each donor on their websites. So why not IMANI?
“Transparency appears to be a one-way street, the organization noted, indicating that year by year, more think tanks around the world have become transparent. At the same time, there has been very little backsliding,” the Report noted. Is IMANI one of the backsliding Think Tanks? I wonder.
“Transparency levels among African think tanks continue to improve at a rapid pace. Back in 2013, the best performer in our sample was a single 3-star institution. Today, out of the 23 think tanks in the original cohort, seven are transparent. Only four organizations remain highly opaque,” the report said.
I noted with satisfaction IMANI’s admission on its website that to fulfil its mission and vision, “IMANI works with a wide range of like-minded organizations. IMANI’s partnership comes in two forms: Financial and Strategic partnership” Bravo, I said aloud.
I noted also that IMANI mentions its donors and partners to include DANIDA, IMF, OSIWA and The Atlas Network. I checked their websites and realized that these organizations are religiously report on their finances.
In the case of DANIDA, I read that every year the Government of Denmark presents to parliament its plan and priorities for Danish Development assistance for the coming five year period. Whilst the Danish Foreign Ministry, through DANIDA, cooperates with research institutions and think tanks, it quite clear the Danish Government believes that “both intended beneficiaries [like IMANI GHANA] as well as Danish tax payers have a right to insight into DANIDA’s work.” Obviously and certainly DANIDA expects transparency from its partner, IMANI.
The Atlas Network, for example, provides general support and special project funding to 459 independent partners (including IMANI GHANA) in 97 countries. It has disclosed that it spent a total of $4,054,969, and $175,750 respectively on grants and awards to its strategic partners in 2015.
Recently, The Atlas Network in partnership with IMANI Center for Policy and Education (IMANI Africa) held a series of events, connecting business leaders, development professionals, academia and government officials in Accra. The events included the Africa Liberty Forum and Dinner, and the Students and Young Professionals African Liberty Academy (SYPALA).
I noted with satisfaction the Atlas Network has since 2002 been very transparent in stating publishing its audited accounts. For 2015, it stated its revenues and expenses as follows:
Yet, I was disappointed not to see any reports of the audited accounts of IMANI anywhere on its website. Why?! Why?!! Why?!!!
I expect IMANI to take cognizance of what of the attitude of other think tanks which have realized that while transparency carries low costs, it can bring huge benefits in terms of signaling commitment to intellectual independence, integrity, excellence in research, and the credibility that comes from respecting democratic norms while participating in democratic debates.
Accordingly, I wish to urge IMANI to restore their credibility by making immediate full disclosures of their funding sources as well as their expenses without fail. IMANI Ghana expects me to respect it as a selfless entity interested in the good governance, protection of the public purse and the development of the country. Therefore, it must stand out as a corruption free Think Tank.
The time to act to restore its credibility in the face of the damning report, is NOW! NOW!! NOW!!!
<<Print>>