The use of a privately owned jet reportedly purchased by the brother of President John Dramani Mahama has ignited public debate over transparency and the management of state assets.
Information circulating within political and media circles suggests that Ghana’s official presidential jet, which is said to be in good condition, has been sidelined while the President travels on a luxury aircraft believed to have been acquired by his brother, businessman Ibrahim Mahama.
However, insiders claim the aircraft publicly attributed to Ibrahim Mahama may in fact have President Mahama as its beneficial owner, raising questions about disclosure, accountability, and the optics of the arrangement.
The controversy intensified after renowned investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni publicly questioned the situation. According to Awuni, it is difficult to understand why a sitting Ghanaian president would rely on a jet said to belong to a close relative when the country already has an official presidential aircraft available for use.
Awuni drew a political comparison to illustrate his concern. He argued that the public would likely react strongly if former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo had opted to fly on a jet reportedly purchased by his cousin, prominent lawyer and political figure Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko.
According to Awuni, such an arrangement could easily raise questions about conflict of interest, influence, and the blurring of lines between public office and private wealth.
Critics argue that the presidency must provide clarity on three key issues: who truly owns the aircraft, under what terms it is being used, and why the official state presidential jet is not being deployed for the president’s travels.
Political analysts say the issue goes beyond aircraft ownership and touches on broader concerns about transparency, public accountability, and ethical governance, particularly when public officials are closely linked to wealthy relatives whose resources intersect with state functions.
So far, the presidency has not issued a detailed explanation addressing the questions surrounding the aircraft’s ownership and the decision to use it for presidential travel.
As debate intensifies, many observers say the matter requires clear answers to maintain public confidence in the management of state assets and the conduct of the nation’s highest office.
