Manasseh Azure Awuni: ‘The Stupidity and Thievery Must Stop’
Journalist and anti-corruption campaigner Manasseh Azure Awuni has renewed his criticism of Ghana’s approach to compulsory vehicle towing, arguing that road safety should not become an excuse for what he describes as an unfair financial burden on motorists.
In a strongly worded opinion shared on his Facebook page, Azure argued that there is nothing wrong with compulsory towing of vehicles that break down and create danger on public roads.
His objection, he said, is to a system in which vehicle owners could be required to pay compulsory annual levies to a private company regardless of whether their vehicles ever require towing.
Broken-down vehicles should be removed
According to Azure, a vehicle that breaks down in the middle of a road can pose a serious danger to other road users. He therefore supports immediate towing of such vehicles where necessary but he argued that if a vehicle owner fails to remove a broken-down vehicle, the authorities should have the power to arrange compulsory towing, with the owner paying the cost together with an appropriate penalty.
For him, private towing companies can be licensed to provide such services and earn money through the work they actually perform. The problem, he stressed, is not compulsory towing itself. It is who pays, how they pay and how the system is structured.
Why should every vehicle owner pay?
Azure’s main criticism concerns what he described as a previous towing arrangement involving a company within the Jospong Group. He claimed that a single company was awarded a contract covering the towing of broken-down vehicles across Ghana.
According to his account, the arrangement did not simply require motorists whose vehicles were towed to pay for the service. Instead, he alleged that vehicle owners, including motorbike owners, were required to pay an annual compulsory towing levy whether or not their vehicles ever broke down. He further claimed that the arrangement was expected to run for 20 years and these claims form the basis of his criticism of the system.
‘Tow at the offender’s expense’
Azure believes the principle should be straightforward. If a vehicle breaks down and requires compulsory towing, the owner should pay for the service.
In his view, it is unfair to make every vehicle owner pay an annual levy to cover a service they may never use. He compared the arrangement to making every Ghanaian pay for a towing service simply because some motorists might eventually need it.
His preferred model is therefore a user-pays system. Those whose vehicles are actually towed should bear the cost.
Concerns about where vehicles are taken
Azure also raised concerns about what happens after a vehicle is towed. He claimed that under the arrangement he was criticising, a broken-down vehicle would not necessarily be taken directly to the owner’s preferred mechanic.
Instead, he said, it could be taken to a designated parking facility, after which the owner would have to pay another towing charge to move the vehicle to a mechanic. He questioned the logic and financial burden of such an arrangement on motorists who may already be dealing with the unexpected cost of a vehicle breakdown.
The scale of the levy
Another concern raised by Azure is the potential scale of compulsory annual payments when applied to Ghana’s large population of cars and motorcycles.
He argued that if vehicle and motorbike owners across the country are required to make annual payments to one private company, the resulting revenue could be enormous. This, he suggested, makes the structure of any such contract particularly important.
Questions about the number of vehicles covered, the annual levy, the duration of the contract, the company’s obligations and the enforcement of those obligations should, in his view, be subject to public scrutiny.
Private company should be paid for work done
Azure does not appear to oppose private-sector participation in vehicle towing. Instead, he argued that private companies should earn their money by providing the service.
Under the model he advocates, a licensed towing company would be called to remove a vehicle that is obstructing traffic or creating a danger, and the owner would subsequently pay the applicable towing charge and penalty.
He argued that government should create and enforce clear rules rather than use its authority to impose what he considers an excessive financial burden on the entire motoring public.
A broader issue of public contract
Azure’s criticism also touches on a broader debate about government contracts involving private companies. He argued that public officials must be careful when designing agreements that commit citizens or the state to long-term financial obligations.
In his view, contracts involving public resources should be transparent, competitive and structured primarily around public interest. He also criticised what he described as a situation where government officials might fail to enforce contractual obligations against a private company while ordinary citizens continue to bear the financial burden.
Safety and fairness can coexist
At the heart of Azure’s argument is the belief that Ghana does not have to choose between road safety and fairness. Broken-down vehicles need to be removed from dangerous positions.
Towing companies need to be paid for their services and motorists who obstruct roads through negligence or fail to remove their vehicles when required can be penalised.
But, according to Azure, those principles do not automatically justify making every vehicle owner pay every year for a service they may never use. He believes the better approach is to make the person whose vehicle requires compulsory towing bear the cost.
let the people rise
Azure ended his commentary with a call for citizens to resist policies and contracts he believes unfairly burden the public. He argued that regardless of which private company benefits from a government contract, citizens should demand arrangements that protect the public interest.
His central message is clear: if a private company provides a towing service, the people who use that service should pay for it. The debate over Ghana’s towing system therefore goes beyond towing broken-down vehicles.
It raises questions about public-private contracts, compulsory levies, government accountability, road safety and whether citizens should be charged for services they may never use.
For motorists, the key question remains: Should every vehicle and motorcycle owner pay an annual towing levy, or should towing costs be borne by those whose vehicles actually require the service?
You can also read more on Ghana’s democracy under scrutiny
Editorial
This article is based on an opinion shared by journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni on his Facebook page. The claims and views expressed in the original commentary are attributed to him and have not been independently verified by HeraldGH.
