In a shocking twist, a seemingly innocent initiative to provide sanitary pads to students has ignited a fiery political debate, with accusations of scandal and misinformation flying left and right. But here's where it gets controversial: Deputy Minister of Education, Dr. Clement Apaak, has vehemently denied claims by the Minority in Parliament that the government is inflating the cost of these essential items, labeling the allegations as a politically motivated smear campaign against the Mahama administration.
The controversy began when Vincent Ekow Assafuah, MP for Old Tafo, raised eyebrows on November 25, 2025, by questioning the allocation of GH¢292 million for 6.6 million sanitary pads. Assafuah suggested that the figures didn’t align with market prices, implying potential overpricing. However, Dr. Apaak, speaking to journalists the following day, dismissed these claims as baseless and politically driven.
And this is the part most people miss: Dr. Apaak accused the Minority of fabricating a scandal to tarnish the government’s image, specifically calling out Assafuah’s calculations as misleading. He echoed Education Minister Haruna Iddrisu’s critique, describing Assafuah’s math as “chop-bar arithmetic”—a term that has since sparked debate over its appropriateness in parliamentary discourse. Dr. Apaak insisted that the Mahama government would never engage in such practices, stating, “There is no scandal. There will never be a scandal. The NDC under John Dramani Mahama and the Ministry of Education has not purchased a pack of sanitary pads for 45 Ghana cedis and will never do so.”
The Deputy Minister emphasized the transparency and accountability of the process, highlighting the government’s commitment to ensuring value for money. He provided detailed figures to back his claims: 3.9 million pads have been distributed to 20,744 public basic schools, and another 2.6 million to 906 senior high and TVET schools. So far, 398,701 basic school pupils and over 2 million girls at the junior and senior high levels have benefited from the program. Dr. Apaak described the initiative as “life-changing” and defended its integrity.
But here’s the real question: Is this a genuine attempt to hold the government accountable, or a politically charged attack? Dr. Apaak’s bold defense raises a thought-provoking point: In the heat of political rivalry, are we losing sight of the program’s impact on millions of girls? Or is there a legitimate concern about financial transparency that deserves closer scrutiny? Weigh in below—do you think this is a manufactured scandal, or is there more to the story than meets the eye?
