By Raymond Ablorh
The state is not a spectator in its own economy; it is the ultimate architect of its destiny. Thus, to suggest that the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA) errs by urging State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to patronise SIC Insurance PLC is to mistake the rules of the game for the purpose of the match.
We are told by critics, most recently in the spirited but flawed critique by Kay Codjoe, that “process” is the holy grail of governance. But a process without purpose is merely a treadmill; it moves, but it goes nowhere.
The advice in support of SIC is not an assault on procurement; it is an assertion of fiscal sovereignty.
Critics argue that the SIGA advice creates an “uneven playing field.” This is a romanticised fallacy. There is no such thing as a “neutral” market when national survival is at stake. And, who says the playing field was even until the SIGA directive?
When a state entity sends its premiums to, for instance, a foreign-owned insurer, it is facilitating capital flight under the guise of “fairness.” By prioritising SIC, the state is ensuring that the public purse is not a sieve.
It is the highest form of stewardship to ensure that the “right hand” of the state supports the “left hand.” This is not a monopoly; it is a closed-loop economy designed to strengthen the national balance sheet.
To demand that the state be indifferent to the success of SIC, an entity in which it holds a massive, anchor stake, is to demand that a father be indifferent to the hunger of his own child while he feeds the neighbour’s.
The argument that “re-reinsurance does not replace process” is a clever bit of technical misdirection. The critics suggest that by bypassing competitive bidding, we ignore the complexities of risk distribution. How? The SIGA advice does not abolish the laws of physics or the mathematics of insurance; it simply settles the question of who the primary carrier shall be.
SIC, a titan of the industry, possesses the institutional muscle and international partnerships to manage re-reinsurance with a sophistication few can match.
The “process” being defended by opponents is the process of fragmentation; the “process” being advanced by SIGA is the process of consolidation. One leads to a scattered, weakened public sector; the other builds a national champion capable of competing on the global stage.
Public procurement, under Act 663, was never intended to be a suicide pact. It is a tool for national development. While competition is a value, strategic alignment is a virtue. Inter-trading among state entities is a globally recognised masterstroke for achieving administrative efficiency.
When GIHOC or any other SOE deals with SIC, they are not “dodging” the law; they are fulfilling a higher administrative mandate to reduce transaction costs and keep wealth within the ecosystem.
The “unseen hands” mentioned by critics are not the hands of corruption; they are the visible hands of policy. Policy is not a shadow; it is a compass. If the government cannot urge its own agencies to cooperate, then the concept of a “unified state” is a mirage.
We must choose between a fragmented public sector that feasts upon itself in the name of “market rules” or a coordinated front that builds a formidable national legacy.
The outcry against the SIC prioritisation is the noise of those who prefer a weak, apologetic state to a functional, assertive one. SIGA was not created to be a silent observer of institutional decay; it was created to govern.
This advice is an act of constitutional clarity. It asserts that the interests of the Republic of Ghana take precedence over the profit margins of private competitors.
The path to prosperity is paved with synergy, not sabotage. If we are to build a resilient nation, we must stop apologizing for being strategic.
The SIGA advice is not a breach of the law; it is the ultimate fulfillment of it. We are not just buying insurance; we are ensuring our future.
