Minority Leader in Parliament, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu has expressed his dissatisfaction with the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice's (CHRAJ) conclusion on the controversial Ford gift given to President John Mahama by a Burkinabe contractor, Djibril Kanazoe describing their approach to the investiagtion as rudimentary.
The youth wing of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) supported by the Progressive Peoples Party (PPP) petitioned the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to investigate President Mahama after reports emerged that he had received Ford Expedition vehicle valued at $100,000 as gift from the Burkinabe, who had executed a contract for the Ghana Mission in Burkina Faso at a seemingly high cost.
Just a few months after the gift, Mr Kanozoe's company was selected through sole sourcing to construct including the €25.9million Dodo Pepeso-Nkwanta road, the report disclosed.
This raised eyebrows with many accusing the President of taking a bribe to award contracts and the CPP Youth took the matter to CHRAJ.
But in a 78-page report, CHRAJ indicated though President Mahama violated the gift policy with regard to his decision to accept the vehicle, the Ford vehicle was not a bribe.
According to CHRAJ, it was satisfied that the gift in question formed part of gifts prohibited under the Gift Policy under the Code of Conduct and that although the evidence showed that President Mahama subsequently surrendered the gift to the State, the action nonetheless contravened the gift policy but also established the President was not culpable of conflict of interest, bribery or fraud in relation to the manner in which the vehicle was given to him.
The Minority Leader, however, thinks CHRAJ came to that  conclusion because was their investigation was over simplified.
Speaking on Joy FM's Super Morning Show on Friday, he asked "Isn't it rudimentary that CHRAJ didn't investigate other companies that bid for the contract with Kanazoe?"
According to him, CHRAJ's report suggested that they only interested in determining if the gift undermined the presidency.
"If CHRAJ was thorough in their investigation, they would've come out with a different conclusion", he argued adding that, "we need to interrogate the process that CHRAJ used to arrive at this conclusion. We need to look at the modus operandi of CHRAJ and determine if the report is accurate".
Â