Accra, Ghana, November 7, 2026: There is something profoundly troubling about a country in which girls can raise allegations of sexual misconduct against a school headmaster, a committee can document contradictions in his account, a safeguarding officer can report an alleged admission, and the same investigative process can recommend a special award for the man at the centre of the controversy.
An award for what, exactly?
This is not a question of declaring Zakaria Abdulai guilty before the law has established his guilt. He is entitled to due process, and the allegations against him must be investigated fairly. But due process must not become an excuse for institutional insensitivity. Nor should a person's contribution to school development become a convenient reason to overlook unresolved safeguarding concerns.
The Ghana Education Service committee reportedly invited 16 girls to testify. Only four appeared. The committee subsequently concluded that the sexual harassment allegations had not been substantiated.
But what does the absence of 12 girls actually tell us?
It tells us that they did not appear before the committee. It does not tell us why. It certainly does not establish that the allegations were fabricated, that the girls had nothing to report or that the remaining students had no experiences worth investigating.
One girl is enough. We must stop making numbers the measure of justice.
Let us address something fundamental about this case. Even if only one of the 16 girls had appeared before the committee, that one girl's testimony would still matter.
One girl is not an insignificant number. One complaint is not an administrative inconvenience. One child reporting unwanted sexual contact is enough to demand a serious, sensitive and thorough response.
We must stop creating the impression that allegations become credible only when large numbers of girls come forward.
Sexual abuse does not require a crowd of witnesses to become serious. A child does not need 15 other girls beside her before adults have a responsibility to listen.
And where children are involved, we must understand that silence is not necessarily consent, agreement or proof that nothing happened. It can be the product of fear, shame, intimidation, trauma or a lack of confidence in the very institutions expected to protect them.
These are students. They are children navigating an environment in which adults control their education, discipline, school records and, in many instances, their sense of security. The person they are being asked to speak about was the headmaster, an authority figure whose position carried considerable influence within the school.
Where are we placing the burden of courage?
Fear of intimidation, retaliation, stigma, public humiliation and not being believed can silence victims and witnesses. The possibility of being identified, questioned about their character or subjected to scrutiny by an entire community can be enough to keep a young person away from an investigative process.
A committee cannot simply count the girls who appeared and treat those who did not as though their silence resolves the matter.
The four girls who appeared deserve to be heard. The 12 who did not appear should not be dismissed or have their silence interpreted on their behalf. They must be given safe, confidential and child-sensitive opportunities to provide information if they wish to do so.
One girl is enough to make us stop, listen and investigate. One girl is enough to demand accountability.
The contradictions cannot simply disappear
The JoyNews Research examination of the committee's findings raises questions that deserve serious public attention.
According to the video examination of the report, Abdulai told the committee that students only cleaned outside his residence. However, the committee recorded evidence that students had been engaged to serve him inside the house.
He acknowledged keeping bottles at his residence but maintained that they contained herbal creams. Students had alleged that oils in the residence were used during alleged sexual massages.
He denied knowing one of the students, but the student told the committee that he had asked for her name on campus and subsequently assigned her to carry food to his residence.
Perhaps most concerning is the account of the school's safeguarding officer, who reportedly told the committee that Abdulai had admitted to the conduct during an earlier management committee meeting and promised to stop.
These accounts are not, by themselves, proof of criminal guilt. They are, however, matters that demand careful investigation. They cannot be brushed aside simply because the committee ultimately found the allegations unsubstantiated.
There is also the reported allegation concerning an incident on 25 July 2026, when a student claimed that Abdulai abused her. She submitted shorts which she said contained his semen. The material had not been tested at the time of the JoyNews report.
That evidence requires proper forensic examination. If it has not been examined, why not? What steps have investigators taken to establish the facts?
An investigation must pursue evidence, not merely record competing accounts and declare the matter settled.
And then came the recommendation for an award
Of the 28 recommendations reported in the JoyNews video examination of the committee report, the proposal for a special award recognising Abdulai's contribution to the school's development deserves particular scrutiny.
What message does that send to the girls?
That a man's contribution to an institution can be weighed against allegations concerning the safety and dignity of its female students? That institutional reputation and development achievements deserve public recognition even when serious safeguarding questions remain unresolved?
There is a difference between recognising someone's professional contribution and deciding that such recognition is appropriate in the middle of an unresolved controversy involving the safety of children.
If the state wants to demonstrate that safeguarding is a priority, an award should be the last thing on its mind.
The recommendation is especially difficult to reconcile with the committee's reported call for stronger reporting and response mechanisms for sexual harassment.
You cannot ask girls to trust reporting mechanisms while simultaneously sending the message that the institution may celebrate an authority figure at the centre of unresolved allegations.
Where was the safeguarding system?
The school's safeguarding officer reportedly told the committee about an earlier management meeting at which Abdulai had allegedly admitted to the conduct and promised to stop.
If that account is accurate, what action followed?
Who was responsible for escalating the concerns? Were the students protected? Were their complaints formally documented? Was the appropriate child protection authority notified? Were measures put in place to prevent further contact or possible intimidation?
The Department of Social Welfare's role in child protection cannot be treated as an afterthought. Child abuse concerns require appropriate reporting, referral and protection procedures.
The fact that several public institutions, political actors and public figures reportedly responded to the controversy while the Department of Social Welfare had made no public comment at the time of the JoyNews report raises further questions about institutional coordination and accountability.
A safeguarding system that becomes visible only after a controversy explodes in the media is not a system that inspires confidence.
Four political positions in five days. Why did decisive action take so long?
There is another dimension to this story that Ghana must confront.
Between 16 and 20 October 2026, the NDC reportedly changed its position on Abdulai's candidacy for the party's Obuasi chairmanship race four times. His right to contest was initially defended, withdrawn two days later, restored and eventually subjected to a directive that he step aside to allow an unhindered CID investigation.
The Interior Minister also reportedly confirmed that Abdulai had been arrested but was not in custody. A rape complaint had been referred to the Attorney General for advice.
Why did it take so much public pressure for decisive action to emerge?
Why does it sometimes appear that institutions respond more urgently to reputational damage than to the concerns of children?
And why must girls wait for a documentary, public outrage and national attention before their safety becomes an institutional priority?
Girls should not have to become national headlines before we protect them
The Obuasi SHTS controversy is bigger than one headmaster. It exposes the weaknesses in how Ghana responds when children raise allegations against adults who hold positions of authority.
We cannot keep telling girls to speak up and then create environments in which speaking up comes at a personal cost. We cannot invite them to testify without considering the psychological, social and institutional pressures that might prevent them from doing so. We cannot demand evidence while failing to establish whether the children who might provide it feel safe enough to come forward.
And we certainly cannot preach safeguarding while contemplating awards for people whose conduct remains the subject of serious unresolved allegations.
Ghana must stop normalising this.
The girls at Obuasi SHTS deserve more than a committee report. They deserve an independent, credible and thorough investigation, child-sensitive procedures, protection from intimidation, access to psychosocial support and clear accountability for anyone found to have failed in their safeguarding responsibilities.
The headmaster is entitled to due process. The girls are entitled to protection and justice.
These rights are not mutually exclusive.
But let us be absolutely clear: the absence of 12 girls from a hearing is not a victory for the accused. It is not proof that the girls had nothing to say. And the presence of only four does not diminish the importance of their accounts.
We do not need 16 girls to speak before we take one girl seriously.
One girl is enough.
And before anyone considers handing out awards, Ghana needs to answer a far more important question:
Who is protecting the girls?
