……Ghanaians question Ahiator’s competence, knowledge of BGL mandate

The Executive Director of the Bureau of Ghana Languages (BGL), Ebenezer Ahiator, has come under growing criticism, with some Ghanaians questioning his competence to head an institution whose core mandate is the development, promotion and preservation of Ghanaian languages.

The critics argue that Mr. Ahiator’s recent public comments on Ghana’s language policy raise serious questions about his understanding of the broader responsibilities of the Bureau beyond the development and launching of language orthographies.

They contend that developing orthographies for a few Ghanaian languages and getting them ready for use in schools cannot be considered the full measure of the work of an institution mandated to promote and develop indigenous languages.

Mr. Ahiator recently told 3News that only four additional local languages, Ahanta, Kusaal, Likpakpaani and Sisaali, have had their orthographies launched for use in schools.

However, critics say the development has not yet translated into formal implementation, as further action is required from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA), the Ghana Education Service (GES) and the Ministry of Education before the four languages can be fully integrated into teaching and learning.

They are therefore asking what the BGL is doing about Ghanaian languages that are endangered, declining or at risk of extinction.
According to them, the Bureau must be at the forefront of documenting vulnerable languages and developing innovative ways of keeping them alive, particularly among the younger generation.

They also believe the BGL should be using modern technology to develop Ghanaian-language learning materials, including children’s books, cartoons, audio content, e-books, digital learning applications, and other educational resources.

The critics further questioned the Bureau’s regional presence, pointing out that apart from its presence in Tamale, the institution has no significant regional office network to effectively coordinate language development and promotion across the country.

They argue that such a limited institutional presence raises questions about how the BGL intends to reach communities where indigenous languages are under pressure from dominant languages.

The controversy has also revived calls for the Bureau to be moved back to the Ministry of Education.
Proponents of the proposal argue that about 99 per cent of the work of the BGL is education-related, particularly given its role in language development, teaching and learning materials and the promotion of Ghanaian languages in schools.

They contend that placing the Bureau under the Ministry of Education would ensure closer coordination between language policy, curriculum development, teacher training and the implementation of indigenous-language education.

They further insist that the Bureau needs a more comprehensive national strategy for language preservation, particularly for vulnerable indigenous languages, as well as stronger collaboration with schools, universities, technology companies, publishers and content creators.

The Bureau was transferred to the Ministry of Education in 1963 but is currently under the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

The critics are therefore demanding greater accountability from the BGL leadership and a clear explanation of how the Bureau intends to address the country’s wider language challenges.

They argue that Ghana’s indigenous languages represent an important part of the country’s cultural identity and should not be allowed to disappear through neglect, lack of investment or inadequate institutional attention.

The debate also touches on the National Democratic Congress (NDC) manifesto, which contains policy proposals on the use of local Ghanaian languages as mediums of instruction, particularly at the lower-primary level.

Critics of Mr. Ahiator say an executive head of the BGL should have a strong grasp of national language policy and the policy direction of the government, including manifesto commitments affecting the institution he leads.

They argue that the BGL’s mandate should not be reduced to launching orthographies, insisting that the institution must play a much more aggressive role in preserving Ghana’s linguistic heritage and ensuring that indigenous languages remain relevant in the digital age.

The growing criticism has consequently sparked calls for a review of the leadership and direction of the Bureau, with some Ghanaians questioning whether Mr. Ahiator possesses the requisite knowledge and vision to lead the institution effectively.

They are demanding that the government take a fresh look at the leadership of the BGL and ensure that whoever heads the institution has the technical knowledge, vision, and commitment required to protect Ghana’s indigenous languages.