A Ghanaian citizen, Mr. Wilberforce Asare, has filed a complaint against several appointees of President John Dramani Mahama for failing to declare their assets in line with constitutional and statutory provisions.
The complaint is based on Article 286 of the Constitution, and Sections 1 and 3 of the Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Act, 1998 (Act 550).
Those affected by the complaint are Richard Kwame Asante, Minerals Income Investment Fund, Prof. Joseph Oteng-Adjei, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, Alhaji Huudu Yahaya Iddrisu, National Petroleum Authority, Franklin Mensah, Infrastructure Investment Fun, Joseph Nyarkotei Dorh, Ghana Exim Bank, Mr. Kojo Fynn, Ghana Gold Board, Ernest Thompson, Petroleum Commission, Nana Ansah Sasraku III, Social Security And National Insurance Trust, Kwaku Osafo-Buabeng, Ghana Integrated Aluminum Development Corporation, Hon. James Agalga, Ghana Airports Company Limited, Hon. Bernard Ahiafor, State Insurance Company Limited, Gerald Kofi Totobi Quakyi, Ghana Gas Company Limited, Isaac Andrews Tandoh, CEO, Minerals Commission and Dr. Ransford Anertey Abbey, CEO, Ghana Cocoa Board.
PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINT
Introduction and Legal Basis for Complaint
I submit this complaint pursuant to section 12 of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456), which provides that: “A complaint to the Commission shall be made in writing or orally to the national offices of the Commission or to a representative of the Commission in the regional or district branch.”
I also rely on Article 287(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates that: “An allegation that a public officer has contravened or has not complied with a provision of this Chapter shall be made to the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice… who shall… cause the matter to be investigated.”
The complaint is further structured in line with Regulation 2(1) of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (Investigations Procedure) Regulations, 2010 (C.I. 67), which requires particulars including the complainant’s identity, the respondents, the facts, the nature of the injustice, and the relief sought.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 20 October 2025, I filed a Right to Information (RTI) request to the Office of the Auditor-General. The purpose of the request was to determine whether Chief Executives and Board Chairpersons of fifteen (15) major public institutions had fulfilled their constitutional duty to declare their assets and liabilities in accordance with: • Article 286 of the Constitution, and • Sections 1 and 3 of the Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Act, 1998 (Act 550).
The request was received on 21 October 2025. On 4 November 2025, the Auditor-General, acting through Mr. Frederick Lokko (Assistant Director of Audit / Information Officer), responded fully to the RTI request. The response, which I have attached to this complaint, revealed serious and systemic violations of the Constitution by multiple public office holders.
FINDINGS FROM THE AUDITOR-GENERAL’S RESPONSE
The Auditor-General disclosed that nine (9) board chairpersons had not declared their assets and liabilities at all, as required by law.
These include: • Richard Kwame Asante (MIIF) • Prof. Joseph Oteng-Adjei (GNPC) • Alhaji Huudu Yahaya Iddrisu (NPA) • Franklin Mensah (GIIF) • Dr. Joseph Nyarkotei Dorh (Exim Bank) • Mr. Kojo Fynn (Ghana Gold Board) • Ernest Thompson (Petroleum Commission) • Nana Ansah Sasraku III (SSNIT) • Kwaku Osafo-Buabeng (GIADEC)
The Auditor-General confirmed that none of these individuals has filed declarations, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements.
In addition to these, the Auditor-General further disclosed that some public office holders did declare assets but not in their current capacity.
They include: • Dr. Ransford Anertey Abbey, CEO of Cocobod, who declared his assets on 24 March 2025, as Policy Advisor to the Vice President, not as CEO of Cocobod.
- Isaac Andrew Tandoh, CEO of Minerals Commission, who declared his assets on 2 April 2025 as Deputy CEO, not as substantive CEO of Minerals Commission.
- Hon. Bernard Ahiafor, Board Chair of SIC, who declared his assets on 12 May 2025 as a Member of Parliament and First Deputy Speaker, but not as Board Chair of SIC.
- Hon. James Agalga, Board Chair of GACL, who declared his assets on 10 July 2025 as a Member of Parliament, not as Board Chair of GACL.
In effect, these individuals did not comply with the legal requirement to declare assets upon assumption of their current public offices.
- BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
- Constitutional Violations
The conduct of the persons named above constitutes a direct breach of Article 286(1) of the Constitution, which provides: “A person who holds a public office… shall submit to the Auditor-General a written declaration of all property or assets owned by, or liabilities owed by him… (a) before taking office; (b) at the end of every four years; and (c) at the end of his term of office.”
- Statutory Violations
The relevant statutory provisions under Act 550 reinforce this obligation. Section 1(1) states that: “A person who holds a public office mentioned in section 3 shall submit to the Auditor-General a written declaration…”
Section 1(4) further provides that: “The declaration shall be made: (a) before taking office; (b) at the end of every four years; and (c) at the end of the term of office.”
These office holders fall squarely within the categories listed in Article 286(5)(i).
6 Furthermore, the declarations must be made within three months of the triggering event, that is, within three months of taking office, at the end of every four years, and at the end of the term of office. Failure to file within the stipulated time constitutes a breach of the constitutional and statutory provisions.
Constitutional Consequence for Non-Compliance Article 286(2) provides that: “Failure to declare or knowingly making a false declaration shall be a contravention of this Constitution…”
Such contraventions must be dealt with under Article 287, which requires CHRAJ to investigate and take appropriate action.
Administrative Injustice
It is my humble submission that failing to declare assets undermines transparency, accountability, the fight against corruption, and public confidence in governance. These omissions constitute serious administrative breaches within CHRAJ’s jurisdiction under the Constitution and Act 456.
- RELIEF SOUGHT
I respectfully request that the Commission:
- Investigate the breaches of Article 286 of the Constitution and Act 550 by the above-listed public office holders.
- Make a determination on the extent of non-compliance.
- Apply sanctions in line with Article 287(2) and in particular, apply the Commission’s own precedent in Ghana Integrity Initiative v. Adjenim Boateng Adjei & 9 Others (CHRAJ/297/2019), where the Commission disqualified Prof. Douglas Boateng from appointment as Chair or member of any public Board, Council or Commission for a period not less than 2 years, for failing to declare his assets. In that case, CHRAJ held at pages 156 and 157 of the Decision as follows:
“Prof. Boateng, PPA Board Chairman, failed to declare his assets and liabilities as required by Act 550. The Commission finds his excuse for not declaring his assets and liabilities not reasonable, and hereby disqualifies him from appointment as Chair or member of any public Board, Council or Commission for a period not less than 2 years from the date of this decision. The Commission is of the considered view that the disqualification should be limited to public boards, councils and commissions, and not to extend to Public Office generally, except however, that he must comply with the mandatory exit requirement under Article 286(1)(c) to declare his assets and liabilities as a condition for consideration for future appointment to public office. He has 3 months from the date of this decision within which to provide evidence before the Commission that he has complied with Article 286(1)(c).”
It is a foundational principle of administrative justice that similarly situated persons must be treated alike, and that public bodies must act with fairness, consistency, and equality before the law. The Constitution guarantees equal protection and equal application of the law, and CHRAJ, as a quasi-judicial body, is enjoined to ensure that its decisions do not create the appearance of unequal treatment, selective enforcement, or arbitrary distinctions among public office holders.
In light of the Commission’s own precedent, particularly the widely publicised determination in Ghana Integrity Initiative v. Adjenim Boateng Adjei & 9 Others, it is expected that the Commission will apply the same standard of scrutiny, integrity, and accountability in this matter. Indeed, the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and administrative consistency demand no less. Where a precedent has attracted significant public attention and has been relied upon to reinforce constitutional norms, the public is entitled to expect that the Commission will not depart from its own standard without compelling justification.
Furthermore, given the repeated presidential admonitions urging all appointees to comply strictly with their constitutional obligations to declare assets, the Commission’s duty to uphold transparency and integrity in public life is heightened.
On this basis, I respectfully submit that the Commission should impose equally severe sanctions, if not proportionately harsher, in this case to ensure fidelity to constitutional requirements, reinforce public confidence in the accountability architecture, and maintain the principles of equality, fairness, and the non-discriminatory application of the law.
- DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
- RTI Request dated 20 October 2025
- Acknowledgement of Receipt (21 October 2025)
- Auditor-General’s Response (4 November 2025) with list of institutions and office holders. CONCLUSION
This matter concerns serious violations of Ghana’s constitutional framework for accountability. Asset declaration is a cornerstone of integrity in public life. The failure of the named public office holders to comply with Article 286 and Act 550 poses a significant threat to public accountability and must be addressed urgently.
I therefore respectfully pray that CHRAJ exercises its investigative and enforcement powers under Article 287 to uphold the Constitution and protect the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
DATED IN ACCRA THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025.
………………………… WILBERFORCE ASARE
COMPLAINANT TO: THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE HIGH STREET, ACCRA
