Journalist drags Finance minister to CHRAJ over ‘biased’ ex-gratia payments

Ghana’s Finance Minister, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, has been petitioned at the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) over allegations of discriminatory and self-serving payment of ex-gratia benefits.

The complaint, filed by journalist and citizen Wilberforce Asare on 19 December 2025, accuses the minister of prioritising end-of-service payments to the Speaker and Members of Parliament while leaving other Article 71 office-holders, including former members of the Executive, Council of State and Judiciary, unpaid.

Mr Asare further contends that Dr Ato Forson, as both Finance Minister and sitting MP for Ajumako Enyan Esiam, placed himself in a conflict-of-interest position by authorising or facilitating payments from which he personally benefited.

In his petition to CHRAJ Commissioner Joseph Whittal, the complainant grounds the case in Article 287(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which empowers CHRAJ to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for public officers.

He also relies on CHRAJ’s broader remit under Article 218(a) and (e) to probe complaints of corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment by public officials.

According to the petition, Mr Asare began an investigation in October 2025 into how Article 71 benefits for former office-holders were being processed. As part of that inquiry, he engaged the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the President and Parliament.

He says a formal response from Parliament provided the key trigger for his complaint.

By a letter dated 11 December 2025, the Clerk to Parliament, Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror, informed the complainant that the Speaker and MPs had received their Article 71 salary arrears and benefits in two tranches.

“The Speaker and Members of Parliament received the first instalment of their approved salary payments in May 2025, and the second instalment in July 2025. These payments covered the period January 2021 to January 2025,” the Clerk wrote.

Mr Asare argues that this confirms that Parliament’s Article 71 emoluments were fully approved, released and paid in two instalments, while other constitutional office-holders whose entitlements were determined at the same sitting of Parliament have not been paid.

The petition centres heavily on Article 284 of the Constitution, which prohibits public officers from placing themselves in situations where their personal interest conflicts, or is likely to conflict, with their official duties.

“As Minister for Finance, the Respondent exercised control and influence over the prioritisation and release of public funds,” the complainant argues.

“In authorising or facilitating payment to Members of Parliament, of whom he is one, while leaving other equally entitled constitutional office holders unpaid, the Respondent placed himself in a position where his personal financial interest directly conflicted with his public duty.”

He says the alleged conflict is amplified by the continued non-payment of former members of the Executive, the Council of State and the Judiciary, all of whom fall under the same Article 71 framework.

Mr Asare contends that by ensuring MPs were paid ahead of these other categories, the minister “preferred his personal interest and the interest of his occupational class over those of other arms of government”, in violation of Article 284.

Beyond conflict of interest, the complaint also alleges:

Discrimination contrary to Article 17, on the basis that one group of Article 71 office-holders has been favoured over others without lawful justification.

Unfair and unreasonable administrative conduct under Article 23, arguing that the manner in which payments were prioritised was arbitrary and lacked fairness.

Abuse of discretionary power under Article 296(a), on the grounds that the minister allegedly used his discretion in the release of funds in a way that was capricious and partial.

Mr Asare is asking CHRAJ to:

Investigate the conduct of Dr Cassiel Ato Forson under Articles 17, 23, 284 and 296 of the Constitution.

Make findings of contravention where the evidence supports such conclusions.

Take appropriate action in line with Article 287(2), which may include recommendations or remedial directives.

Issue any further orders necessary to restore “constitutional compliance and administrative fairness” in the handling of Article 71 payments.

CHRAJ has not yet publicly commented on the petition, and the Finance Minister has not immediately responded to the allegations.