Kow Essuman, former Legal Adviser to ex-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, accused Felix Kwakye Ofosu of misleading the public on the origins of presidential salaries. Essuman stated that Parliament, not the President, determines the salary and emolument structure for presidential staff. This framework defines how much the President and his staff are paid.
Mr. Essuman’s accusation came in response to claims by Mr. Kwakye Ofosu. Mr. Kwakye Ofosu, Minister of State for Government Communications, suggested the current administration's remuneration framework was approved during the Akufo-Addo tenure. Mr. Essuman argues that Ghana's Constitution makes such a claim inaccurate.
This discussion about executive remuneration highlights ongoing political debates in Ghana. The transparency of public official salaries is a frequent topic, especially concerning the President and his appointees. These debates often intensify during changes in government and economic shifts. Previous discussions have also touched on the perceived size and cost of presidential staff.
Mr. Essuman specifically referenced Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution. He explained that this article mandates Parliament to determine salaries and allowances for the President, presidential staff, and other executive office holders. Parliament makes these decisions based on recommendations from a designated committee. Mr. Essuman underlined that no President has the authority to set their own salaries or those of their staff. He said, “The President has no authority to determine his own salaries and emoluments, or those of his staff. Article 71(2) of the Constitution is unambiguous.”
He further clarified that the specific salary structure in question received parliamentary approval on January 6, 2025. This date is significantly important as it was the final day of the Akufo-Addo administration. Mr. Essuman stated that Mr. Kwakye Ofosu's remarks create a false impression. This impression suggests the remuneration package originated solely under the previous government, rather than being approved at the very end of its term by Parliament. Public perception of executive compensation impacts trust in government and financial accountability. Debates over technicalities of approval often obscure the broader question of equitable compensation.
The clarification by Mr. Essuman could prompt further scrutiny of public statements regarding government finance. Political parties often use such details to score points or defend their records during election cycles. Observers will watch how this debate unfolds and if it leads to greater transparency. Decision-makers may face pressure to provide clearer information on executive compensation moving forward. This event draws attention to the separation of powers in financial matters, particularly concerning the executive and legislative branches. It also underscores the importance of accurate data in political discourse. The public expects clear accountability for how GHS are spent on government operations.