Ghana's Minority caucus has challenged Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa's demand for a refund from former Ambassador to the United States, Hajia Alima Mahama. Damongo MP Samuel A. Jinapor asserts that only the Auditor-General holds the constitutional power to disallow and surcharge public officers.
This dispute stems from a special audit of the Ghana Embassy in Washington, D.C., covering January 2017 to June 2025. Mr. Ablakwa had written to Hajia Alima Mahama, requesting a refund of monies allegedly linked to the audit findings. The Minority questions the legal basis for the Minister's direct demand, emphasizing the Auditor-General's exclusive authority.
This incident fits into a broader narrative of accountability and adherence to legal procedures in Ghana's public financial management. The Auditor-General's role, as enshrined in Article 187 of the 1992 Constitution, is crucial for safeguarding public funds. Past audits have frequently led to recommendations for surcharges, underscoring the importance of this independent office. The current debate highlights potential procedural missteps in recovering public monies, which could set problematic precedents for future cases involving public officers.
Mr. Jinapor, who is the Ranking Member of Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, stated, "The power to disallow and impose a surcharge following an audit is vested solely in the Auditor-General under Article 187(7)." He further questioned the authority Mr. Ablakwa used to request the refund. This statement underscores the Minority's position that proper legal channels must be followed, even when pursuing the recovery of public funds.
The implications of this challenge are significant for public accountability and legal precedent. If the Minister's actions are deemed outside the Auditor-General's mandate, it could undermine the established framework for financial oversight. Decision-makers and the public will watch closely to see how this procedural challenge impacts the recovery efforts and the broader enforcement of audit findings. This situation also raises questions about the coordination between different government bodies in addressing financial irregularities.
Mr. Jinapor highlighted that even if the Auditor-General issues a surcharge, the affected individual has a right to challenge it. Article 187(9) of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584) guarantee a 60-day period for payment or appeal to the High Court. The Minority argues that Mr. Ablakwa's procedure bypasses this crucial right, potentially denying the former ambassador due process. This concern about due process is central to the Minority's challenge.
The Minority also raised concerns regarding Hajia Alima Mahama's claim that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the audit findings. She stated that "the auditors neither spoke to me nor wrote to me to respond to any issue/observation." Mr. Jinapor stressed that due process requires a hearing if wrongdoing is established. This lack of engagement with the audited party before a refund demand further complicates the matter.
Furthermore, the Minority questioned why the refund demand covers activities between 2019 and 2025, when Hajia Alima Mahama's tenure as ambassador covered only a part of that period. Mr. Jinapor noted that the Foreign Affairs Minister was in office from June 2021 to November 2024. He asked, "Why will the former Ambassador be held accountable for matters that occurred prior to her assumption of office and those that occurred after leaving office?" This discrepancy in timelines raises questions about the scope of liability.
The special audit report itself has not yet been laid before Parliament, according to the Minority. Section 16 of the Audit Service Act mandates the Auditor-General to submit such reports to Parliament for deliberation. The demand for repayment was made before any personal or joint liability had been formally established against Hajia Alima Mahama. The Minority supports lawful efforts to recover public funds but insists on adherence to legal procedures. This ensures fairness and maintains public trust in the accountability system.