The Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) is embroiled in a deepening governance crisis after the Auditor-General issued a sharp and unprecedented re
The Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) is embroiled in a deepening governance crisis after the Auditor-General issued a sharp and unprecedented rebuke against its CEO, Justina Nelson, for attempting to rewrite the Fund’s audited and signed financial statements for 2024.
The episode has raised serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and the management of the mineral revenues.
RTI Requests Ignored
The controversy began in September 2025, when a former MIIF board member, exercising his legal rights under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, requested copies of the Fund’s audited financial statements for 2024.
MIIF refused to respond, a move described by insiders as a deliberate effort to suppress information that could contradict claims of mismanagement by previous leadership.
The same board member followed up with additional requests seeking proof of MIIF’s compliance with statutory reporting obligations.
These requests were also ignored, fueling suspicions of information suppression and raising questions about the Fund’s commitment to transparency.
Attempt To Rewrite A Completed Audit
Under pressure and facing growing public scrutiny, MIIF’s CEO allegedly took the extraordinary step of requesting that the Ghana Audit Service review and restate the already-signed 2024 financial statements.
According to documents reviewed by this newspaper, the statements had been formally signed by MIIF’s Board Chairman and CEO on 26 June 2025, and by the Auditor-General on 27 June 2025—constituting a completed audit ready for statutory publication.
Despite this, on 31 October 2025, MIIF submitted a letter requesting a “review and restatement” of the audit, claiming it contained “material and pervasive misstatements capable of misleading users.”
The timing of the request—after repeated refusals to release the statements under RTI—raised red flags among oversight officials.
Auditor-General Rejects MIIF’s Claims
The Ghana Audit Service met with MIIF officials on 7 November 2025 to discuss the Fund’s request.
The Audit Service firmly rejected MIIF’s assertions, describing the request as “improper” and reiterating that the financial statements contained no material or pervasive misstatements.
In a letter dated 12 November 2025 and received by MIIF on 13 November, Deputy Auditor-General Elizabeth Botchey stated:
MIIF’s claims were misleading and inaccurate.
The issues raised did not constitute misstatements capable of misleading the public.
The use of the term “pervasive” was inappropriate in the context of the audit.
The request to alter signed audit statements was improper.
The Audit Service reaffirmed its opinion in the 2024 audit and emphasized that it would not make any changes to the signed statements, though it expressed willingness to collaborate with MIIF on the 2025 audit.
Key Audit Disputes Clarified
The Audit Service also addressed specific areas of concern raised by MIIF:
1. Agyapa Royalties Ltd Investment – MIIF had questioned whether the costs related to establishing and listing the subsidiary should be expensed. The Audit Service agreed with MIIF’s treatment of the costs as an investment, noting that altering this would require Ministerial or Attorney General approval.
2. Gold Trade Investment – Auditors found no evidence that investments in the gold trade were irrecoverable. An emphasis-of-matter paragraph was included to highlight the suspension of trading without indicating financial impairment.
3. Budget vs. Actuals – Minor deviations between budgeted and actual expenditures were attributed to a board resolution approving revised budgets near the end of the financial year.
4. Dividends Receivable – The legally mandated 10% dividend remained intact, as changes would require parliamentary approval.
5. Exchange Gains – Gains were consistent with previous years and accounted for in the Fund’s 2024 Trial Balance.
The Audit Service reiterated that it is the Board’s responsibility to present financial statements fairly, in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards and relevant laws, while auditors provide reasonable assurance that statements are free from material misstatement.
Legal Advice Ignored
Sources reveal that MIIF’s legal advisers, OSAD Legal Services, led by Dr. Eric Oduro Osae, repeatedly advised against pursuing a restatement of the 2024 audit.
Despite these warnings, the embattled CEO, Justina Nelson reportedly proceeded, allegedly to reinforce a narrative of mismanagement by previous executives—a move that has drawn criticism from accountability advocates.
Implications for Governance and Oversight
MIIF, as a sovereign investment entity managing Ghana’s mineral royalties, is legally required to uphold the highest standards of transparency, integrity, and accountability.
The CEO’s actions—blocking access to information, attempting to alter a completed audit, and challenging the Auditor-General—have raised profound questions about the Fund’s governance culture.
Observers warn that repeated attempts to manipulate audited records could undermine public trust, investor confidence, and the credibility of Ghana’s sovereign wealth management framework.
COMMENTS