A major controversy has erupted within the National Service Authority (NSA) after thousands of Service Personnel accused the leadership of the Nationa
A major controversy has erupted within the National Service Authority (NSA) after thousands of Service Personnel accused the leadership of the National Service Personnel Association (NASPA) of imposing what they describe as an unlawful and compulsory financial burden expected to exceed GH¢12.6 million under a private training agreement.
The development has triggered widespread anger among service personnel across the country, with many alleging they were never consulted before deductions were made from their monthly allowances to finance a three-year capacity-building programme being implemented by Zeus Atlas Ltd in partnership with NASPA.
Some of the angry service personnel are of the opinion that there is a strong connivance between the NSA management headed by Ruth Dela Seddoh and the NASPA executive leading to the easy access to the payroll of the service persons.
The deductions reportedly commenced with the payment of the May 2026 allowance, with each National Service Person expected to contribute GH¢180, payable through monthly deductions of GH¢60.
Based on the current National Service population of more than 70,000 personnel, critics estimate that the total amount to be collected under the agreement could exceed GH¢12.6 million, making it one of the largest financial commitments undertaken by NASPA in recent years.
The controversy emerged after the newly elected NASPA National President Abdul Wahab Bala Mohammed announced during a virtual meeting with service personnel that the Association had entered into a three-year agreement with Zeus Atlas Ltd to provide what he described as a nationwide capacity-building programme.
According to him, the programme is intended to equip National Service Personnel with additional skills to improve their employability and entrepreneurial prospects after completing national service.
He further disclosed that the agreement would not only apply to current personnel but would also extend to current Level 400 students, who would automatically become beneficiaries and contributors when they begin their national service next year.
However, the announcement has generated intense criticism from many service personnel, who insist they only became aware of the programme after deductions had already been made from their allowances.
Several of the aggrieved personnel argue that at no point were they consulted or given the opportunity to approve or reject the programme before the deductions were implemented.
They contend that while capacity-building initiatives are beneficial, participation should remain voluntary rather than compulsory.
Many have also questioned whether NASPA possesses the constitutional or legal authority to commit more than 70,000 service personnel to a financial obligation exceeding GH¢12.6 million without obtaining their consent.
The controversy has further deepened following allegations by some personnel that payroll information may have been made available by the authority to facilitate the deductions before the programme was officially communicated to beneficiaries.
Some have questioned how deductions could have been processed so quickly, although these allegations have not been independently verified, and neither the National Service Authority nor Zeus Atlas Ltd had publicly responded to those specific claims at the time the concerns were raised.
During the Zoom engagement, participants reportedly asked the NASPA President Bala Mohammed why the programme had been made compulsory instead of allowing interested personnel to register voluntarily.
According to participants, the NASPA President responded that those objecting should speak for themselves rather than claiming to represent all service personnel, arguing that although there are more than 70,000 National Service Personnel, only a small number participated in the virtual meeting.
The explanation has done little to calm growing dissatisfaction, with many insisting that no convincing legal or policy justification has been provided for making the deductions mandatory.
Several service personnel have also argued that graduates undertaking national service come from diverse academic disciplines and professional backgrounds, making a single training programme unsuitable for everyone.
Some claim that when they approached district and regional NASPA executives for clarification, they were informed that the local executives themselves had no prior knowledge of the agreement or the payroll deductions.
These claims have heightened concerns over the decision-making process and whether appropriate governance structures within NASPA were followed before the agreement was executed.
The controversy has prompted calls for immediate intervention by the Director-General of the National Service Authority, Ruth Dela Seddoh, with critics demanding that the deductions be suspended until questions surrounding the agreement are fully addressed.
The aggrieved personnel are also calling for any monies already deducted to be refunded if the agreement is found to have been implemented without the necessary approval or legal backing.
They maintain that if the programme genuinely offers value, interested personnel should be allowed to enroll voluntarily and pay for the training themselves instead of imposing compulsory deductions on every service person.
The latest controversy comes at a time when the National Service Authority is seeking to rebuild public confidence following previous governance challenges and public scrutiny over the management of the national service scheme.
The dissatisfied personnel have therefore appealed to the authority and the media to intervene and ensure a transparent review of the agreement.
COMMENTS