The asset declaration and accountability debate has widened into a fresh constitutional controversy as the Minister for Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah
The asset declaration and accountability debate has widened into a fresh constitutional controversy as the Minister for Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson, has been formally reported to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justic (CHRAJ) over allegations of discriminatory and conflicted handling of Ex-Gratia payments under Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution.
The complaint, filed on 19 December 2025 by broadcast journalist, Wilberforce Asare, accuses the Finance Minister of selectively authorising Ex-Gratia payments to the Speaker and Members of Parliament while excluding other constitutionally entitled public office holders, particularly those who served in the Executive arm of government, the Council of State, and the Judiciary.
At the heart of the complaint is an allegation that Dr. Ato Forson, who doubles as the Member of Parliament for Ajumako Enyan Esiam in the Central Region, approved payments from which he personally benefited, raising serious concerns of conflict of interest, discrimination, unfair administrative conduct, and abuse of discretionary power.
Jurisdiction and Constitutional Basis
In his petition to CHRAJ Commissioner Joseph Akanjolenur Whittal, Asare anchored his complaint on Article 287(1) of the Constitution, which mandates CHRAJ to investigate allegations of constitutional breaches by public officers.
He further cited Article 218(a) and (e), which empower the Commission to probe corruption, abuse of power, and unfair treatment by public officials in the discharge of their duties.
According to the complainant, the matter squarely falls within CHRAJ’s investigative remit, as it concerns alleged violations of Articles 17 (equality and freedom from discrimination), 23 (fair administrative justice), 284 (conflict of interest), and 296 (exercise of discretionary power) of the Constitution.
How The Controversy Emerged
The complaint traces its origins to an independent investigation initiated by Asare in October 2025 into the payment of end-of-service benefits and emoluments payable to Article 71 office holders of the previous government.
In the course of this inquiry, engagements were held with the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the President, and Parliament.
The investigation culminated in a formal response from Parliament dated 11 December 2025, signed by the Clerk of Parliament, Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror.
That correspondence confirmed that Members of Parliament and the Speaker had received their approved Article 71 payments in two instalments—first in May 2025 and subsequently in July 2025—covering the period from January 2021 to January 2025.
The disclosure confirmed that Parliament had approved the emoluments, funds were duly released, and payments were completed.
However, it simultaneously revealed that other categories of Article 71 beneficiaries—particularly members of the former Executive, the Council of State, and the Judiciary—had not received their payments, despite their emoluments having been determined during the same parliamentary sitting.
Alleged Conflict Of Interest
Central to the complaint is the accusation that Forson violated Article 284 of the Constitution, which prohibits public officers from placing themselves in situations where personal interests conflict with official duties.
The Journalist, argues that as both Finance Minister and sitting MP, Ato Forson exercised influence over the prioritisation and release of public funds, authorising payments to Parliament while being a direct beneficiary of those payments himself.
The complainant contends that this dual role created a clear and impermissible conflict of interest.
“The Respondent preferred his personal interest and the interest of his occupational class over those of other arms of government,” the complaint states, describing the conduct as a direct contravention of constitutional safeguards designed to prevent self-dealing in public office.
Claims Of Discrimination And Abuse Of Discretion
Beyond conflict of interest, the complaint alleges discriminatory treatment in breach of Article 17 of the Constitution, arguing that all Article 71 office holders form a single constitutional class and must be treated equally.
Selective payment to Parliament, while excluding others, is described as unconstitutional discrimination.
The petition further accuses the Finance Minister of unfair and unreasonable administrative conduct contrary to Article 23, and abuse of discretionary power in violation of Article 296(a), asserting that discretion over public funds must be exercised fairly, transparently, and without arbitrariness.
Reliefs Sought
The complainant is urging CHRAJ to undertake a full investigation into Forson’s conduct and make findings on whether constitutional breaches occurred.
Specifically, Asare is asking the Commission to:
Investigate the Finance Minister’s actions under Articles 17, 23, 284, and 296 of the Constitution;
Make formal findings of contravention where established;
Take appropriate action under Article 287(2), including sanctions where necessary; and
Issue directives to restore constitutional compliance, fairness, and equality in the administration of Article 71 benefits.
COMMENTS