A fresh institutional crisis has erupted around the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) after private legal practitioner and former presidential co
A fresh institutional crisis has erupted around the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) after private legal practitioner and former presidential counsel, Kow Abaka Essuman, formally accused the management of the Fund of misleading the Right to Information Commission in its handling of requests for MIIF’s 2024 audited financial statements.
In a detailed letter addressed to the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Genevieve Shirley Lartey, Essuman argued that the Commission relied on false representations made by MIIF and failed to conduct independent verification before granting the Fund a 90-day deferral to withhold the audit report.
The dispute traces back to an RTI request submitted by Essuman, a former MIIF board member, seeking access to the Fund’s 2024 audited financial statements.
Instead of granting access, the Commission, in a letter dated 16 January 2026, granted MIIF and its Chief Executive Officer, Justina Nelson, a 90-day window to comply.
The decision was based on MIIF’s claim that its Board had identified “material misstatements” in the 2024 financial statements and that the Fund was engaged with the Auditor-General for a further review and restatement of the already signed audit report.
Acting under Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), the Commission accepted MIIF’s request for deferral and postponed disclosure.
However, in a strongly worded letter dated 26 February 2026, Essuman challenged the basis of that decision, stating that the Commission had been misled by MIIF’s representations and had failed in its statutory duty to conduct independent inquiries.
He argued that the Commission took a decision on his application for review without due diligence and without hearing his side, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Commission’s own investigative mandate.
According to Essuman, even minimal verification—such as formally writing to the Auditor-General—would have exposed the falsehood in MIIF’s claims. While MIIF had indeed requested a review and restatement of the 2024 audited financial statements, the Auditor-General had refused to reopen or restate the signed accounts.
This critical fact, he said, was never verified by the Commission before it granted the 90-day deferral.
Essuman further accused the Commission of being misled on the issue of MIIF’s 2025 audit.
The Commission’s correspondence indicated that an external auditor had been commissioned to audit MIIF’s 2025 accounts. But Essuman revealed that, following his own independent verification with the Auditor-General, the appointment of the external auditor had already been terminated, and the Ghana Audit Service itself had resumed responsibility for conducting the 2025 audit.
This, he said, demonstrated again that the Commission relied solely on MIIF’s representations without independent confirmation.
Beyond procedural failures, the controversy highlights a deeper institutional conflict surrounding MIIF’s finances. The 2024 audit had already been completed and signed, yet MIIF management challenged it, sought a restatement, reported the matter to the Presidency, and triggered a chain of events that included presidential-level engagement, the appointment and removal of an external auditor, and prolonged resistance to disclosure under the RTI law.
In his public statement, Essuman questioned why a “simple request for information” had been resisted at every stage. He asked why a completed audit was challenged, why the Auditor-General was reported to the Presidency, why an external auditor was appointed and then removed, and why the RTI Commission failed to verify a critical claim before deferring disclosure.
He argued that the struggle over MIIF’s 2024 audited accounts had moved beyond a single institution and now raised fundamental questions about the rule of law, transparency, and truth in public administration.
He further disclosed that he has since obtained copies of MIIF’s 2024 audited financial statements directly from the Auditor-General, using the Auditor-General’s constitutional mandate, rendering the RTI process effectively redundant.
COMMENTS