Ato Forson snubs ex-gratia payment calls

The Minister for Finance, Cassiel Ato Forson, has refused to heed several calls urging him to pay the ex-gratia of former appointees of the erstwhile Akufo-Addo administration one year and two months after the affected former appointees and government officials left office.

Ironically, the finance minister, who is also a Member of Parliament (MP), has paid the ex-gratia of MPs (the legislative arm of government) who served during the same period, but has failed to do the same for members of the executive arm of government, even though the payment of both arms of government was approved at the same time.

Authorities at the Right To Information (RTI) Commission have written to the Office of the President and the Minister for Finance to demand an explanation on why the two offices have failed to respond to an RTI request submitted to them by a complainant seeking answers to specific questions on the payment of Ex-Gratia to Article 71 workers who served under the Akufo-Addo administration.

The RTI Commission’s demand is contained in two separate letters both of which are dated 15 January 2026 and addressed to the Office of the President and the Minister for Finance and copied to the complainant in the case which has been numbered “Case Number RTIC/AFR/94/2025 (Office of the President) and Case Number RTIC/AFR/93/2025 (Minister for Finance).

The Office of the President, following the demand of the RTI Commission, has stated unequivocally that it is not responsible for the payment of Ex-Gratia and that any delay in the payment of the same to deserving persons should be blamed on the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department and the Ministry of Finance.

The position of the presidency was contained in a response of the President to a letter written by the Right to Information (RTI) Commission demanding an explanation on why the office had failed to respond to an RTI request submitted to them by a complainant seeking answers to specific questions on the payment of Ex-Gratia to Article 71 workers who served under the Akufo-Addo administration.

The RTI Commission, in a letter addressed to the complainant dated 30 January 2026, conveyed the President’s position on the matter.

“The Commission acknowledges receipt of a response from the Office of the President dated 23 January 2026 concerning your application. The information sought relates to the payment status, dates, and projected timelines for emoluments and ex gratia payments to certain Article 71 office holders.

“The Office of the President has formally indicated that it does not hold, control, or have custody of the requested information. Under Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution, the role of the Office of the President in determining emoluments is limited to processes undertaken directly or through Parliament based on recommendations of the Emoluments Committee,” the RTI Commission letter to the complainant read.

“The statutory responsibility for the execution of payments, maintenance of payroll records, and custodianship of the relevant accounts rests with the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department, operating under the authority of the Ministry of Finance pursuant to the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).

“In accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), the Office of the President is unable to provide the requested information, as it is not the custodian of the records sought. Access to information may only be granted by the public institution that holds or controls the records. In view of the foregoing, the Commission hereby directs that your request be addressed to the appropriate institutions identified above. The Commission will accordingly proceed to close this matter,” the Commission’s letter further read.

RTI Commission Directive

In both letters signed by the Executive Secretary of the RTI Commission, Genevieve Shirley Lartey Esq., the Commission indicated that it expects the Office of the President and the Minister for Finance to submit their respective responses within seven (7) days after receipt of the letters.

“The Commission wishes to draw attention to its statutory powers and the corresponding obligations of public institutions under Act 989, in particular: Section 43(2)(b), which empowers the Commission to: determine the nature and form of investigation required for the determination of a matter before it; and Section 70, which mandates a public institution, a relevant private body or interested party to assist the Commission during an application or investigation.

“Pursuant to these statutory obligations, the Commission hereby directs the Office of the President to provide written reasons for the alleged refusal or non-response and to furnish the Commission with the information for purposes of review within seven (7) days of receipt of this letter,” the RTI Commission’s letters to the two public officers read.

“Kindly note that failure to respond within the stipulated period may result in the Commission determining the matter based on the information currently available to it.

“Please note that this matter is currently under investigation and all parties are advised to refrain from making any public statements that may prejudice the proceedings until a final determination is made by the Commission,” the Commission’s letter further read.

Hauled

President John Dramani Mahama and the Finance Minister, Cassiel Ato Forson, were both hauled before the Right To Information (RTI) Commission for failing to respond to an RTI request submitted to their offices on 7 October 2025 by a Ghanaian journalist, Wilberforce Asare, seeking information on Ex-gratia payments.

The RTI request submitted to the President and the Finance Minister sought information on the current status of the determination of Article 71 emoluments for the period 2021 to 2025 (the second term of the erstwhile Akufo-Addo administration).

Contention

Even though a public institution under section 23 (1) of the Right To Information Act, 2019, (Act 989) is required to determine such an application and communicate its decision within 14 days after receiving the application, the presidency and the finance ministry have failed to do so after nearly 60 days of receipt of the application.

The applicant, after the expiry of the allowed 14 days, followed up on Friday, 24 October 2025, with an application for internal review of the refusal under section 32 of the RTI Act. As of Thursday, 4 December 2025, there had been no response to the main RTI request, and the application for internal review submitted to the presidency and the finance ministry.

The applicant, in his application, brought under section 65(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which provides that: “A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of a public institution… may apply to the Commission for a review of the decision,” and Section 65(2) which further provides that “An application to the Commission may be made orally or in writing,” notes that the failure of the President and the Finance Minister to respond to his request constitutes a refusal.

“The Applicant respectfully submits this written application seeking review of the failure, refusal, neglect, or omission of two key public institutions, the Office of the President and the Ministry of Finance, to determine or respond to valid Right to Information (RTI) requests submitted on 7 October 2025, as well as subsequent applications for internal review submitted on 24 October 2025.

“Both institutions have failed to comply with their mandatory statutory obligations under Act 989, resulting in deemed refusals under section 23(5),” the application read in part.

Reliefs

To this end, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs from the RTI Commission.

CompelDisclosure

i. Order the Chief of Staff, Office of the President, todetermineand respond to the Applicant’s RTI request dated 7 October 2025 and provide all requested information.

Orderthe Minister for Finance todetermine and respond to the Applicant’s RTI request dated 7 October 2025, providing all requested information regarding Article 71 payments.

Declarations

i. Declare that both institutions have breached sections 23, 31, 32, and 33 of Act 989 and Article 21(1)(f) of the Constitution.

AdministrativePenalties (Section 71)

i. Pursuant tosection 71 of Act 989, impose administrative penalties on the Chief of Staff and the Minister for Finance for willful and unjustifiable disregard of their statutory obligations.