The Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has begun investigations into the conduct of the Minister for Finance, Cassiel Ato Forson, over his decision to pay members of the 8th Parliament their ex-gratia while failing to do the same for members of the Executive arm of government who served under the erstwhile Akufo-Addo administration.
In a letter to the finance minister dated 20 February 2026, CHRAJ, under the hand of the Commissioner, Joseph Akanjolenur Whittal, noted that it had received the complaint, had decided to investigate the matter, and was therefore inviting Dr. Ato Forson to comment on the complaint.
“Where the Commission decides to conduct an investigation under this Act, it shall give the authority or person concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the complaint to have taken or authorised the act or omission complained of, an opportunity to comment on any allegations contained in the complaint and the representative of the authority or person concerned shall submit his comments within such time as the Commission may specify,” the CHRAJ letter to Dr Forson read.
“In accordance with the provisions stated thereto, the Commission is requesting that you (Dr. Ato Forson) submit your comments on the complaint to the Head Office located within the Old Parliament House, John Atta Mills High Street, Accra, within ten 10 days upon receipt of the letter to facilitate its investigations,” the CHRAJ letter further read.
Background
Mr. Cassiel Ato Forson was dragged to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) for what the complainant (Wilberforce Asare) says is his selective and biased payment of Ex-Gratia to the Speaker and Members of Parliament, while excluding those who served in the Executive arm of government.
The complainant, Wilberforce Asare, a Ghanaian citizen and broadcast journalist, also states that the finance minister, as a member of Parliament, placed himself in a conflict of interest when he authorized payments to himself and to the rest of Parliament, but chose to ignore those serving in the executive arm of government.
Jurisdiction of CHRAJ
In his complaint dated 19 December 2025, addressed to the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Joseph Akanjolenur Whittal and received by CHRAJ the same day, the complainant first settled on the jurisdiction of the commission to investigate the matter, the facts and particulars of his complaint, the conflict-of-interest situation, discrimination, Unfair and Unreasonable Administrative Conduct, Abuse of Discretion, and the reliefs he is seeking from CHRAJ.
On the jurisdiction of the commission, the complainant indicated that the complaint is properly brought before the Commission pursuant to Article 287(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides:
“An allegation that a public officer has contravened or has not complied with a provision of this Chapter shall be made to the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice and… shall, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of the contravention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated.”
“The complaint further falls within the Commission’s general investigative mandate under Article 218(a) and (e) of the Constitution, which empowers CHRAJ to investigate ‘complaints of corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of the functions of that office,” the complaint filed with CHRAJ read.
The Complaint
Presenting his facts and particulars of the complaint, the complainant noted that “in the course of an investigation commenced in October 2025 into the payment of end-of-service benefits and emoluments payable to members of the former government under Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution and other enactments, the Complainant engaged the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the President, and Parliament.
