A former staff member of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), Ms. Lisboa Yemotiokor Quarshie, has filed an enforcement action of her fundamental human rights and freedoms against the Fund and the Attorney General of the Republic at the High Court of Justice.
The application was filed at the Human Rights Court registry on Monday, 18 May 2026. The motion paper was signed by Eric Dawda, lawyer for Ms. Quarshie, and accompanied by a supporting affidavit deposed to by Ms. Quarshie.
*Contention*
Ms. Quarshie argues in her affidavit that she was employed by MIIF as Investment Manager (Deputy Manager grade) from 1 February 2022, pursuant to an offer letter dated 20 January 2022, after she accepted the said offer on 24 January 2022.
During her four (4) years of employment with MIIF prior to her termination, Ms. Quarshie stated that she was never issued any formal or informal warning, notice of disciplinary proceedings, or adverse performance appraisal. No formal concerns regarding the quality of her work were ever communicated to her.
She states further that on 10 October 2025, she was summoned to a meeting in the office of the Chief Executive Officer of MIIF, Mrs. Justina Nelson, during which she was told that leaving the office at the official contractual closing time (5:00 p.m. as stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the Employment Agreement) was viewed as a lack of commitment and could result in termination of her employment.
“I thereafter formally sought written clarification on this matter by email dated 12 October 2025. My line manager acknowledged the email on 31 October 2025 and undertook to follow up with HR regarding KPIs and official job descriptions. Following the communication of KPI’s, no “performance assessment, or formal concerns were ever communicated to me thereafter,” the affidavit read in part.
Ms. Quarshie further explains that on 8 May 2026, upon her return from a period of duly approved annual leave, she was presented with a letter from MIIF dated 6 May 2026, signed by Mrs. Justina Nelson (Chief Executive Officer), terminating her employment as Investment Manager with immediate effect. However, the letter gave absolutely no reason for the termination.
“I was not issued any query, invited to any disciplinary process, given any warning, shown any adverse performance appraisal, or afforded any opportunity whatsoever to make representations before the decision was made,” Ms. Yemotiokor Quarshie noted in her affidavit.
After returning all properties of MIIF that were with her as directed by MIIF in her termination letter, Ms Quarshie indicated that on 8 May 2026, she exercised her constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution by sending a written communication to the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Senior Management, and all staff of MIIF, raising governance concerns about a pattern of procedural irregularities, absence of due process, and institutional practices that she had witnessed and which warranted review.
“That communication was made in good faith, in the interest of MIIF and its employees, and with the intention of prompting institutional accountability,” Ms. Quarshie explained in her affidavit.
“On the evening of 11 May 2026, the same day I completed my formal, institution-directed handover of all Fund property, I was contacted by the Ghana Police Service and informed that MIIF had filed a criminal complaint against me and that my presence was required at the Criminal Investigations Department Headquarters the following morning. My attempt to reschedule my attendance to secure legal counsel was met with resistance from the Police.
“On 12 May 2026, I attended the police station together with my lawyer and a family member, where I was informed that MIIF had reported me under Section 131 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772), for allegedly deleting items from the very laptop I had that day formally returned to MIIF’s IT Department under its own exit protocol. I was arrested and subsequently granted bail,” Ms. Quarshie’s affidavit read.
Ms. Quarshie further pointed out that MIIF has mandated that all company laptops, including the one allocated to her, be encrypted with Microsoft BitLocker Drive Encryption. BitLocker, she said, encrypts the entire hard drive so that data remains secure and unreadable in the event a device is lost, stolen, or accessed without authorization, and that encryption keys will be securely stored by the IT Department.
To this end, Ms. Quarshie noted that it beats her imagination why MIIF would accuse her of deleting files from her laptop, when it is practically impossible to do so given the fund’s data protection architecture for its working tools.
“Since the recovery keys were securely held by the IT Department, any formatting or deletion of data that allegedly led to my questionable arrest and detention could only have been carried out by a person with administrative privileges.
“I do not possess such administrative privileges. Accordingly, the allegation against me appears to be a calculated attempt to subject me to further harassment and frustration,” Ms. Quarshie indicated in her affidavit in support of her application.
*Grave violations*
“The termination of my employment without reason, process, or opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to administrative justice guaranteed under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires administrative bodies to act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law.
“The termination of my employment without just cause constitutes an infringement of my constitutional right as a public officer under Article 191(b) of the 1992 Constitution, which protects public officers from being removed from office arbitrarily and without just cause.
“The filing of the criminal complaint against me on the evening of 11 May 2026, in direct response to the exercise of my right to free speech and expression, constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution,” Ms. Quarshie pointed out in her affidavit.
“The arrest of my person on 12 May 2026, procured by MIIF through a criminal complaint that is factually unfounded and technically untenable on MIIF’s own records, constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 14(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
“The discriminatory targeting of my person, through both summary termination and the criminal process, by reason of my having raised legitimate governance concerns, constitutes a violation of my right to equality before the law under Article 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
“The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 21(1)(a), the right to personal liberty under Article 14(1), the right to equality before the law under Article 17(1) and (2), and the right to administrative justice under Article 23 are all justiciable and enforceable fundamental rights, the vindication of which falls within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Article 33 of the Constitution.
“MIIF’s acts as deposed herein constitute continuing and unjustified violations of my fundamental rights and freedoms and that, unless this Honourable Court intervenes by granting the reliefs sought herein, I will continue to suffer those violations,” Ms Quarshie further pointed out.
*Relief sought*
In light of her arguments, Ms. Quarshie is seeking seven forms of relief from the court. First is “a declaration that the termination of her employment by MIIF on 8 May 2026, without stated reason, without just cause, without a disciplinary process, and without any opportunity to be heard, constitutes a violation of my fundamental right to administrative justice under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution and is null, void, and of no legal effect.”
Second, “a declaration that the filing of the criminal complaint against me on 11th May 2026 constitutes a violation of my fundamental rights under Articles 14(1) and 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution and an abuse of state power by MIIF.”
Third, “a declaration that her arrest on 12 May 2026, procured through the said criminal complaint, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
Fourth, “an order directing MIIF to pay her damages for the violation of her constitutional rights, including compensatory damages for loss of income and benefits including salary adjustments from 8 May 2026 to the date of judgment; general and exemplary damages for distress, humiliation, reputational harm, and psychological suffering occasioned by the malicious criminal complaint and her arrest; and exemplary damages having regard to the deliberate and retaliatory conduct of MIIF as a state entity.
