Fresh revelations have deepened the controversy surrounding the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), after the Auditor-General confirmed a chain of events involving a rejected attempt to rewrite audited financial statements, a high-level meeting at Jubilee House, and the eventual termination of an external auditor appointed to review MIIF’s finances.
The disclosures follow written questions submitted by this newsroom to the Auditor-General ahead of publication, in line with established journalistic standards. The Auditor-General has since responded, providing clarifications that shed new light on the unfolding saga.
Audit Signed, Then Challenged
According to the Auditor-General, MIIF’s audited financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2024 were fully completed and signed by the Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairperson of MIIF on 26 June 2025, and by the Auditor-General on 27 June 2025. This confirmation aligns with documentary evidence already in this newsroom’s possession.
However, matters took a dramatic turn in September 2025, when a former member of the MIIF Board requested access to the audited accounts under the Right to Information Act. That request later became the subject of proceedings before the Right to Information Commission.
More than a month after the RTI request, MIIF formally wrote to the Audit Service seeking a review and restatement of the already signed 2024 audited financial statements.
The Auditor-General confirmed that the Audit Service flatly rejected this request. In a letter dated 12 November 2025, the Audit Service disagreed with MIIF’s assertions and described the Fund’s conduct as “improper.”
Complaint to Jubilee House
The Auditor-General further disclosed that following this rejection, the Chief Executive Officer of MIIF lodged a complaint with the Chief of Staff, prompting a high-level meeting at Jubilee House.
The Auditor-General confirmed that he was invited to the meeting to explain the Audit Service’s position and to provide professional insight into why MIIF’s request to alter the audited financial statements could not be accommodated.
According to the Auditor-General, the meeting resulted in an understanding that the Audit Service would maintain its position on the 2024 audit, while arrangements would be made for an external auditor to audit MIIF’s 2025 financial statements.
External Auditor Appointed; Then Removed
Subsequently, by a letter dated 3 December 2025 (Ref: AG/10/26/88), the Audit Service appointed TRC Consult to audit MIIF’s financial statements for the year ended 2025. The appointment was formally accepted by TRC Consult on 9 January 2026.
The appointment, however, raised eyebrows in governance circles after it emerged that Dr. Felix Kwame Aveh, Managing Partner of TRC Consult, is also a member of the Audit Service’s governing board. Dr. Aveh was also a former nominee for the position of Auditor-General, serving from December 2016 until he was removed by Daniel Domelevo after the 2016 elections.
These developments triggered questions about governance safeguards and potential conflicts of interest, especially given the tense backdrop of MIIF’s earlier attempt to alter its 2024 audited accounts.
Audit Terminated Over Alleged Interference
In a further twist, the Auditor-General confirmed that the appointment of TRC Consult has since been terminated.
According to the Auditor-General, the decision to terminate the engagement was taken after the Audit Service became aware that MIIF’s management was attempting to direct the audit process.
The Auditor-General stressed that the termination was necessary to preserve public trust in the Audit Service’s independence, transparency, and accountability.
“The decision was taken to ensure the highest level of public confidence in the integrity of the audit process,” the Auditor-General explained.
Growing Scrutiny
The latest confirmations add to mounting scrutiny over MIIF’s governance and transparency, particularly in light of the Auditor-General’s earlier refusal to amend the 2024 audited financial statements and his strong characterization of MIIF’s conduct as improper.
With questions now swirling around audit independence, executive influence, and institutional accountability, observers say the episode represents a defining test for Ghana’s public financial oversight framework.
As pressure mounts, attention is turning to how the Presidency, the Ministry of Finance, and MIIF’s Board will respond to what is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential governance controversies surrounding a state investment institution in recent years.
