A Ghanaian citizen has filed a motion at the High Court seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to investigate a complaint against the Minister of Finance, Cassiel Ato Forson.
The application, filed on February 24, 2026, by Wilberforce Asare, invokes the High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction, alleging that CHRAJ has failed or refused to perform its constitutional duty to investigate allegations of administrative misconduct and abuse of power.
The legal action stems from a complaint filed by Mr. Asare on December 19, 2025 where he petitioned CHRAJ to investigate Finance Minister Cassiel Ato Forson for conflict of interest, discrimination and unfair conduct due to the “selective payment” of emoluments of Article 71 office holders in the previous administration and abuse of discretionary power arising from alleged favoritism in the payment of benefits due public officials who served under the previous administration.
The application has been filed under Order 55 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and relies on Articles 218 and 287 of the 1992 Constitution, which outline CHRAJ’s mandate to investigate corruption and breaches of the code of conduct for public officers.
The applicant is therefore praying the court to direct CHRAJ to receive and formally process the complaint and to commence a full-scale investigation into the Finance Minister’s alleged conduct.
Mr. Asare maintained that his action is in fulfillment of his “civic duty” under Article 41 of the Constitution to uphold and defend the laws of Ghana.
The Minister for Finance, Cassiel Ato Forson, was dragged to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) for what the complainant 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.
“That investigation culminated in a formal response from Parliament, which disclosed facts giving rise to grave concerns about a conflict of interest, discrimination, unfair administrative conduct, and the abuse of discretionary power by the Minister for Finance. By letter dated 11 December 2025, the Clerk of Parliament, Mr. Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror, stated as follows:
“The Speaker and Members of Parliament received the first instalment of their approved salary payments in May 2025, and the second instalment in July 2025. These payments covered the period January 2021 to January 2025,” the complaint read.
“This conclusively confirms that Article 71 emoluments were duly approved; funds were released and paid; and the payment was completed in two instalments – in May 2025 and July 2025,” the complaint further read.
On the issue of a conflict of interest, which is contrary to Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution, the complainant noted that “Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson, the Minister for Finance, is a sitting Member of Parliament representing the Ajumako Enyan Esiam constituency in the Central Region. As such, he was a direct beneficiary of the payments made in May and July 2025.
“Article 284 of the Constitution provides unequivocally: “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office.”
“As Minister for Finance, the Respondent exercised control and influence over the prioritisation and release of public funds. In authorising or facilitating payment to Members of Parliament, of whom he is one, while leaving other equally entitled constitutional office holders unpaid, the Respondent placed himself in a position where his personal financial interest directly conflicted with his public duty,” the complainant stated.
“The conflict is aggravated by the fact that members of the former Executive, members of the former Council of State, and members of the Judiciary, who are entitled to be paid under Article 71, all remain unpaid as at the date of this complaint, despite their emoluments being determined at the same sitting of Parliament.
“The Respondent (Cassiel Ato Forson) therefore preferred his personal interest and the interest of hisoccupational class over those of other arms of government, in clear violation of Article 284,” the complainant further stated.
Reliefs sought
The complainant, after discussing his position on discrimination based on Article 17 of the 1992 constitution, the Unfair and Unreasonable Administrative Conduct of the finance minister contrary to Article 23, and the minister’s abuse of discretion contrary to Article 296(a), outlined the reliefs he is seeking from the commission.
First, CHRAJ is “to investigate the conduct of Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson under Articles 17, 23, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.” Second, “make findings of contravention where established.” Third, “take appropriate action under Article 287(2) of the 1992 Constitution,” and lastly, “issue any further directives necessary to restore constitutional compliance and administrative fairness.”
