Institutions do not drift into crisis because of external pressure. They drift when internal uncertainty outweighs verified evidence.
The Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) found itself in such a position in 2025. Subtle misinterpretations gradually evolved into national concern, culminating in a distorted public narrative captured in the Official Parliamentary Hansard of March 2025.
This is not a partisan story. It is a governance lesson about what happens when an institution fails to align its internal truth with its external communication. The turbulence MIIF experienced did not originate from Parliament, the Presidency, or the media.
It began inside the institution, where incomplete briefings, unverified assumptions, and an overreliance on draft audit documents created an informational fog.
When an institution loses control of its own truth, the nation will eventually rewrite it for them.
THE TIMELINE THAT MATTERS: HOW NARRATIVE OUTRAN EVIDENCE
To understand how MIIF reached this point, it is essential to reconstruct the governance timeline of 2025:
- January 2025: A new CEO assumed office
- March 2025: The CEO appeared before Parliament, presenting information that would shape the Hansard narrative
- June 2025: A new nine-member board was appointed
- 26 June 2025: The CEO and board chair signed the 2024 audited financials
- 27 June 2025: The Auditor General formally endorsed the report
These dates are significant because the Parliamentary Hansard for March 2025 reflects what the CEO and senior management communicated before the audited financials were available. In other words, Parliament was relying on internal interpretations rather than verified truth.
This is the governance equivalent of building a house before inspecting the soil.
HOW THE 2025 HANSARD CAPTURED AN ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL REALITY
The Hansard did not invent its concerns. It documented what MIIF representatives communicated at the time. These communications raised issues relating to:
- Alleged losses exceeding USD 100 million
- Possible investments outside MIIF’s mandate
- Contract governance weaknesses
- Mobilisation payments and procurement concerns
- Growing reserves approaching GHS 5 billion
- Structural gaps requiring a Minerals Income Holding Account
These statements were not rooted in audited data. They came from internal documents and interpretations that the new CEO inherited and accepted at face value. They were also influenced by the Management Observation Letter (MOL), which, although a routine draft inquiry tool, was treated internally as a final audit conclusion.
This misjudgement had far-reaching consequences.
A draft letter intended to prompt clarification became the basis of a national narrative.
WHY THE NEW CEO’S EARLY REPORTING CREATED SYSTEMIC CONFUSION
A new CEO must always approach inherited documents with caution. However, upon assuming office in January 2025, the CEO relied heavily on the MOL and incomplete internal briefings, without establishing a structured transition with the previous administration.
Three governance missteps followed:
- No immediate engagement with former executives
Critical context and clarification were lost.
- The board was not yet in place
The nine-member board arrived only in June 2025, long after the Hansard had been shaped.
- Absence of an internal fact verification mechanism
The new CEO’s communications to the shareholders and Parliament preceded the audited truth that arrived in late June.
Had MIIF conducted an internal alignment exercise, the narrative presented to Parliament would likely have been different.
A quiet governance truth emerges:
When leadership inherits uncertainty, their first duty is to investigate, not to amplify.
THE CORE PROBLEM: A DRAFT MANAGEMENT LETTER WAS TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
The Management Observation Letter is a preliminary audit document.
It asks questions. It tests assumptions.
It does not make findings.
Yet the letter was interpreted:
- As confirmation of losses
- As evidence of mandate breaches
- As validation of contract concerns
- As support for claims of financial distress
Once these interpretations travelled upward to the shareholder and sideways to Parliament, the Hansard became a repository of alternative facts.
This was not malice; it was a poor governance process.
When a draft becomes a verdict, the institution trades caution for confusion.
WHY PARLIAMENT COULD NOT IGNORE THE NARRATIVE
By March 2025, Parliament had received alarming information from MIIF’s leadership. It had no audited financials with which to compare or correct the claims. As a result, Parliament:
- Debated the statements in good faith
- Expressed concern about MIIF’s governance
- Requested clarity and reforms
- Reinforced oversight
- Transmitted the narrative into the permanent public record
Once the Hansard captured this version of MIIF, the institution’s reputation fundamentally changed.
The Hansard does not forget.
The public does not unhear.
Markets do not forgive uncertainty.
THE UNTOLD TURNING POINT: THE AUDITED FINANCIALS CONTRADICTED THE NARRATIVE
When the CEO and the chair signed the audited financials on 26 June 2025, and the Auditor General endorsed them on 27 June, the truth became clear:
- MIIF had income of more than GHS 1.9 billion
- MIIF held more than GHS 5.6 billion in cash
- MIIF’s total assets exceeded GHS 11 billion
- Administrative expenditure remained within global norms
- There were no catastrophic losses
These facts contradicted the narrative delivered to Parliament in March.
And because the audited financials were not released promptly, the incorrect narrative remained dominant.
A NyansaKasa principle applies:
When truth arrives late, it loses the power to calm the storm it could have prevented.
CONCLUSION: PART 1 — THE REAL BEGINNING OF THE CRISIS
The MIIF turbulence of 2025 began not with wrongdoing, but with misaligned information, unverified assumptions, and governance gaps in leadership transition.
The sequence is now clear:
- The new CEO inherited incomplete information
- The MOL was misinterpreted
- Parliament was briefed before the board was appointed
- The Hansard captured an alternative reality
- The audited financials arrived three months later
- They contradicted the narrative already in public circulation
This is how strong institutions lose control of their truth.
This is how narrative overtakes fact.
This is how governments are forced to intervene.
A final governance reflection closes Part 1: An institution that loses its internal compass invites others to redraw its map.
P.Y.Atta
