Dr. Ato Forson dragged to CHRAJ over discriminatory ex-gratia payments

The Minister for Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson, has been dragged before the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) over allegations of discriminatory and biased payment of ex-gratia and Article 71 emoluments.

The complaint, filed by Wilberforce Asare, a Ghanaian citizen and broadcast journalist, accuses the finance minister of authorising payments to the Speaker and Members of Parliament while excluding other equally entitled constitutional officeholders, particularly those who served in the executive arm of government.

According to the complainant, Dr. Forson’s actions amount to discrimination, conflict of interest, abuse of discretion, and unfair administrative conduct in breach of the 1992 Constitution.

Alleged Conflict of Interest

Central to the complaint is the claim that Dr. Forson, who doubles as a sitting Member of Parliament for Ajumako Enyan Esiam in the Central Region, placed himself in a clear conflict of interest.

Mr. Asare argues that the finance minister authorised and facilitated payments to Members of Parliament—of which he is a beneficiary—while failing to release funds for other Article 71 officeholders.

Citing Article 284 of the Constitution, the complainant stressed that public officers are prohibited from placing themselves in positions where personal interests conflict with official duties.

“As Minister for Finance, the Respondent exercised control and influence over the release of public funds. In prioritising payments to Members of Parliament while leaving others unpaid, he preferred his personal interest and that of his occupational class,” the complaint stated.

CHRAJ’s Jurisdiction Established

In a complaint dated December 19 and addressed to CHRAJ Commissioner Joseph Akanjolenur Whittal, the complainant first established the commission’s jurisdiction to investigate the matter.

He relied on Article 287(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates CHRAJ to investigate alleged breaches of constitutional provisions by public officers unless the accused admits the contravention in writing.

The complaint further invoked Article 218(a) and (e), which empowers CHRAJ to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and unfair treatment by public officers in the performance of their duties.

Facts and Particulars of the Complaint

Mr. Asare disclosed that his complaint followed an investigation that began in October 2025 into end-of-service benefits payable to members of the former government under Article 71 and other enactments.

As part of the investigation, he engaged the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the President, and Parliament.

A formal response from Parliament, dated December 11 and signed by the Clerk of Parliament, Mr. Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror, revealed that the Speaker and Members of Parliament received their approved Article 71 emoluments in two installments.

“The Speaker and Members of Parliament received the first installment of their approved salary payments in May 2025 and the second installment in July 2025. These payments covered the period from January 2021 to January 2025,” the Clerk’s letter stated.

The complainant noted that this confirmation established that the emoluments were approved, funds were released, and payments were completed.

Exclusion of Other Article 71 Officeholders

According to the complaint, while Members of Parliament were fully paid, other constitutional officeholders—including members of the former Executive, the Council of State, and the Judiciary—remain unpaid, despite their emoluments being approved at the same sitting of Parliament.

The complainant described this selective payment as discriminatory and unconstitutional, arguing that all Article 71 beneficiaries are equally entitled to payment.

He contended that the finance minister’s conduct violates Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination.

Claims of Unfair Administrative Conduct and Abuse of Discretion

Beyond conflict of interest and discrimination, the complaint further accuses Dr. Forson of unfair and unreasonable administrative conduct contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution.

The complainant also alleges abuse of discretionary power under Article 296(a), arguing that the selective release of funds lacked fairness, transparency, and consistency.

Reliefs Sought from CHRAJ

In his concluding submissions, Mr. Asare outlined several reliefs he is seeking from the commission.

He is asking CHRAJ to investigate the conduct of Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson under Articles 17, 23, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

He further urged the commission to make findings of contravention where established, take appropriate action under Article 287(2), and issue any additional directives necessary to restore constitutional compliance and administrative fairness.