Anti-corruption groups demand transparency over alleged GH¢70,000 Appointments Committee payment

Ghana's leading anti-corruption watchdogs have escalated calls for institutional accountability after an alleged GH¢70,000 payment surfaced in connection with Parliament's Appointments Committee vetting process. In a joint statement on Friday, Transparency International Ghana (TI-Ghana) and the Ghana Anti-Corruption Coalition (GACC) have demanded full transparency from the Parliamentary Service over the controversial funds, warning that silence could further damage public trust in the legislative body.

The controversy centres on a payment that Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei reportedly rejected and returned. While her refusal to accept the money has been welcomed by civil society, the anti-corruption groups argue that individual integrity cannot substitute for institutional accountability and systemic reforms.

A pattern of integrity concerns

This is not the first time Parliament's Appointments Committee has faced scrutiny over financial impropriety. In March 2023, then-Cape Coast South MP George Kwaku Ricketts-Hagan alleged that some Minority MPs had received bribes to support former President Akufo-Addo's ministerial nominees. Although the claim sparked public outcry, including criticism from then-opposition John Mahama, no MPs were publicly named or disciplined.

More recently, in January 2025, activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor alleged that Appointments Committee members were demanding money from nominees before vetting sessions. Committee chairman Bernard Ahiafor denied the allegation, and Barker-Vormawor subsequently retracted his claim.

These repeated allegations have created a pattern of unresolved questions that TI-Ghana and GACC say has systematically eroded public confidence in Parliament's oversight functions.

What the groups are demanding

TI-Ghana and GACC have issued a comprehensive set of demands to restore institutional credibility:

• Full disclosure of the source, purpose, authorising authority and budgetary basis for the GH¢70,000 allocation
• Clarification on whether the funds were public money, private donations, caucus-related or nominee-connected
• A detailed financial account showing total amounts involved, disbursement formulas and confirmation of all payments made or returned
• Clear legal and procedural explanation of whether such payments are permitted under Parliament's Standing Orders, the Parliamentary Service Act and the Public Financial Management Act
• Development of a binding framework governing gifts, allowances and financial benefits linked to committee work and vetting, including mandatory disclosure thresholds and sanctions for non-compliance

The Special Prosecutor's office has already begun preliminary investigations into the authenticity of a memorandum attributed to Appiagyei, the source of the alleged funds and their intended purpose. However, the Minority Caucus has disputed the document's authenticity, with Second Deputy Minority Whip Jerry Ahmed Shaib describing it as fake—further clouding the situation.

Why this matters for Ghana

Parliament's Appointments Committee holds significant constitutional power, vetting ministerial and Supreme Court nominees who shape governance across the country. When the committee's integrity is questioned, it directly undermines public confidence in the individuals appointed to senior positions.

Speaker Alban Bagbin acknowledged in January 2025 that misconduct within the Appointments Committee had historically contributed to low public trust in Parliament. TI-Ghana and GACC are now calling on him to translate that acknowledgement into concrete action.

The groups have warned that allowing this controversy to end in silence, partisan explanations or internal accommodation would represent a critical missed opportunity. They argue that the credibility of future vetting processes—and Parliament's legitimacy as the nation's premier accountability institution—depends on how Ghana handles this moment.

With Ghana's democratic institutions facing increasing scrutiny, particularly around financial transparency and the integrity of key oversight bodies, the resolution of this controversy could set an important precedent for institutional accountability or reinforce the perception that Parliament polices itself inadequately.