Presidential aide fires back at Fourth Estate over Big Push probe findings, demands retraction

A senior presidential staffer has publicly disputed a media investigation into Ghana's Big Push infrastructure programme, claiming that regulatory records support the government committee's findings on contentious contract awards.

Gilbert Atippoe, a presidential staffer, took to social media on Tuesday, 11 August, to challenge a report by The Fourth Estate published in March 2026, which alleged that the Ministry of Roads and Highways had improperly awarded sole-sourced contracts to companies with questionable capacity and experience under the Big Push initiative.

Atippoe's response came after a presidential investigation into the allegations resulted in the 72-page report by the committee chaired by Dr Valerie Sawyerr. In his detailed rebuttal, he argued that official records from state regulatory institutions contradict key claims made by the media outlet, and he questioned the basis for The Fourth Estate's conclusions.

The specific disputes

Atippoe raised several concrete challenges to the media report. Regarding Growth 82 Ventures, he cited records from the Office of the Registrar of Companies showing the company was incorporated on 18 August 2020 under registration number BN680822020. He contended this timeline contradicts suggestions that the company's existence did not align with the committee's findings.

On company capacity, Atippoe pointed to classification records for Growth 82 Global Ltd, noting it holds an A1, B1 financial classification—described as the highest tier required for major infrastructure works. He also cited SSNIT employment records, arguing that Build Managers Ltd and Sanam Ghana Ltd maintained active workforce rolls of 20 and 26 employees respectively and held valid SSNIT Clearance Certificates under the National Pensions Act, 2008.

These figures, Atippoe suggested, undermine concerns raised in The Fourth Estate's report about contractor capacity and workforce strength.

Why it matters for Ghana

This dispute touches on critical governance issues in Ghana. The Big Push is a flagship infrastructure initiative, and concerns about sole-sourcing and contractor vetting reflect broader anxieties about public procurement transparency and value for money in major government projects. The clash between a presidential staffer and an independent media outlet also highlights ongoing tensions over accountability and press freedom in Ghana.

The credibility of both the investigating committee and the original media investigation now hangs in the balance. If Atippoe's documentary evidence is accurate, it raises serious questions about The Fourth Estate's verification processes and the robustness of its reporting. Conversely, if the ministry records have been selectively presented or lack context, it could suggest attempts to obscure genuine procurement irregularities.

For ordinary Ghanaians, the issue matters because public funds allocated to infrastructure should be spent efficiently and awarded transparently. Sole-sourcing practices—awarding contracts without competitive bidding—are particularly vulnerable to abuse and warrant rigorous scrutiny.

The call for accountability

Atippoe has demanded that The Fourth Estate retract its publication and issue a public apology to Dr Sawyerr and committee members, citing breaches of journalistic ethics and claims of reputational damage. He argued that The Fourth Estate failed to verify regulatory records adequately before publication.

The Fourth Estate has not yet formally responded to Atippoe's allegations. The media outlet will likely need to defend its investigative methodology and either stand by its reporting or acknowledge errors, should they exist.

This escalating dispute underscores the importance of both rigorous investigative journalism and robust government record-keeping. Ghanaians deserve clarity on whether Big Push contracts were awarded fairly and whether public resources were deployed responsibly. Resolving this factual disagreement—through independent verification of the regulatory records both sides cite—remains essential for public trust in government procurement and media credibility.