In a move that has sparked both relief and controversy, a high-profile appointee under former President John Dramani Mahama has been 'cleared' by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAG) in a heated asset declaration saga. But here's where it gets controversial: while the Commission found no serious constitutional violations, many are questioning whether the outcome sets a dangerous precedent for accountability among public officials.
Earlier this year, President Mahama issued a directive requiring all CEOs and their deputies to declare their assets by March. However, not everyone complied, leading to a wave of public scrutiny and legal challenges. Among those under the spotlight was Gerald Kofi Totobi Quakyi, Board Chairman of the Ghana National Gas Limited Company, who found himself at the center of a petition accusing him of failing to meet this legal requirement.
And this is the part most people miss: CHRAG’s decision wasn’t a full exoneration. While the Commission acknowledged that Totobi Quakyi eventually declared his assets, it also noted that his initial failure to do so was unjustified. The ruling stated, ‘The Commission finds the reasons for his failure to declare outside the statutory period unreasonable.’ Yet, instead of punitive sanctions, CHRAG recommended only a reprimand, citing his prompt action once the complaint was brought to his attention.
This leniency has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that such a light rebuke could embolden other officials to delay compliance, knowing they might face minimal consequences. On the flip side, supporters of the decision highlight the importance of encouraging voluntary compliance and recognizing corrective action.
The petition, filed by journalist Wilberforce Asare, accused Totobi Quakyi and 13 other Mahama appointees of non-compliance with Chapter 24 of the Constitution, which mandates asset declaration. Asare’s efforts didn’t stop there—he also filed a mandamus application at the High Court, urging CHRAG to investigate CEOs and Board Chairmen of state corporations. His application included a Right to Information (RTI) response revealing that 12 Board Chairmen and 2 CEOs had failed to declare their assets before assuming office, despite President Mahama’s explicit warning.
Here’s the bigger question: Does CHRAG’s decision uphold the spirit of transparency and accountability, or does it undermine it? While Totobi Quakyi’s eventual compliance is commendable, should public officials be given a pass for initial non-compliance? And what message does this send to those who might view asset declaration as optional?
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: this saga is far from over. What do you think? Is CHRAG’s ruling fair, or does it fall short of ensuring public officials are held to the highest standards? Share your thoughts in the comments below—this is a conversation that needs your voice.
