It has emerged that President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has finally issued two appointment letters to cover 27 months spent in office by former Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) Rev. Dr. Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah following the expiration of his employment contract.
It emerged during a sitting of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee that the then GRA boss, after reaching the mandatory retirement age, remained in office for some 27 months without a contract to his name.
Subsequently, the president, on March 27, 2024, sacked Rev. Dr. Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah from his role as the Commissioner-General of GRA following several public concerns over his stay in office.
However, according to documents shared by opposition Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, the president has since issued two separate appointment letters to cover the period in question.
The first of the two letters both dated March 26, 2024, and issued by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, granted a two-year extension of service to Rev. Dr. Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah.
“I am pleased to inform you that the President has granted you a two-year extension of service as Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority from 11th October 2021, to 10th October 2023,” the first letter said.
The second letter also dated March 26, 2024, read: “I am pleased to inform you that the President has granted you a further extension of service as Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority from 11th October 2023 to 31st March 2024.”
Describing the president’s actions as shocking, Mr. Ablakwa underscored that the president is bent on protecting Rev. Dr. Ammishaddai Owusu-Amoah at all cost.
Pressure group Mass Action for Sustainable Development in Africa recently served notice of its intent to pursue legal action over the former GRA boss’s time spent in office without contract.
According to the group’s Executive Director, Atik Mohammed, the courts should determine whether it was right for Dr. Owusu-Amoah to have drawn salary for the period without a contract of employment.
“We need to test the law on these issues and be sure that if the law says that our monies that they received is right, then we can let it go. But if indeed without contract you cannot spend our money and you ended up receiving the money, then you need to face the law,” he said.
According to Atik, this matter cannot be swept under the carpet as it caused financial loss to the state.
“It is not enough to say that you have been sacked so you are going home and everything ends there.
“What about the 27 months you were there drawing salary without a contract. How do you justify this?” he questioned.
Discussion about this post