President John Dramani Mahama’s commitment to transparency and accountability has come under scrutiny following his administration’s refusal to respond to a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking details on the implementation of Article 71 emoluments for former officeholders covering the period January 2021 to January 2025.
Despite the clear provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which mandates public institutions to respond to such requests within 14 days, the Office of the President has remained silent 22 days after receiving the application.
The request, submitted on October 7, 2025, sought clarification on whether Article 71 officeholders—including the former President, Vice-President, Council of State, Ministers, and Deputies—had received their constitutionally determined emoluments for the specified period.
Legal breach of transparency obligation
Section 23(1) of the RTI Act requires a public institution to “determine an application and communicate its decision” within 14 days of receipt.
However, no acknowledgement, determination, or explanation has been issued by the Presidency.
The President’s failure to respond within the mandatory 14-day period constitutes a clear violation of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which treats such inaction as an offence punishable by law.
Under the Act, public institutions that disregard RTI timelines or refuse to provide information without lawful justification are liable for administrative penalties imposed by the Right to Information Commission (RTIC).
According to data from the Commission, as of July 2025, penalties totalling over GH₵5.6 million had been imposed on 64 public institutions for various breaches of the RTI law.
Out of this amount, GH₵3.5 million has so far been recovered from 23 institutions, while 36 others still owe an outstanding GH₵2.1 million (GH₵2,149,000) in unpaid penalties.
Following the expiry of the statutory deadline, the applicant filed an internal review application on October 24, 2025, invoking section 32 of the RTI Act to challenge the deemed refusal.
As of October 30, 2025, the President’s office had still not responded—neither to the original RTI law request nor to the internal review—further deepening concerns about the administration’s openness.
In the review request, the applicant outlined four key grounds for contesting the Presidency’s inaction.
The first ground accused the President’s office of violating section 23(1) of the RTI Act by failing to determine the application within the required time.
The second argued that the “deemed refusal” undermines the constitutional right to information guaranteed under Article 21(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution.
The third and fourth points emphasised that the requested information relates to public expenditure and the implementation of constitutional emoluments, matters of “clear public interest” that are not exempt under the RTI Act.
The applicant further asserted that the refusal erodes the principles of transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility that should guide the exercise of executive authority.
Questions the presidency refuses to answer
In the detailed RTI application, the applicant asked the Presidency to clarify several specific issues, including whether the former President and former Vice-President had received their Article 71 emoluments for the period 2021 to 2025.
The request also sought clarification on whether the former Chairman and Members of the Council of State, as well as former Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and other Article 71 officeholders, had been paid their determined benefits.
In addition, the applicant asked for the specific dates of payment or the expected timelines for disbursement, together with any correspondence, releases, or approvals from the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) regarding the implementation of these payments.
The applicant also reminded the President that under section 33 of the RTI Act, the internal review must be determined “as soon as is reasonably practicable,” but no later than 15 days after receipt.
Failure to comply, the applicant warned, would compel an appeal to the Right to Information Commission under section 65 of the Act.
“I trust that the Office of the President will, in keeping with its constitutional obligation, demonstrate leadership in upholding transparency and accountability in matters of public expenditure,” the applicant stated in the closing paragraph of the internal review.
Parliament responds, Presidency silent
While the Presidency has remained unresponsive, Parliament—which received a similar RTI request on the same day, October 7, 2025—responded within a week.
In a letter signed by Camillo Pwamang, Deputy Clerk, LMS, Parliament confirmed that the formal determination of Article 71 emoluments was made and transmitted to the President at its 399th sitting on January 6, 2025.
Parliament further disclosed that it had not received confirmation from either the Ministry of Finance or the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department regarding the implementation of the Article 71 emoluments for the 2021–2025 period.
However, it acknowledged receiving releases from the CAGD reflecting emoluments determined by the President for the same period—an indication that the Speaker and MPs had been paid, while other officeholders, including the former President and Council of State, had not.
Finance ministry also silent
The applicant also filed a similar request with the Ministry of Finance, seeking information on payment dates and implementation status.
Yet, as with the Presidency, the Ministry has not responded—another violation of the RTI Act’s timelines.
Transparency questions for Mahama
The continued silence from the Presidency has sparked growing concerns about President Mahama’s professed commitment to transparency, a principle he has championed in his public statements since assuming office.
Analysts argue that the refusal to comply with RTI obligations undermines public trust and contradicts the administration’s pledge to promote open governance.
Governance analysts say the President’s handling of this matter is a critical test of whether his government’s “accountability and transparency” agenda will translate into measurable action or remain rhetorical.
The Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) was passed to give effect to the constitutional right of access to official information, particularly in matters of public interest and fiscal governance.
Its breach by the highest office in the land raises fundamental questions about the Mahama administration’s willingness to be held accountable for decisions involving public expenditure and constitutional entitlements.
The Commission has repeatedly warned that failure by public bodies—including the Office of the President—to comply with the statutory timelines for responding to RTI requests undermines public trust and violates citizens’ constitutional right to information.
In this context, the Presidency’s silence on the ex-gratia inquiry not only raises concerns about transparency but also exposes it to possible sanctions under the RTI enforcement regime.
As the legal deadlines lapse without communication, all eyes now turn to the RTIC, where the applicant has vowed to seek redress—potentially turning a simple information request into a broader test case for transparency under the current administration.
