Cassiel Ato Forson, the Minister for Finance, has been dragged to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) over complainant of discriminatory ex-gratia payments.
According to the complainant, Wilberforce Asare, a journalist, Ato Forson is being selective and biased in the payment of ex gratia to the Speaker and Members of Parliament.
He cites that the Minister for Finance placed himself in a conflict of interest when he authorised payments to himself and to the rest of Parliament, arguing that Ato Forson chose to ignore those serving in the executive arm of government.
The complainant’s petition filed read, “An allegation that a public officer has contravened or has not complied with a provision of this chapter shall be made to the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice and… shall, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of the contravention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated.”
“The complaint further falls within the Commission’s general investigative mandate under Article 218(a) and (e) of the Constitution, which empowers CHRAJ to investigate ‘complaints of corruption, abuse of power, and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of the functions of that office,’” the complaint filed with CHRAJ read.
“in the course of an investigation commenced in October 2025 into the payment of end-of-service benefits and emoluments payable to members of the former government under Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution and other enactments, the complainant engaged the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the President, and Parliament.
“That investigation culminated in a formal response from Parliament, which disclosed facts giving rise to grave concerns about a conflict of interest, discrimination, unfair administrative conduct, and the abuse of discretionary power by the Minister for Finance. By letter dated December 11, the Clerk of Parliament, Mr. Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror, stated as follows:
“The Speaker and Members of Parliament received the first installment of their approved salary payments in May 2025 and the second installment in July 2025. These payments covered the period from January 2021 to January 2025,” the complaint read.
“This conclusively confirms that Article 71 emoluments were duly approved; funds were released and paid; and the payment was completed in two installments—in May 2025 and July 2025,” the complaint further read.
“Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson, the Minister for Finance, is a sitting Member of Parliament representing the Ajumako Enyan Esiam constituency in the Central Region. As such, he was a direct beneficiary of the payments made in May and July 2025.
“Article 284 of the Constitution provides unequivocally: “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office.”
“As Minister for Finance, the Respondent exercised control and influence over the prioritisation and release of public funds. In authorising or facilitating payment to Members of Parliament, of whom he is one, while leaving other equally entitled constitutional officeholders unpaid, the Respondent placed himself in a position where his personal financial interest directly conflicted with his public duty,” the complainant stated.
“The conflict is aggravated by the fact that members of the former Executive, members of the former Council of State, and members of the Judiciary, who are entitled to be paid under Article 71, all remain unpaid as of the date of this complaint, despite their emoluments being determined at the same sitting of Parliament.
“The Respondent (Cassiel Ato Forson) therefore preferred his personal interest and the interest of his occupational class over those of other arms of government, in clear violation of Article 284,” the complainant further stated.
The complainant is seeking CHRAJ “to investigate the conduct of Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson under Articles 17, 23, 284, and 296 of the 1992 Constitution. Second, make findings of contravention where established. Third, take appropriate action under Article 287(2) of the 1992 Constitution, and lastly, issue any further directives necessary to restore constitutional compliance and administrative fairness.”