Minority accuses AG of unlawful directive, says GH¢350m given to flood Victims without without parliamentary approval

The Deputy Minority Leader, Hon Patricia Appiagyei, has made allegations regarding constitutional violations related to the management of flood relief funds, specifically targeting the actions of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.

At a press conference held today in Parliament titled “A Republic Governed by Chaos,” Mrs. Appiagyei revealed that the Minority has obtained a letter dated July 1, 2026, which bears the official letterhead of the Office of the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice.

This letter, signed by the Attorney-General, was addressed to the Governor of the Bank of Ghana and has raised significant concerns regarding the legality of a GH¢350 million withdrawal intended for flood relief efforts.

In her address, Mrs. Appiagyei emphasized a particularly alarming statement from the letter, which acknowledges that the Contingency Fund, a financial resource established by the Constitution of Ghana for emergencies, is currently under garnishee proceedings. She urged the audience to consider the implications of this admission, highlighting that it confirms the fund is legally encumbered. “Pause on that sentence, ladies and gentlemen,” she urged, underscoring the gravity of the situation. The Attorney-General's written confirmation of the garnishee proceedings raises questions about the legality of any subsequent directives to release funds from this account.

Despite acknowledging the ongoing legal proceedings, the Attorney-General allegedly instructed the central bank to proceed with the release of the funds, asserting that the exceptional circumstances surrounding the national emergency justified such action. “Notwithstanding those proceedings, it is my considered opinion that the exceptional circumstances surrounding this national emergency and the overriding public interest in safeguarding lives and property warrant the immediate release of the approved funds,” she quoted, expressing her disbelief at the apparent disregard for established legal processes.

Mrs. Appiagyei firmly stated that in the Republic of Ghana, court orders cannot simply be overridden by the subjective opinions of any Minister; such orders can only be varied, discharged, or set aside by the courts that issued them. She further alleged that although the directive was to release funds from the Contingency Fund, the actual transfer of money was executed through a different account. This raises critical questions: if the Contingency Fund was indeed under legal attachment, then any emergency disbursement could only have occurred through an alternative public account. “If that is what occurred, then Parliament was never asked to approve that alternative source, and the constitutional requirements governing withdrawals from public funds were bypassed,” she asserted, highlighting the potential breach of legal protocols.

Moreover, she pointed out that the Ministry of Finance had publicly stated that the funds were released from the Contingency Fund, creating a discrepancy if the funds were actually drawn from another account. “If the funds were in fact drawn from another account, then that statement did not accurately reflect what transpired,” Mrs. Appiagyei stated, calling for transparency and accountability from the government.

Challenging the government to present the records before Parliament, she demanded clarity on the origins of the GH¢350 million. “If the GH¢350 million truly came from the Contingency Fund as you told the nation, lay the records before Parliament and prove it. If it did not, then tell Ghanaians which account was used, who authorised the withdrawal, and under what law,” she insisted, referencing several articles of the Constitution that govern financial management and withdrawals from public funds.

She emphasized that any authorization under Article 177 is not a blank cheque, and Article 178 explicitly prohibits withdrawals from public funds unless authorized by Parliament. “If the GH¢350 million was drawn from any account other than the Contingency Fund, then the approval Parliament granted was never executed, the withdrawal that was executed was never approved, and the Constitution and the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), which criminalizes unauthorized withdrawals of public funds, have been violated in broad daylight,” she declared, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations.

Additionally, she accused the Attorney-General of neglecting his duty to defend the state in court and misleading the central bank, stating, “As principal legal adviser, when the moment came to counsel lawfulness, he counselled the opposite and was rebuffed by the very central bank he sought to direct.”

The Minority has demanded answers regarding the court overseeing the garnishee proceedings, the nature of the judgment debt involved, when the Republic was served, and whether the Finance Committee was informed on June 29, 2026. They also seek clarification on which account the GH¢350 million was withdrawn from, who provided the instructions for this withdrawal, and under what legal authorization it was executed.

Mrs. Appiagyei called for the Finance Minister to account to Parliament, emphasizing that if the funds were indeed released from another account, fresh approval from Parliament should have been sought. “Was Parliament misled? Were Ghanaians misled? These are questions that only a full parliamentary inquiry can answer,” she stated, warning of the potential for corruption. “When GH¢350 million of public money moves out of an account Parliament never approved, under cover of an official statement naming a different source, the conditions for corruption are perfect,” she cautioned.

In light of the devastating floods that resulted in the loss of 34 lives and displaced 90,000 individuals across seven regions, Mrs. Appiagyei reiterated the Minority's support for the release of emergency funds but insisted that such actions must be conducted transparently and in accordance with the law. “This is chaos. A government cannot preach fiscal discipline while its Attorney-General treats court processes as inconveniences,” she concluded, encapsulating the urgency and seriousness of the situation at hand.

Sompaonline.com/Bismarck Oppong