Former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelevo has characterized the ritual of summoning public officials before Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee as an exercise in futility that fails to deliver meaningful accountability. His assessment, delivered during a TV3 Key Points interview on Saturday, November 1, 2025, reflects growing frustration with Ghana’s inability to translate audit findings into concrete consequences.
According to Domelevo, what needs to happen is for the Auditor-General to exercise constitutional powers to surcharge public servants who supervise financial irregularities rather than relying on PAC hearings that generate publicity but produce few recoveries. The comments expose a fundamental weakness in Ghana’s oversight system, where dramatic parliamentary proceedings substitute for actual enforcement.
The former Auditor-General’s criticism carries particular weight because he actually used surcharge powers during his tenure from 2016 to 2021, recovering approximately GH¢66 million before being forced out of office. His successor, Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, has not applied surcharges despite presiding over audit reports showing billions in irregularities, including GH¢12 billion in 2020 and GH¢17 billion in 2021 that couldn’t be accounted for.
Domelevo also lamented insufficient deterrence measures for those who abuse public funds. He explained that the lack of strict consequences has emboldened persons engaged in stealing state funds or financial malfeasance in state enterprises. The pattern repeats itself annually: audits reveal massive irregularities, officials appear before PAC for televised questioning, promises of action follow, then nothing substantive happens.
The Internal Audit Agency Act 2003 also came under fire. Domelevo called for amendments that would empower internal auditors to act independently from the control of their institutional heads. He noted that internal audit is the control over all the controls, yet auditors often face abuse, silencing through threats, transfers, or worse, invitations to participate in corrupt schemes when they try to fulfill their mandate.
Perhaps most controversially, Domelevo has proposed a “reverse burden” approach in trials of financial crime cases. Speaking on the same TV3 program, he explained that the legal requirement for prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in financial crimes creates an impossible standard. These acts aren’t done openly or by people who are unsophisticated; they’re executed by very intellectual people with power and influence who can even sway investigators and prosecutors.
Under the reverse burden concept, once prosecutors establish that an accused person possesses unexplained wealth or assets, the burden shifts to that individual to prove the legitimate source. Domelevo suggested expanding the existing principle under Article 286 of the Constitution, which requires public officers to explain unexplained wealth revealed in asset declarations, to apply broadly to all corruption cases.
The former Auditor-General also called for strict time limits on corruption trials, suggesting six months to one year maximum. He warned that without such reforms, public trust in the justice system will continue eroding. The current framework allows corruption cases to drag on until governments change, creating opportunities for offenders to evade punishment through what he termed “nolle prosequi,” the discontinuation of prosecutions.
Domelevo’s frustration reflects a career spent battling institutional resistance to accountability. During his tenure, he introduced three novel initiatives: surcharge, disallowance, and an electronic payment system. These mechanisms brought in GH¢4.6 million to government, and likely would have recovered far more if continued. But his fearlessness in speaking truth to power made him enemies.
The Kroll and Associates saga exemplifies the obstacles he faced. When Domelevo surcharged the company for being paid US$1 million for no work done, then Senior Minister Yaw Osafo-Marhad the matter sent to court. After Domelevo’s removal, his successor’s report on the same issue concluded nothing was wrong, effectively nullifying the surcharge despite constitutional provisions requiring such action.
A 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Occupy Ghana versus Attorney General explicitly held that surcharges must be applied for financial misappropriations to uphold the 1992 Constitution. Yet between 2019 and 2023, Ghana lost nearly GH¢10 billion through financial irregularities without a single surcharge being applied. The constitutional mandate exists but remains unenforced.
The contrast between Domelevo’s approach and his successor’s reveals how much depends on individual commitment rather than systemic enforcement. Domelevo was forced into retirement at age 60, with questions raised about his birthdate and even his nationality in what many viewed as a political campaign to remove him. His successor, meanwhile, received a two-year contract extension beyond age 60, demonstrating the selective application of retirement rules.
The PAC process itself has become something of a performance. Public officials appear, face questioning that’s sometimes heated but often theatrical, provide explanations that range from implausible to absurd, and then return to their jobs. The media covers the proceedings extensively, giving the impression of accountability in action. But without follow-through in the form of surcharges, prosecutions, or actual recoveries, it’s accountability theater rather than genuine enforcement.
Domelevo pointed out that even successful court rulings don’t guarantee recovery. He cited the Alfred Agbesi Woyome case, where the Supreme Court ordered repayment but collection proved enormously difficult. Winning the case is one thing; recovering the money is a different ball game altogether. That reality makes preventing theft in the first place through deterrence far more important than pursuing recovery after the fact.
The proposal for reverse burden represents a significant departure from traditional legal principles. Ghana’s legal system, like most common law jurisdictions, presumes innocence and places the burden of proof on prosecutors. Domelevo’s suggestion would maintain that standard for establishing possession of assets but shift the burden to the accused to explain their legitimate origin once possession is proven.
Critics might argue this violates due process protections. But Domelevo contends that financial crimes differ fundamentally from other offenses. In a murder case, witnesses might see the crime or the perpetrator might confess. In corruption cases involving sophisticated actors exploiting their positions, proving the source of funds beyond reasonable doubt becomes nearly impossible without reversing the burden.
The Internal Audit Agency Act amendments he proposes address a structural problem where auditors report to the very officials whose activities they’re supposed to monitor. That creates obvious conflicts of interest and leaves auditors vulnerable to retaliation or co-option. Independent reporting lines would strengthen their capacity to function as genuine checks on institutional behavior.
What emerges from Domelevo’s various proposals is a comprehensive critique of Ghana’s accountability ecosystem. The system generates impressive documentation of wrongdoing through audit reports, provides opportunities for public questioning through PAC hearings, and maintains legal frameworks for prosecution. But it fails at the crucial final step: applying actual consequences that change behavior.
The political dimension cannot be ignored. Domelevo alleged in an October 25, 2025 interview that some officials use wealth and influence to “procure judges” who delay cases through endless adjournments until their political parties return to power, at which point cases get dismissed. If true, that represents corruption of the judicial process itself, rendering all earlier accountability mechanisms meaningless.
His call for judicial reforms reflects recognition that multiple systems must function properly for accountability to work. Strong audit capacity means nothing if internal auditors face intimidation. Robust PAC hearings accomplish little if surcharges aren’t applied. Vigorous prosecutions fail if courts delay until political cycles favor the accused. Each link in the chain must hold.
The former Auditor-General stressed that President Mahama could eliminate corruption by strengthening Article 286(4) of the Constitution and ensuring provisions on reverse burden and unexplained wealth are actively enforced. But enforcement requires political will, which often proves scarce when those who would be held accountable have political connections or represent important constituencies.
Domelevo warned that corruption cases are likely to worsen in the next five years if existing laws aren’t enforced. Fast-tracking corruption cases to a maximum of three months, he argued, could serve as a strong deterrent to other public officials. Speed and fairness in the justice system are essential; prolonged legal processes embolden wrongdoers and weaken public trust.
The underlying question is whether Ghana genuinely wants accountability or merely wants to appear to want it. PAC hearings provide excellent optics, dramatic moments that fill news cycles and allow politicians to position themselves as corruption fighters. But Domelevo’s assessment suggests those hearings have become substitutes for rather than preludes to real action.
His tenure demonstrated that aggressive use of constitutional powers can produce results. The GH¢66 million recovered through surcharges represents actual money returned to state coffers rather than just promises of future action. A World Bank report in 2020 featured Ghana Audit Service under Domelevo as a good example of an anti-corruption agent, noting his firm and untiring anti-corruption stance led the office to undertake activities beyond its usual scope.
Yet that success made him politically vulnerable. When an Auditor-General actually uses powers to impose consequences on well-connected officials, pushback intensifies. Domelevo’s removal suggests that while Ghana’s constitution grants significant authority to the Auditor-General, actually exercising that authority carries career risks that his successor has chosen not to take.
The reverse burden proposal, time limits on trials, internal auditor independence, and aggressive use of surcharge powers together form a package of reforms that would fundamentally alter Ghana’s accountability landscape. But each reform threatens interests that benefit from the current system’s ineffectiveness. That political economy challenge explains why theatrical PAC hearings persist while substantive reforms remain elusive.
For now, Domelevo’s characterization of PAC appearances as a waste of time stands as an indictment from someone who understands the system intimately. Until Parliament and the executive branch demonstrate willingness to follow through with consequences, the annual ritual of audits, hearings, and empty promises will continue producing the same disappointing results.
