Ghana’s public payroll, long beleaguered by ghost names, overlapping reviews, political interference, and inconsistent leadership, may soon see a decisive effort to stem chronic leakages.
Persistent challenges dating back over two decades have strained public finances despite the introduction of biometric systems and digital reforms.
A recent communique from the Office of the Auditor-General on March 29, 2025, announced a nationwide audit of all public institutions, a move that has sparked heated debate in Parliament.
Some lawmakers accuse the audit of serving as a political tool aimed at dislodging employees associated with the previous administration. In contrast, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo has insisted that the exercise is both professionally and legally justified.
During an interview with The High Street Journal, Mr. Domelevo dismissed claims of partisan bias. Citing Section 16 of the Audit Service Act, he explained that the Auditor-General is empowered to conduct special audits when risk and public interest so dictate. He compared the process to a police investigation, emphasizing that successive reviews serve as essential checks rather than politically motivated reprisals. Domelevo pointed to a long history of payroll irregularities.
Early reports as far back as 2005 flagged ghost names in key sectors such as education and health. Subsequent initiatives, including the Human Resource Management Information System introduced in 2009 and biometric registration in 2010, have achieved partial success; in 2012, over 26,000 ghost names were removed. Yet, audits conducted during his tenure from 2017 to 2020 repeatedly revealed systemic issues, with the problem intensifying around political transitions.
The current audit, now the subject of intense parliamentary debate, requires heads of institutions to ensure full cooperation in verifying staff numbers.
While critics like Member of Parliament Vincent Ekow Assefuah argue that the exercise duplicates existing review mechanisms and risks unfair terminations of public servants, Domelevo maintains that the audit is a necessary, risk-driven measure designed to protect the public purse.
He noted that every political shift has historically coincided with an increase in payroll irregularities and warned that without a thorough review, ghost names could continue to siphon millions of cedis from essential services.
This decisive move underscores the challenge of balancing administrative reform with political sensitivities. Critics view the audit as politically charged, yet its legal grounding and risk-based rationale offer a counterpoint to such interpretations.
As Ghana continues its efforts to improve fiscal oversight, the audit may serve as a critical step in restoring confidence in public financial management.
By framing the exercise as a professional obligation rather than a witch-hunt, Domelevo’s stance invites a broader reflection on the recurring payroll issues and the need for sustained, independent scrutiny to ensure that public funds are used for their intended purposes.
