President John Dramani Mahama’s office has refused to respond to a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking details about Article 71 emoluments paid to former government officials during the second term of the Akufo Addo administration, raising fresh questions about transparency in public expenditure.
The application, submitted on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, asked straightforward questions: Has the former president received his determined emoluments for January 2021 to January 2025? What about the former vice president, Council of State members, ministers, deputy ministers, and other Article 71 office holders? When were these payments made, or when are they expected?
Under section 23(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2019, (Act 989), public institutions are required to determine such applications and communicate their decisions within 14 days after receiving the request. As of Thursday, October 30, 2025, the presidency has gone 22 days without a response, effectively ignoring both the law and the applicant.
After the initial 14 days expired, the applicant followed up on Friday, October 24, 2025, with an application for internal review of the refusal under section 32 of the RTI Act. That’s now been sitting at the presidency for nearly a week without acknowledgment.
In his internal review application, the applicant laid out four grounds why the presidency ought to act. First, the Office of the President failed to comply with its statutory obligation under section 23(1) to determine and communicate a decision within fourteen days of receipt. Second, the deemed refusal contravenes the right to information guaranteed under Article 21(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution.
Third, the requested information concerns public expenditure and the implementation of constitutional emoluments under Article 71, which are matters of clear public interest and not subject to exemption under Act 989. Fourth, the failure to provide the information undermines the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility that govern the exercise of executive authority.
The applicant is seeking three reliefs: that the presidency reverse the deemed refusal and issue a decision in accordance with section 33 of Act 989; that the office respond to the specific questions about whether former officials received their determined emoluments, including dates of payment or expected timelines; and that any related correspondence, releases, or approvals from the Controller and Accountant General’s Department regarding implementation of these payments be provided.
The applicant reminded the President that under section 33 of the RTI Act 989, the Office of the President is required to determine this internal review as soon as is reasonably practicable, but in any event within fifteen days of receipt. If no decision is communicated within this statutory period, the applicant stated he shall exercise his right under section 65 of Act 989 to apply to the Right to Information Commission for redress, without further recourse to the Office of the President.
The internal review application concluded with this pointed reminder: “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.”
Meanwhile, Parliament responded to a similar request within seven days. In a response signed by Camillo Pwamang, Deputy Clerk, LMS, on October 14, 2025, Parliament confirmed that it transmitted the formal determination of Article 71 emoluments made at its 399th sitting on January 6, 2025 to the President on the same date.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Parliament stated that it has not received confirmation from either the Ministry of Finance or the Controller and Accountant General’s Department regarding the implementation of the Article 71 Emolument determined by Parliament for the period January 2021 to January 2025. However, Parliament noted it has received releases from the CAGD reflecting the emoluments determined by the President for the same period.
This effectively confirms that the Speaker and MPs have been fully paid, whilst the former President, the Council of State, and others have not received their determined emoluments. That’s a significant revelation, particularly given the timing and the ongoing public debate about Article 71 payments.
The Finance Ministry has also refused to provide the information requested by the applicant, mirroring the presidency’s silence on matters of clear public interest.
During his campaign, President Mahama promised that the payment of ex gratia to members of the executive under Article 71 would be scrapped, with constitutional steps to abolish that payment starting in earnest in 2025. He’s now in the tenth month of his governance, and there has been no official communication on how this promise will be attained.
Under Article 71, public officers in these categories are paid their salaries in arrears, based on prior approvals from a similar committee, with their salaries pegged at previously approved rates and finalized at the end of their tenure, with any balance paid accordingly. Additionally, these officeholders receive ex gratia payments at the conclusion of their service, determined by a specific formula.
The refusal by both the presidency and Finance Ministry to respond to legitimate RTI requests raises uncomfortable questions about commitment to transparency, especially when it concerns how taxpayer money is being spent on benefits for former government officials. The RTI Commission has previously imposed administrative penalties amounting to GH¢1,000,000 on 23 public institutions that failed to comply with the RTI Act during the 2023 reporting year.
Whether the presidency will face similar penalties for this refusal remains to be seen. What’s clear is that the silence speaks volumes about how some public institutions view their obligations under the RTI law, even when those institutions are led by a president who campaigned on transparency and accountability.
The applicant now has the option to escalate the matter to the Right to Information Commission, which has become the default recourse for citizens seeking information that public institutions are legally obligated to provide.
