Archives

Former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has dismissed allegations of an extravagant lifestyle during his tenure made by South Dayi MP, Rockson Nelson Dafeamekpor.

In a letter demanding a retraction and apology, Dame described the claims as utterly false and a fabrication of facts. The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, was copied in the letter to draw attention to what Dame termed as “dishonourable conduct” by Dafeamekpor outside the parliamentary chamber.

The former minister noted that the allegations were made by the Majority Chief Whip on Accra-based TV3’s The Key Points programme on Saturday, February 22, 2025.

Dafeamekpor had accused Dame of moving with a heavy military escort and living beyond modest means. However, Dame has dismissed these claims as baseless and damaging to his reputation.

“In utter disregard for the truth, my reputation, and rights, you published the following words… The allegations by you are clearly a product of your fertile imagination and highlight your skill at fabricating facts, a tendency most unworthy of a leader of the Majority in Parliament,” he stated.

Dame further clarified his security arrangements during his eight years of public service, stating that he never had more than one bodyguard.

At no point in time in my eight-year public service, between 2017 and 2025, did I have more than one bodyguard. At no point in time did I have a Land Cruiser or any other brand of vehicle following me with bodyguards. I never had a military convoy,” he said.

He emphasized that his security detail remained minimal even after assuming the substantive role of Attorney-General, maintaining the same single bodyguard.

“As a Deputy Attorney-General, I was assigned one bodyguard following an assessment of the security risks around me. Following my appointment as the substantive Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on March 5, 2021, I continued with the same one bodyguard to the end of my tenure,” he revealed.

The Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Mensa, has clarified that it is not the commission’s policy for its members, including the chairperson and deputies, to attend swearing-in ceremonies unless they receive an official invitation.

Speaking at an Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) meeting on Wednesday, February 26, to review the 2024 general elections, Jean Mensa revealed that the commission did not receive an invitation to attend the swearing-in of President John Dramani Mahama or any ministerial inaugurations.

Her remarks come in response to questions about her absence at President Mahama’s swearing-in ceremony.

Mahama was officially sworn in on January 7, 2025, at Black Star Square in Accra, marking the start of his second term after securing victory in the 2024 general elections. The ceremony was attended by dignitaries, political leaders, and citizens who gathered to witness the event.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo administered the oath of office, reaffirming Mahama’s commitment to serving Ghana and upholding the Constitution.

Addressing the matter, Jean Mensa stated: “I was here in the country, but per policy, the commission members, chairperson, and deputies don’t attend swearing-ins. Indeed, it is also by invitation, and we have never received an invitation to the swearing-in.

“I know that dignitaries and special guests are invited. But it has always been a matter of policy that we do not attend swearing-in ceremonies. At least for the duration that we have been in office, we have never attended any swearing-in ceremony,” she explained.

Presidential Advisor for the 24-hour economy, Goosie Obuadum Tanoh, has defended the government’s decision to revoke all public sector appointments and recruitments made after the December 7 elections.

He emphasized the need for responsible hiring decisions, insisting such measures are necessary to prevent the collapse of institutions already burdened by an unsustainable wage bill.

His remarks follow a directive from Chief of Staff Julius Debrah on February 11, 2025, ordering the revocation of public service appointments and recruitments made after December 7.

Minister of State for Government Communication, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, justified government’s decision and accused the previous Akufo-Addo-Bawumia administration of bypassing due process in making last-minute public service appointments.

Speaking on the sidelines of a symposium organized by the Africa Center for Governance and Economic Management (ACGEM) on February 26, 2025, in Accra, Tanoh explained that the measure is necessary to prevent institutions from collapsing, as no budgetary provisions were made for these recruitments.

“As a responsible government that wants to see change, it is important to balance costs with revenues. We cannot hire people reck and leave institutions to suffer. Some of these actions are necessary to save those institutions from collapsing because the wage bill is high. Unfortunately, nobody wants to see a fellow Ghanaian out of work, but the reality is that many of these appointments were made without considering the employment budget, hiring plan, or HR budget,” he stated.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review application challenging its earlier judgment on the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill.

This decision came after the applicant, Richard Dela Sky, withdrew his application through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, during the session on Wednesday, February 26, 2025.

The nine-member review panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, officially struck out the case following the withdrawal. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with Sky’s absence from the proceedings.

Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adisu requested the court to impose costs on the applicant. Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu questioned the fairness of convening nine Justices only for the application to be withdrawn, while Justice Samuel Adibu-Asiedu suggested that, as a lawyer, Sky should have been present in court.

Conversely, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu opposed awarding costs, noting the public interest nature of the case. Ultimately, the panel struck out the case as withdrawn, with the presiding judge voicing strong disapproval of the applicant’s absence.

This development follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous dismissal of Sky’s initial petition on December 18, 2024, which challenged the constitutionality of the legislative process concerning the anti-gay bill.

The court upheld the bill’s constitutionality, leading to Sky’s subsequent review application.

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill seeks to criminalize activities related to the promotion and advocacy of LGBTQI+ rights in Ghana. If enacted, the law would impose penalties on individuals who fund or support LGBTQI+ initiatives, as well as those who offer indirect assistance to such efforts.

The bill has been a focal point of national debate, with proponents arguing it reflects cultural and moral values, while opponents contend it infringes on human rights and could lead to discrimination and persecution of LGBTQI+ individuals.

On February 28, 2024, Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a bipartisan private member’s bill.

Background

A seven-member panel, led by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, on December 18, unanimously dismissed a petition filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, who had challenged the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

Sky sought a declaration that the bill, which has sparked intense national debate, was null and void. However, the court rejected his petition and upheld the constitutionality of the legislative process for the proposed anti-LGBTQI legislation.

The legal challenge also included a separate petition from equality advocate Amanda Odoi. Both Odoi and Sky argued that Parliament had failed to meet the constitutional quorum requirements outlined in Articles 102 and 104 during the legislative process, rendering the bill’s passage unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the bill had not yet become law. Justice Lovelace Johnson explained that until a bill receives presidential assent, it does not constitute an enactment subject to judicial review for constitutionality.

The decision reinforces the court’s position that legislative processes cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds until they result in enforceable law.