A Ghanaian lawyer has filed a lawsuit in the High Court in Accra challenging the appointment of two Members of Parliament to the governing board of the Ghana Revenue Authority, citing conflicts of interest and breaches of corporate governance principles.
The plaintiff, Tassah Tapha Tassah, alleges that Hon. Laadi Ayamba and Hon. Francis-Xavier Sosu, both elected MPs for Pusiga and Madina respectively, were improperly appointed to the GRA governing board as representatives of the private sector. The lawsuit contends that such appointments violate Section 4(1)f of the Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791), which stipulates that four private sector members, two of whom must be women, should be appointed to the board.
The writ of summons states that appointing elected Members of Parliament as private sector representatives undermines parliamentary oversight and creates serious conflicts of interest. The plaintiff argues that MPs on the board could later exercise parliamentary oversight over the same institution, compromising transparency and accountability.
The lawsuit seeks a court declaration ordering the President of Ghana to remove the two MPs from the board and replace them with proper private sector representatives, in line with the provisions of Act 791. The case was filed at the High Court on December 17, 2025.
The other defendants named in the suit include the Commissioner of the GRA, the Attorney General, and the President of Ghana. The legal action represents one of the first challenges to board appointments under the new administration, which took office in January 2025.
The plaintiff asserts that parliamentary oversight is a cornerstone of democratic governance, designed to scrutinize executive actions, government policies and public finances. Allowing MPs to serve simultaneously on the board of an institution they oversee, he contends, breaches international corporate governance best practices.
Tassah argues that the appointments create a situation where the same individuals could be responsible for both managing the GRA through board decisions and holding the institution accountable through parliamentary committees. This dual role, according to the suit, fundamentally undermines the separation of powers and checks and balances essential to democratic governance.
The Ghana Revenue Authority Act specifically requires that four private sector representatives sit on the board, with gender balance ensuring at least two women among these appointees. The plaintiff’s interpretation suggests that MPs, as public officials drawing state salaries and exercising legislative functions, cannot legitimately be considered private sector representatives.
Both Hon. Laadi Ayamba and Hon. Francis-Xavier Sosu are prominent members of the governing National Democratic Congress and have served in Parliament through multiple terms. Ayamba represents the Pusiga constituency in the Upper East Region, while Sosu represents Madina in the Greater Accra Region.
Sosu, a human rights lawyer by profession, has been particularly vocal on governance and constitutional matters during his time in Parliament. His appointment to the GRA board alongside his legislative responsibilities has attracted scrutiny from legal and civil society observers who question the compatibility of the two roles.
The GRA board oversees one of Ghana’s most critical institutions, responsible for tax collection, customs administration and revenue mobilization. Board members exercise significant influence over policy decisions affecting the country’s fiscal operations and economic management.
Parliament’s oversight responsibilities include scrutinizing GRA operations, examining revenue performance, investigating tax administration issues and approving budgets. The Finance Committee and Public Accounts Committee regularly summon GRA officials to answer questions about the authority’s performance and use of public resources.
Legal experts have expressed mixed views on the case. Some argue that the law’s reference to private sector representatives clearly excludes public officials like MPs, while others contend that MPs can legitimately represent various constituencies on boards as long as they manage conflicts appropriately through recusal mechanisms.
Corporate governance principles generally recommend avoiding situations where individuals occupy positions that create competing loyalties or where self-dealing and conflicts of interest could arise. International best practices typically separate oversight functions from management or governance roles within the same organization.
The lawsuit raises broader questions about the boundaries between executive appointments and legislative independence in Ghana’s constitutional framework. Previous administrations have also appointed MPs to various boards and commissions, though such appointments have periodically attracted criticism from governance advocates.
Neither the Office of the President nor the two MPs named in the suit have issued public statements responding to the legal challenge. The Attorney General’s office, which will represent the government defendants, has not commented on the case.
The High Court will need to interpret whether Act 791’s requirement for private sector board members excludes sitting MPs or whether legislators can legitimately be appointed in that capacity. The court’s decision could have implications for numerous other board appointments across state institutions.
Civil society organizations focusing on governance and transparency have been monitoring the case with interest. Some advocacy groups have previously called for clearer guidelines on MP participation in executive boards to prevent conflicts and ensure effective oversight.
The case is expected to proceed through standard court procedures, including filing of defenses by the defendants and potentially witness testimony before a final judgment. No hearing date has been publicly announced.
