Sophia Akuffo Defends Ex Gratia for Council of State Members, Calls It a Matter of Policy

Former Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo has clarified that the payment of ex gratia to members of the Council of State is a matter of policy, determined by recommendations from a committee established under Article 71 of the Constitution.

Akuffo, who served on the ninth Council of State, explained that members of the Council fall under the category of Article 71 officeholders, making them eligible for post-service emoluments as recommended by the committee set up by the President.

Her comments come in response to public criticism that Council of State members should not receive ex gratia, with some arguing that the Council has outlived its usefulness. Speaking on Hot Issues on TV3 on Sunday, February 23, 2025, Akuffo emphasized that the payment of ex gratia is not arbitrary but rooted in established policy. “This matter of ex gratia is one of policy, and I have not actually delved into the rationale of the current policy,” she stated.

Akuffo further explained that the practice of awarding ex gratia to Article 71 officeholders, including Council of State members, is based on recommendations from the emoluments committee. “Sometimes we just get into certain practices and we just do it. Because the Council of State also comes under the Article 71 officeholders, that group of people, it’s really the recommendations which get made by the committee that the President sets up under the Article. That is what has generated all of these,” she said.

Reflecting on her own experience as a judge, Akuffo revealed that she had no expectation of receiving ex gratia after her service. She only became aware of the benefit when it was recommended by the committee. “For example, throughout the time I was actively on the bench for 24 years, no one was expecting ex gratia, anything. All you know was at the end of your service, there was a certain recommendation that had been made,” she shared.

Akuffo’s remarks highlight the structured nature of ex gratia payments, which are tied to constitutional provisions and committee recommendations rather than individual entitlement. However, her comments are unlikely to quell the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of such payments, particularly in light of public concerns about the relevance and effectiveness of the Council of State.

Critics argue that the Council, which advises the President on national issues, has become less impactful over time, raising questions about whether its members should continue to receive post-service benefits. Proponents, however, maintain that the payments are justified under the constitutional framework governing Article 71 officeholders.

As the discussion continues, Akuffo’s insights provide a legal and policy-based perspective on the issue, shedding light on the mechanisms behind ex gratia payments and the rationale for their application to Council of State members. Whether this will satisfy public skepticism remains to be seen, but the debate underscores the broader conversation about governance, accountability, and the use of public resources in Ghana.