A petition has been filed with the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) seeking an investigation into President John Dramani Mahama over alleged conflict of interest and abuse of office in connection with the reported takeover of the Damang Mine involving businessman Ibrahim Mahama.
The petition, filed on Wednesday, 20 May 2026 by Emmanuel Senyo Amekplenu, a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) communications team, relies on articles 218(a) and 284 of the 1992 Constitution as well as the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456). It seeks an inquiry into the approval process surrounding the reported transaction, including Cabinet-level considerations and known links to the President’s brother.
Among others, the petitioner questions whether appropriate declarations of interest were made, whether recusal protocols were observed, and whether the broader circumstances surrounding the transaction and related logistical arrangements raise issues under constitutional ethics provisions.
The petition also references reports that a private aircraft linked to Mr. Ibrahim Mahama has been used for official presidential travel, as well as claims that it was involved in facilitating medical evacuation arrangements for the Vice President. These claims are presented as part of a broader concern about potential overlap between private resources and public functions.
In his prayers, the petitioner is seeking CHRAJ to:
a. commence a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the approval and takeover process of the Damang Mine;
b. obtain and review relevant Cabinet memoranda, minutes, declarations of interest, recusal records, and related correspondence;
c. investigate whether any public officials used their positions to secure preferential treatment, advantage, or regulatory benefit for Mr. Ibrahim Mahama or related interests;
d. examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged use of a private jet linked to Mr. Ibrahim Mahama for presidential and official travel, including whether any reciprocal arrangements or public benefits are involved;
e. determine whether there was a violation of constitutional or ethical standards
f. recommend appropriate sanctions or remedial measures where violations are found.
Cabinet, Executive Decision-Making and Constitutional Structure
Under article 76 of the 1992 Constitution, Cabinet is made up of the President, Vice-President and not fewer than ten and not more than nineteen Ministers of State. It serves as the highest body for assisting the President in determining government policy.
The Constitution further provides that Cabinet should be summoned by the President, who ordinarily presides over its meetings, with the Vice-President presiding in the President’s absence. In practical terms, Cabinet functions as a collective decision-making body, but one anchored in the executive leadership of the President.
Government Response: Recusal in the Cabinet Process
On Monday, 18 May, 2026, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Government Spokesperson rejected suggestions of improper influence or state capture in the Damang Mine matter.
He stated that when the issue was brought before Cabinet by the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, the President did not participate in the meeting and recused himself due to the involvement of his brother. According to him, the process followed constitutional and ethical standards governing executive conduct.
These explanations naturally bring into focus a well-established principle of administrative and constitutional law on impartial decision-making and the avoidance of bias in public office.
The Principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua in Public Decision-Making
At the centre of this discussion is the principle of natural justice expressed in the Latin maxim nemo judex in causa sua, meaning that no one should be a judge in their own cause.
The principle operates on two closely related levels. First, where a decision-maker has a direct personal, financial, or proprietary interest in a matter, disqualification is automatic. Second, where circumstances create a reasonable perception of bias, even without direct interest, participation may still be improper if impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
As stated by Lord Hewart CJ in Ex parte McCarthy (1923), more than a century ago, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The underlying idea is that even the appearance of improper influence can undermine trust in institutions.
However, the courts have also stressed that mere suspicion is not enough. In Ex parte Barimah it was held that a real likelihood of bias must be shown; and that speculation alone is insufficient.
Recusal is generally used in administrative practice as a safeguard to address potential conflicts and preserve confidence in decision-making processes.
