A Corruption Watch investigation has revealed that Ghana’s key governance and public service institutions have been fined approximately GH₵5.6 million for violating the Right to Information (RTI) law by refusing or failing to provide information to citizens.
The investigation, which covered February to July 2025, shows that as of July 16, the RTI Commission (RTIC) had issued 76 penalty determinations against 64 institutions. Out of this, 23 institutions have paid about GH₵3.5 million in fines, while 36 others still owe GH₵2.1 million, excluding accrued interest and cases under litigation.
According to the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Genevieve Shirley Lartey, the fines are not a replacement for compliance. “…a fine is never a substitute for information being requested…Once you are compelled to pay the administrative penalty, it does not automatically erase the fact that you have to provide the information…”
Top Fines and Offenders
The Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) incurred the single largest penalty of GHS1.365 million, though it is contesting the amount in court. Other heavy fines were paid by the Ghana Police Service (GH₵450,357), Ministry of Education (GH₵260,000), Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT, GH₵200,000), and the Lands Commission (GH₵150,000).
Institutions yet to settle their fines include the Judicial Service (GH₵100,000), Attorney-General’s Department (GH₵50,000), the Public Procurement Authority (GH₵100,000), and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ, GH₵30,000).
In terms of repeat offenders, the Ministry of Education leads with four penalties, followed by the Police Service with three. Ten other institutions, including the Lands Commission, Ghana Education Service, and Ministry of Energy, have each been fined twice.
Taxpayer Burden
The investigation also highlighted that public institutions are paying penalties using taxpayer funds, sparking criticism about accountability. Legal analyst Zakaria Tanko Musah warned that the current arrangement shields culpable officials from responsibility. “…if you fine an institution, that money is not going to come from the person who willfully refused to provide you with the information…they don’t suffer any damage,” he said.
Frederick Lokko of the Ghana Audit Service, which paid a GH₵60,000 fine, suggested that sanctions should directly target institutional heads. “…there would be prescribed sanctions, administrative sanctions, that probably can be brought to bear on either the spending officer or head of institution, or head of finance…”
Wider Implications
The penalties expose weaknesses in compliance with the RTI law, which came into force in 2020 to enhance transparency, accountability, and citizen participation in governance. Corruption Watch’s analysis of RTIC annual reports found that approval rates for RTI requests fell sharply from 85.4 % in 2022 to 70 % in 2023, while rejection rates more than tripled. Oversight bodies such as CHRAJ and Parliament have themselves been penalized for non-compliance
Meanwhile, some institutions, including GCB Bank and Scancom Ghana (MTN), are in court contesting their fines, while others, such as the State Housing Company and municipal assemblies, have negotiated installment payments.
The RTI Commission has defended its enforcement approach, saying fines also serve as internally generated funds for the Commission. However, advocacy groups like the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative argue that a lack of a legislative instrument (LI) leaves the process opaque.
RTI Reform Agenda
Ms. Lartey said the Commission is expanding its presence to five additional regions in 2025 to improve compliance and awareness, while a pending LI is expected to strengthen enforcement.
Civil society leaders insist reforms must include personal accountability measures. Lawyer Tanko Musah suggested introducing surcharges against negligent officials.
More than five years after its implementation, the RTI Act remains a crucial transparency tool. Yet the scale of fines, unpaid penalties, and reliance on public funds to settle them underscore persistent gaps between the law’s intent and institutional compliance.
