On January 14, 2026, Auditor-General Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu disclosed that his office has officially disallowed and surcharged 35 contractors and individuals. This action follows a landmark special audit and validation review that flagged substantial payments made for work that, in many cases, existed only on paper.
The disclosure, made in an interview with the Daily Graphic, follows months of nationwide site inspections and an exhaustive review of payment records. What the audit uncovered was a clear trend of “payment without performance; contractors received the standard 10 percent of their contract sums as mobilization, intended to kickstart preparatory works, but failed to deliver results commensurate with the funds.
The financial scale of the recovery is significant. The affected parties have been directed to refund a total of US$7.9 million. This includes US$5.96 million owed by 24 contractors whose projects are still technically active, but whose progress on the ground was found to be grossly disproportionate to the funds received.
Where contractors fail to justify the payments within the stipulated time, the sums automatically become debts due and owing to the state.
Beyond the Audit Observations: The Legal Teeth of Disallowance and Surcharge
The power to disallow and surcharge is anchored in Article 187(7)(b) of the 1992 Constitution. Under this provision, the Auditor-General may disallow any expenditure that is contrary to law and to surcharge any sum that has not been properly brought into account, including losses arising from negligence or misconduct.
In simple terms, disallowance is a formal declaration that a particular payment should not have been made or cannot be justified under the law. Surcharge goes further by placing personal financial responsibility on the person who authorised, received, or failed to properly account for the public funds.
The legal weight of this power was cemented by the Supreme Court in the case of Occupy Ghana v. Attorney-General. The Court settled any lingering doubts, ruling that the Auditor-General’s power to disallow and surcharge is mandatory once an illegality or loss is established. It is not a matter of administrative grace or discretion; it is a constitutional command.
Appeal Window: Challenging the Surcharge
The law allows persons affected by disallowance and surcharge to challenge it in Court. Under the applicable Rules of Court and as publicly stated by the Auditor-General, an appeal must be filed at the High Court within 14 days of the surcharge or disallowance.
The High Court has the power to require an appellant to pay security into court before the appeal is heard. Grounds of appeal that are vague, general, or fail to disclose a reasonable legal basis may be struck out. This framework is intended to ensure that appeals test the legality of the Auditor-General’s action rather than serve as a means of delaying recovery.
Recovering the Money
Where no successful appeal is pursued, the surcharge takes on legal force as a debt owed to the state. Section 17 of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584) requires the amount specified by the Auditor-General to be paid within 60 days.
If payment is still not made, the matter moves from the audit space into the courts. The law allows the state to begin civil proceedings to recover the money, treating it like any other civil debt. In such cases, a certificate signed by the Auditor-General is enough evidence to prove the debt, unless successfully challenged. Also, where the person surcharged is paid by the government or a public institution, that income may be attached to recover the amount due.
The Broader Lesson: A Chain of Potential Liabilities
While disallowance and surcharge are potent tools for accountability, they do not represent the limit of the state’s legal reach. If audit findings point toward fraud or the deliberate loss of public funds, the state remains free to pursue separate civil or criminal actions. Beyond the significant sums at stake, the Agenda 111 audit exposes a broader accountability issue in public procurement. Mobilisation payments are lawful, but they are conditional. They are tied to demonstrable preparatory work and genuine commencement on-site
The true test of this constitutional exercise lies in whether these legal procedures lead to the actual recovery of funds into the national vault. The public will be watching closely to see if the mandatory timelines for appeals and refunds are rigorously enforced or if the process stalls within the complexities of the judicial system.
There is a deep-seated interest in knowing whether this marks a genuine shift toward fiscal discipline or if it will be remembered as another round of institutional procedure without a final resolution.
