The practice of paying ex-gratia to Article 71 officeholders in Ghana has sparked intense debate and controversy.

While proponents argue that it is a well-deserved reward for their service, opponents believe it is a drain on the country’s resources and perpetuates inequality.

Despite the justifications presented, the practice of making ex-gratia payments to Article 71 officeholders should be discontinued for numerous compelling reasons.

The financial burden of these payments is significant as the amount allocated to ex-gratia payments could be better utilized for developmental projects and social programs that benefit the wider population.

In a country where resources are scarce, it is unjustifiable to prioritize the interests of a few over the needs of many.

Furthermore, the payments are unfair because they are not extended to other public servants who have served the country equally diligently.

This creates a perception of elitism and entitlement among Article 71 officeholders, which undermines the principles of equality and fairness.

Additionally, the payment amounts and criteria are not always transparent, leading to suspicions of abuse and nepotism.

As such, this lack of transparency erodes public trust in government and perpetuates corruption.

Accordingly, Alban S.K. Bagbin, the Speaker of Parliament, has reaffirmed his position that ex-gratia payments to Article 71 officeholders no longer serve the original intention behind their introduction.

Alban Bagbin highlighted that the initial purpose of ex-gratia payments was to provide a sense of security to public servants and political officeholders, ensuring that their welfare would be catered for after leaving office.

He indicated that this is to encourage these officeholders to prioritize the greater good of the people over personal interests, however, he acknowledged that in practice, this has not been the case.

As such, the Speaker threw his weight behind a constitutional amendment to repeal Article 71, seeking to abolish ex-gratia payments, which he indicated are no longer justified.

“The issue of ex gratia is a very thorny issue. The founders envisaged a situation where they wanted some particular category of public servants, including political officeholders. The ex gratia is not for members of Parliament and it’s not even ex gratia, it is gratuity”.
“There’s a difference between ex gratia and gratuity and it’s not for members of parliament alone. It cuts through a category of public servants and political officeholders, including auditor general, including the chairpersons of all the constitutional commissions, including ministers of state, the presidency, judiciary, and all others, it’s not just members of parliament”.
Alban S.K. Bagbin

Ending Ex-Gratia Payments: A Step Toward Accountability And Fairness

Moreover, some recipients receive multiple payments for serving in different capacities, which is seen as unfair and excessive.

This double dipping perpetuates the culture of entitlement and further widens the gap between the elite and the ordinary citizen.

Rather, unfortunately, the payments are often perceived as a form of entitlement rather than a reward for service.

This perpetuates a culture of self-interest among public officials, which undermines the principles of public service and accountability.

Alban Bagbin expressed optimism that the industrial chiefs who are part of the consultative assembly would share his view that ex-gratia payments have served their purpose and are now obsolete.

“And so when I made an attempt to contest as a presidential candidate, I did announce that if elected as president, I was going to ensure that that article is amended from the constitution. So I agree totally with anybody who comes to say that we should do away with Article 71 of the Constitution”.
Alban S.K. Bagbin

Alban Bagbin reaffirmed that the ex-gratia payment has failed to achieve its intended goal of reducing corruption, making it unnecessary to continue with the practice.

Thus, stopping ex-gratia payments to Article 71 officeholders is essential for promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in Ghana’s public service.

The resources saved can be better utilized for developmental projects and social programs that benefit the wider population.

By ending this practice, Ghana can promote a more equitable and transparent compensation system that rewards public service based on merit rather than entitlement.