The appointment of Isaac Adongo, MP for Bolgatanga Central and current Chairman of Parliament’s Finance Committee, and a member of the Board of the Bank of Ghana (BoG) has triggered an uproar from the Minority Caucus on the Finance Committee.
The Minority unequivocally declared in a press statement by Member of Parliament (MP) for Nhyiaeso, Hon. Stephen Amoah, that this dual role violates both parliamentary procedure and constitutional principles, amounting to a serious conflict of interest.
“The recent comments by Hon. Adongo on the foreign exchange who is doubling as the chairman of the Finance Committee and a member of the Bank of Ghana board have given rise to much controversy including conflict of interest.
“Other school of thought is that there are legal issues of concern to be given the necessary national attention”
Hon. Stephen Amoah, MP for Nhyiaeso
“The Finance Committee Chairman of Parliament cannot be a Board Member of the Bank of Ghana.” According to them, the law is explicit about the oversight duties of the Finance Committee and how these roles cannot intersect with executive or board-level appointments in institutions under that oversight.
The Bank of Ghana is mandated to report to the Finance Committee every six months on its foreign exchange activities. In this context, the Minority posed a stark legal and ethical question: “How can a board member of the same BoG be the Finance Committee chairman?”
They questioned whether the principle of ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ – no one should be a judge in their own cause – has been overlooked in this decision. The issue, the caucus insists, is not merely theoretical.
Standing Order 228(2) of Parliament makes it clear that the Finance Committee shall monitor foreign exchange receipts and payments of the BoG both domestically and internationally.
Adongo, they argued, cannot objectively chair deliberations and reports on the BoG’s foreign exchange operations while simultaneously serving on its board. “Definitely, there is a conflict of interest which undermines the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the Finance Committee,” the statement noted.
It added that Adongo’s activities extend beyond the expected conduct of a non-executive board member, with his frequent commentary on foreign exchange matters now attracting public and institutional concern.
The Minority referenced Article 184(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which reaffirms that Parliament’s Finance Committee has the exclusive mandate to monitor the foreign exchange actions of the BoG and report accordingly.
This, they claim, invalidates any notion of dual oversight with other committees such as the Committee on Economy and Development, which is sometimes tasked with related economic development issues under Standing Order 230(3).
They referenced the concerns raised by renowned Ghanaian lawyer Sampson Lardy (ESQ), who openly questioned the legality and prudence of Adongo’s board appointment and observed that “maybe the President did not take notice of that.”
Sampson “respectfully” called on the President to take a second look at Hon. Adongo’s appointment, urging an appraisal of the constitutional foundation behind the decision.
The constitutional stakes were further underscored with reference to Article 58(1), which vests executive authority in the President but requires all such actions to conform with constitutional mandates.
In this light, the Minority maintained that appointing a sitting committee chairman to an entity that must report to the same committee contradicts both the spirit and letter of the law.
“I am very surprised that my brother Hon. Adongo, who criticizes every minute thing and definitely knows this, allowed himself to be used as a legally dysfunctional element of unconstitutionality”
Hon. Stephen Amoah, MP for Nhyiaeso
The concern is not merely with Adongo’s competence or contributions, but the systemic risk his appointment introduces to democratic governance and institutional balance.
They warned that setting such a precedent could erode democratic accountability and institutional independence, two foundations critical to Ghana’s economic governance. The executive arm, they argue, must act swiftly to correct what they described as a structural and functional anomaly.
While some of Adongo’s views on the foreign exchange regime are considered financially sound, the Minority insists that his role as a board member strips them of their constitutional capacity to hold the BoG accountable.
They cited the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723), as supportive of his technical assertions but irrelevant in justifying the constitutional mismatch of his dual positions.
The broader context, including Ghana’s recurring exchange rate issues and the prevalence of black market activity, may warrant significant reform. Yet the Minority cautioned against compromising institutional checks and balances in pursuit of such reforms.
“We must not set a bad precedent in this country as this clearly demonstrates abuse of executive discretionary power,” warned Hon. Stephen Amoah.
