The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has dismissed a complaint filed against the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Dr. Ransford Anertey Abbey, over alleged non-declaration of his assets and liabilities.
In its decision dated 12 March 2026, CHRAJ held that Dr. Abbey had complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements governing asset declaration by public office holders and that the complaint brought against him “wholly lacks merit.”
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Wilberforce Asare under Article 287 of the 1992 Constitution, the Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Act, 1998 (Act 550), and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456).
The complainant alleged that Dr. Abbey, though required to declare assets in his capacity as Chief Executive of COCOBOD, had instead declared in a different office and had therefore failed to comply with the law.
According to the ruling, the complaint formed part of a broader set of allegations involving 12 public officials occupying positions as board chairpersons and chief executive officers of state institutions.
In Dr. Abbey’s case, the complaint was based on a record from the Office of the Auditor-General indicating that he had declared his assets and liabilities as a Policy Advisor to the Vice-President, but not in his current capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board.
The complainant consequently asked CHRAJ to investigate an alleged breach of the Constitution and Act 550 and to consider sanctions. CHRAJ said it was satisfied that it had proper jurisdiction to investigate the matter under Article 287 and section 8 of Act 550, after first inviting the respondent to comment on the allegations.
In a response dated 28 January 2026, Dr. Abbey denied the allegation and maintained that he had duly declared his assets and liabilities as the Chief Executive of COCOBOD, attaching an official receipt from the Ghana Audit Service as proof. The receipt, identified in the ruling as Official Receipt No. 750020197, showed a declaration date of 24 March 2025.
A key issue before CHRAJ was whether Dr. Abbey had failed to comply with Article 286 of the Constitution, which requires specified public office holders to submit a written declaration of all property owned and liabilities owed. In reviewing the legal framework, the Commission drew a distinction between two broad categories of non-compliance: failure to declare at all, and failures relating to the authenticity or accuracy of declarations.
It noted that sanctions under Article 287(2) and section 7 of Act 550 are intended to apply where there is a failure to declare without reasonable excuse, or where a false declaration is knowingly made.
In its findings, CHRAJ said the evidence did not support the complainant’s claim that Dr. Abbey had served as Policy Advisor to the Vice-President in the office’s current structure. The Commission noted that while a declaration form generated by the Audit Service described the respondent as a “Policy Advisor to the Vice-President (Political Affairs),” subsequent scrutiny showed that description was erroneous.
CHRAJ referred to a communication from the Office of the Vice-President indicating that there was no position known as Policy Advisor to the Vice-President in the office under Vice-President Professor Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang. It concluded that the description relied on by the complainant was mistaken and could not be used as proof of non-compliance.
The Commission found instead that Dr. Abbey had been appointed into office as Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Cocoa Board on 21 January 2025, and that his declaration on 24 March 2025 was made within the three-month period permitted by law. CHRAJ also noted that the respondent’s own declaration form listed his public office as Chief Executive, Ghana Cocoa Board, and that this was supported by the receipt issued by the Audit Service.
On that basis, CHRAJ held that Dr. Abbey “did not breach or violate any constitutional or statutory provision relating to the asset declaration regime” and had complied fully with the law by submitting a completed written declaration to the Auditor-General within the stipulated period.
The Commission therefore dismissed the complaint and further commended him for the timely submission of his declaration.
