Washington: Investigative journalist, Manasseh Azure Awuni, has raised concerns over the legitimacy of a welfare account operated by the Embassy of Ghana in Washington, DC. This follows revelations in an audit report implicating the Embassy in questionable financial practices.
According to Ghana Web, Awuni detailed in a Facebook post that the Embassy had appointed a private company to provide courier and mailing services for visa and passport applicants. This company, notably owned by the Embassy's Information Technology (IT) Officer, was found to have created websites mimicking the Embassy's official site, redirecting applicants to the company's website. Awuni claimed that the company charged applicants nearly three times the average mailing fee, discontinuing the option for them to purchase their own postage stamps and self-address envelopes.
Awuni further alleged that after this company secured the courier contract, the Embassy opened an 'Embassy of Ghana Welfare Account' with Citibank. Audit findings revealed that all contributions to the welfare account originated from the same private company that secured the courier contract. Awuni expressed concern over periodic withdrawals from the account, which were distributed among staff beyond traditional occasions like funerals or childbirth, drawing comparisons to hypothetical scenarios involving government ministries.
In the audit report, Kofi Tonto's name appeared on lists concerning payments, yet Awuni emphasized that the report did not directly indict Tonto or link him to the decisions behind the account's creation and operation. Though Tonto was not part of the decision-making process, Awuni disputed claims that a payment he received was a routine welfare benefit related to his child's birth.
Awuni argued that the account's origins, concerns raised by Citibank, and intervention by then Foreign Affairs Minister Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey raised significant questions. Citibank's repeated concerns and Botchwey's directive to close the account indicated the seriousness of the issue. Awuni stressed that beneficiaries did not contribute to the welfare account themselves, contrasting with conventional welfare setups, and pointed to the 'illicit nature' of the account and its transactions.