A private citizen, Emmanuella Sarfowaah, has filed a lawsuit against President John Dramani Mahama over his appointment of Anthony Kwasi Sarpong as the Acting Commissioner-General of the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA). The legal action, brought through the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, challenges the validity of Mahama’s decision to appoint Sarpong to the position.
Sarpong was appointed as Acting Commissioner-General following the resignation of his predecessor, Julie Essiam, on January 20, 2025. His appointment was based on Article 195(1) of the Constitution and Section 13(1) of the Ghana Revenue Act, 2009 (Act 791). However, according to court documents sighted by Citi News on Saturday, February 1, Sarfowaah is contesting the appointment, citing concerns over a potential conflict of interest.
She argues that Sarpong still holds an interest in KPMG, where he is listed as a senior partner, and that his appointment to head the GRA raises serious ethical and legal questions. Furthermore, she claims that appointing a Commissioner-General in the absence of a Governing Council is unlawful. The lawsuit states that Sarpong’s ongoing ties to KPMG create a conflict of interest, as the firm has had financial dealings with the GRA.
“The Plaintiff says that the 1st Defendant before the letter was, and/or still is (the website of KPMG as of 26th January 2025 still listed the 1st Defendant as such), the Senior Partner of KPMG (a foreign accounting firm practicing in Ghana), with ‘Senior Partner’ being defined by the website of KPMG as the Chief Executive Officer of the firm.
“The Plaintiff says that the 2nd Defendant, the Ghana Revenue Authority, had no Governing Council as of 21st January 2025. The Plaintiff adds that KPMG has or has had a number of FEE-PAYING contractual working relationships with the 2nd Defendant, with the 1st Defendant as its Senior Partner at least until 21st January 2025 or thereabout,” parts of the writ of summons read.
According to Sarfowaah, the appointment of a Commissioner-General should be done with the advice of the Governing Council of the GRA, which was not in place at the time of Sarpong’s appointment. She argues that without this advisory role, Mahama’s decision is in direct violation of Ghana’s laws governing public service appointments.
“The 2nd Defendant is a statutory body with a Governing Council that must provide advice before the President of the Republic of Ghana can appoint a Commissioner-General of the 2nd Defendant in a substantive or acting capacity.”
Sarfowaah is therefore asking the court to overturn Mahama’s appointment of Sarpong, arguing that it violates the law. She is seeking a declaration that the appointment is unlawful and an order revoking it.
“The plaintiff claims further or in the alternative, a finding that the appointment of the 1st Defendant, a former employee of KPMG and/or a person with an interest in KPMG or a person who had an interest in KPMG until 21st January 2025, by the President of the Republic of Ghana as the Acting Commissioner-General of the GRA is unlawful as it was made in violation of the laws of Ghana.
“An order revoking the appointment of the 1st Defendant, a former employee of KPMG and/or a person with an interest in KPMG or a person who had an interest in KPMG, by the President of the Republic of Ghana as the Acting Commissioner-General of the GRA,” the document states.
In addition to seeking the revocation of Sarpong’s appointment, Sarfowaah is also asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent his continued service in the role.
“A perpetual injunction order against the President of the Republic of Ghana restraining him or any person acting by his authority from appointing the 1st Defendant, a former employee of KPMG and/or a person with an interest in KPMG or a person who had an interest in KPMG, as the Acting and/or the Commissioner-General of the GRA.
“Further or in the alternative to relief e), a perpetual injunction order against the Governing Council of the 2nd Defendant restraining the Council or any person acting by its authority from considering and/or proffering advice to the President of the Republic of Ghana as stipulated under Article 195 of the 1992 Constitution in respect of the appointment of the 1st Defendant, a former employee of KPMG and/or a person with an interest in KPMG or a person who had an interest in KPMG, as the Acting and/or the Commissioner-General of the GRA,” it adds.
The lawsuit raises key legal and ethical questions about public service appointments in Ghana. One of the central issues is whether an individual with recent ties to a private firm with financial engagements with a state agency should be appointed to lead that very agency. The case also highlights concerns about governance and the role of the GRA’s Governing Council in overseeing such appointments.
Observers argue that the case could set a precedent for future appointments in the country’s public sector. If the court upholds Sarfowaah’s challenge, it could force stricter adherence to appointment procedures and reinforce the role of oversight bodies like the Governing Council. On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of Mahama’s decision, it may affirm the President’s discretionary powers in making executive appointments, especially in urgent situations like leadership transitions in key state agencies.
Meanwhile, political analysts believe the lawsuit could have broader implications for governance in Ghana. Some have suggested that this legal challenge is a reflection of increasing public scrutiny of government appointments, with citizens demanding greater transparency and accountability. Others view the case as politically motivated, given its timing and the individuals involved.
As the legal battle unfolds, many stakeholders—including civil society groups, governance experts, and political commentators—will be closely watching the proceedings. The case is expected to generate significant public interest, as it touches on critical governance issues such as conflict of interest, transparency, and the adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions in executive appointments.
As the case proceeds, the court has directed all defendants to submit their responses within eight days of receiving the suit. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching effects on how public service appointments are conducted in Ghana and could potentially influence future reforms in governance and appointment processes.
