Information gathered has uncovered what appears to be a coordinated effort within the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) to present a corruption narrative against its former executives and to secretly pressure the Audit Service to rewrite already-signed audited financial statements.
MIIF has insisted that its former leadership mismanaged billions of cedis under the previous administration.
That narrative, repeated in meetings, media engagements, and arrests engineered through state institutions, has fed public perception and triggered high-profile detentions by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
However, there appears to be a coordinated internal plot led by MIIF CEO, Ms. Justina Nelson, to manufacture financial mismanagement where none existed, and to coerce the Auditor-General into rewriting already signed audited financial statements when the evidence failed to support that narrative.
The result is a scandal that strikes at the heart of public accountability and threatens to shake the foundations of the Mahama administration.
Plot against former MIIF executives?
Interviews across MIIF, the Audit Service, Parliament, and law enforcement agencies point to a deliberate plan by the new MIIF leadership to brand the previous executives as corrupt and incompetent.
Immediately after assuming office, the new management launched an aggressive internal and media campaign alleging that the former CEO, Board Chair, and senior executives had grossly mismanaged the Fund.
This narrative was followed by coordinated arrests of the former board chairman, multiple senior managers, and, eventually, private sector partners who merely did business with MIIF.
These arrests were carried out by the OSP and EOCO, both of which, according to our investigation, relied on financial statements prepared not by an independent agency but by the new MIIF management itself.
Yet insiders with direct knowledge of the process said those statements were deliberately crafted to portray financial mismanagement, despite the actual numbers proving the opposite. Most of these insiders were subsequently fired and are now suing MIIF for wrongful termination, unfair dismissal, and other claims.
Auditor-General’s verdict
The financial statements prepared by the new management were submitted to the Auditor-General for the mandatory audit.
But the Auditor-General concluded that MIIF’s leadership did not expect, and did not want.
According to the Auditor-General, MIIF had been prudently managed and had recorded significant profits.
Multiple former employees of MIIF confirmed to this newspaper that the Auditor-General’s team rejected MIIF’s attempts to portray losses, insisting that the numbers demonstrated sound financial management, strong investment returns, and profitability that contradicted the new leadership’s narrative.
A globally recognized independent auditor consulted by this newspaper agreed that “The audit evidence overwhelmingly showed competent management. It appears the financial statements were initially drafted to imply mismanagement, but the numbers refused to cooperate.”
Unable to alter the figures, the CEO and Board Chair eventually signed the audited financial statements on 26 June 2025.
The Auditor-General signed them the next day.
At that point, the narrative of “mismanagement” was dead. Or so everyone thought.
Media publishes the truth
Once the audited statements began circulating in media circles, major outlets published stories highlighting MIIF’s profitability.
An article by Mr. Patrick Boamah, MP for Okaikwei Central, went viral after revealing strong financial returns.
MIIF’s CEO reacted swiftly
She ordered her Corporate Affairs Department to issue rejoinders falsely debunking the numbers, numbers she had personally signed.
Then, in a move described by multiple insiders as “vindictive and discriminatory,” the CEO allegedly compiled a selective list of former board members and submitted it to the OSP.
The targeted officials were detained or interrogated, while others, whose roles were identical, were inexplicably left out. One insider summed it up, “The arrests were weaponized to reinforce a false narrative.”
Desperate attempt to rewrite already-signed Audit report
In September 2025, a former board member filed an RTI request seeking the 2024 audited financials. MIIF ignored the request twice. The same board member requested details on MIIF’s compliance with its statutory reporting obligations. Again, MIIF refused to respond.
Faced with the possibility that the truth would surface, the CEO launched what one senior public auditor called “a shocking and improper attempt to rewrite history.”
On 31 October 2025, MIIF wrote to the Audit Service, claiming the signed and completed 2024 statements contained “Material and pervasive misstatements capable of misleading users.”
This request came months after the audit had been signed, and just weeks after MIIF refused to respond to the RTI.
On 7 November 2025, MIIF met with Audit Service officials to negotiate a restatement; an extraordinary and unprecedented move.
However, reports indicated that the Audit Service rejected the request outright.
The Audit Service blows the Whistle
In a damning letter dated 12 November 2025, the Audit Service warned MIIF that;
(1) The statements did not contain any material or pervasive misstatements.
(2) MIIF’s use of the term “pervasive” was misleading.
(3) The request to rewrite the audit was “improper.”
(4) The Audit Service would not alter any aspect of the 2024 audit.
(5) They were willing, however, to assist with the 2025 audit, but not falsify history.
This letter, received by MIIF on 13 November 2025, confirms the extraordinary nature of the attempted cover-up.
When contacted for comment, MIIF confirmed receipt of the correspondence but declined to discuss its contents, describing it as “confidential.”
Campaign of falsehood
MIIF, by law, must operate with the highest levels of transparency, accountability, and integrity.
Instead, its current leadership is now implicated in a coordinated campaign of falsehoods, weaponization of law enforcement bodies, attempts to rewrite a completed and signed audit, repeated violations of the RTI Act and MIIF Act, and a pattern of intimidation and retaliation against former officials.
These are not administrative lapses. They constitute ethical breaches and institutional subversions that undermine Ghana’s sovereign investment architecture.
Ghanaians and the international investment community are now watching closely.
The President must decide whether to defend integrity and the rule of law, or to allow this sinister attempt to falsify audited financial records to stain his administration permanently. If this scandal is not confronted head-on, MIIF may not be the only institution to fall.
