The Minority Leader in Parliament, Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin has reminded President John Mahama that the mass dismissals of Ghanaian public sector workers by the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) pose serious security risk to the country.
President Mahama has been described as ‘Terminator 1’ by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) minority in Parliament following his government’s mass termination of appointments made by the previous NPP administration.
Osahen Afenyo-Markin who is also the Member of Parliament (MP) for Effutu Constituency in the Central Region, pointed out that unemployment remains a persistent challenge in Ghana, with the government serving as the largest employer.
He warned that the mass layoffs could have serious security implications, exacerbating Ghana’s unemployment crisis and worsening economic hardships.
“The mass revocation of appointments will not only worsen the already high unemployment rate but also inflict severe economic and social hardships on the affected individuals and their families. Beyond personal distress, these layoffs will have broader economic repercussions,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin stated in a Private Member’s Motion presented to Mr. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament.
Curiously, the presentation of the motion, which was supposed to call for parliamentary probe into the mass firings, was arrested on the floor of Parliament on Wednesday by the Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga.
Mr. Ayariga argued that the issues being raised by the Minority Leader were already matters for litigation at the Supreme Court.
According to the Majority Leader, it will be subjudice for Parliament to deliberate on the matters that are under judicial consideration.
Even though Osahen Afenyo-Markin strongly argued that there was a palpable difference between what he was requesting parliament to do and the maters before the Apex Court, the First Deputy Speaker Bernard Ahiafor ruled that the minority leader could not present his motion, ruling in favour of the Majority Leader.
Parliament called to action
In the motion, Osahen Afenyo-Markin opined that there was no just cause for the dismissal of the public sector workers.
He called on Parliament to overturn the directive issued by the Chief of Staff, Mr. Julius Debrah, which resulted in the revocation of several public sector appointments.
Osahen Afenyo-Markin described the directive as unconstitutional and a violation of the economic rights of affected citizens, as enshrined in Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
He maintained that the dismissals violated multiple constitutional provisions, including Article 12(2) (equality before the law), Article 17(3) (prohibition of discriminatory treatment), and Article 35(5) (mandate to ensure fairness for all citizens).
Osahen Afenyo-Markin said the President in taking this action, has not only violated the constitutional rights of these citizens but has also undermined the very principles of fairness and justice that should guide our governance.
“I therefore urge this House to rise above partisan lines and speak with one voice in the supreme interest of the Ghanaian people. Let us resolve, unequivocally, that the directive from the Chief of Staff was unconstitutional and inconsistent with good governance practices, and same must be reversed,” Osahen Afenyo-Markin stated.
Lawful appointments
The Minority Leader further argued that the dismissed public servants had been lawfully appointed under President Akufo-Addo’s administration and that their terminations were without just cause.
“It is an undeniable fact that the Public Servants whose appointments have been arbitrarily revoked were duly recruited in line with established legal and administrative procedures. The directive effectively suggests that the Executive authority of the President was nullified immediately after the elections—a position that finds no basis in law or constitutional practice,” he stated.
Political cleansing
Osahen Afenyo-Markin accused the Mahama administration of engaging in political cleansing by terminating public sector employees to create vacancies for party loyalists.
“How does an administration that claims it cannot sustain the employment of young Ghanaians due to economic constraints suddenly find the fiscal space to recruit new workers?” he questioned, referring to plans by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, to hire staff under the Government’s 24-hour economy initiative.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE MEMBERS’ MOTION BY OSAHEN ALEXANDER AFENYO-MARKIN
1. Rt Hon Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a statement in support of my Motion urging this Honourable House to resolve that the directive from the Chief of Staff, Hon. Julius Debrah, in the letter dated 10th February, 2025, with reference SCR/DA85/85/01/A, is inconsistent with good governance practices and has consequences on the Economic Rights of Citizens as provided for under Article 24 of the 1992 Constitution.
2. Mr Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that the Public Servants whose appointments have been arbitrarily revoked were duly recruited under the administration of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, in line with established legal and administrative procedures. The power to appoint Public Servants is explicitly vested in the President under Article 195(1) of the 1992 Constitution. This power, as the Constitution provides, may be delegated to Governing Councils or Public Officers under Article 195(2). These appointments were, therefore, made within the legal framework of our nation’s governance.
3. Mr Speaker, we must also remind ourselves that a President is elected to serve a full four-year term, as clearly stipulated in Article 66(1) of the Constitution. In the specific case of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his mandate commenced on 7th January, 2021, and was to remain in effect until midnight on 6 January, 2025. The presidential election held on 7th December, 2024, did not in any way alter or truncate the President’s mandate before the expiration of his term. There was no constitutional vacancy in the Presidency between 7th December, 2024, and 6th January, 2025.
4. Mr Speaker, it is, therefore, unconstitutional and grossly unfair to revoke appointments that were made within the legitimate tenure of the former President. The directive by the Chief of Staff effectively suggests that the Executive authority of the President was nullified immediately after the elections – a position that finds no basis in law or constitutional practice.
5. Article 66(3)(b) clearly outlines the conditions under which a President’s term may end prematurely – these include death, resignation, or impeachment under Article 69. None of these conditions applied before the end of President Akufo-Addo’s tenure. Thus, any appointments made before 7th January, 2025, remain valid and legally binding.
6. Rt Hon Speaker, this is not the first time that Public Sector appointments have been made after a presidential election but before the expiration of the incumbent’s term. There are notable precedents:
I. The appointment letter of Mr. Daniel Domelevo as Auditor-General was written on 19th December, 2016, after the conduct of the presidential and general elections. He was sworn into office just three days before President Mahama left office.
II. Similarly, the Chairperson of the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), Madam Josephine Nkrumah, also received her appointment letter on 19th December, 2016, after the elections. She was also sworn into office three days before President Mahama’s tenure ended.
I. The CHRAJ Boss, Mr. Joseph Whittal, was also appointed and sworn in by President Mahama after he [President Mahama] had lost the 2016 general elections.
7. Many other Public Servants were recruited into service in December 2016, after the Ta December, 2016 elections. When concerns were raised at the time, the then Government, through Felix Kwakye Ofosu, explained that John Dramani Mahama was still the President and would continue to be so until 6th January, 2017. The question then is: WHAT HAS CHANGED?
8. Mr Speaker, even constitutional amendments have been enacted after elections but before the swearing-in of a new President. The first major amendment to the 1992 Fourth Republican Constitution happened after 20th December, 1996, following the conduct of the presidential and parliamentary elections that year. The then President assented to the Amendment Bill on 31* December, 1996, and the Act was gazetted the same day.
9. Mr Speaker, the Public Servants whose appointments have been terminated went through the necessary legal and administrative processes. The individuals affected were duly vetted, approved, and appointed into the Public Service, and as such, are entitled to the full protection of the law. As Public Servants, they are protected by Article 191(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees their security of tenure unless they are lawfully removed for just cause.
10. Mr Speaker, what is the cause of their dismissal? There was no just cause stated in their dismissal letters. Initially, it was suggested that their recruitment was not in tandem with good governance. But what does that mean? Is “good governance” now a legal basis for nullifying lawful appointments? Clearly, this is a weak rationalisation and an afterthought meant to justify an unconstitutional act.
11. It was later suggested that there is no money to pay these workers. Mr Speaker, the contradictions in this Government’s actions are both glaring and indefensible. How does an administration that claims it cannot sustain the employment of young Ghanaians due to economic constraints suddenly find the fiscal space to recruit new workers? The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has already confirmed budgetary allocations for fresh recruitments in the upcoming budget to facilitate the rollout of a 24-hour service delivery system under his Ministry. Meanwhile, existing public sector workers have been dismissed under the guise of economic hardship. Who, then, is being misled? Clearly, these dismissals are not about economic prudence but rather a deliberate political cleansing of the public sector to make room for party loyalists.
12. Mr Speaker, the very foundation of this Government’s proposed “24-hour Economy” hinges on expanding, not shrinking, the Public Sector workforce. Yet, we witness mass dismissals of legally employed citizens who have undergone due process. How does this Government justify such actions while simultaneously advocating for an economy that requires more workers, extended shifts, and increased productivity? Is it now the case that employment in the Public Sector is reserved only for those who wear the political colours of the ruling party?
13.Mr Speaker, without a just cause – of which there appears to be none thus far
– the President’s directive smacks of vindictiveness and discrimination, in clear violation of:
– Article 12(2), which guarantees equality before the law,
– Article 17(3), which prohibits discriminatory treatment, and
– Article 35(5), which mandates the State to ensure fairness for all Citizens and prohibit discrimination and prejudice.
14. More importantly, Mr Speaker, this conduct directly violates the Presidential Oath that the President swore on 7th January, 2025 – barely a month and a half ago. The Oath demands that the President preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of Ghana. Can a President who is actively undermining the Constitution be said to be upholding his Oath?
15. Article 24 of the Constitution guarantees every Ghanaian the Rights to Employment and Livelihood. These Rights to work cannot be vitiated by an Executive directive, especially when a Citizen has gone through the regular process required for employment. In any event, granted that there was any such procedural irregularity, same can be cured through a process of ratification and rectification, not termination. To the extent that a Citizen has been lawfully issued with an appointment letter and same has been accepted by him and he has entered into the employ of an institution, it will be repugnant to deny such a Citizen his Rights of legitimate expectation that once he is undertaking the prescribed job assigned to the rank in the organisation, the contract of employment is secure and same cannot be terminated.
16. Mr Speaker, this is an impeachable conduct. The President’s actions constitute gross misconduct under Article 69, warranting his removal from office. But is the President acting with impunity because he knows that the Minority Caucus does not constitute one-third of the membership of the House, and therefore cannot trigger impeachment processes under Article 69(2)(a)?
17. Mr Speaker, the President campaigned on the promise of resetting the country—a bold commitment to charting a new course and breaking away from past practices that he and his party deemed detrimental to our democracy. But what does this ‘reset’ truly mean if it only serves as a justification to repeat the very actions they once condemned? Those defending these mass dismissals argue that the previous administration did the same upon assuming office. But, Mr Speaker, doesn’t a true reset require doing things differently-strengthening our democracy, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring fairness for all, rather than perpetuating the same cycle of political retribution? If the President’s vision is indeed a reset, then it must be one that fosters progress, not a return to old habits under a new banner.
18. Moreover, Mr Speaker, this situation poses a serious security risk to the country. Unemployment remains a persistent challenge in Ghana, with the Government serving as the largest employer. The mass revocation of appointments will not only worsen the already high unemployment rate but also inflict severe economic and social hardships on the affected individuals and their families. Beyond personal distress, these layoffs will have broader economic repercussions.
19. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there was no just cause for the dismissal of these public sector workers. In taking this action, the President has not only violated the Constitutional Rights of these Citizens but has also undermined the very principles of fairness and justice that should guide our governance.
20. I therefore urge this House to rise above partisan lines and speak with one voice in the supreme interest of the Ghanaian people. Let us resolve, unequivocally, that the directive from the Chief of Staff was unconstitutional and inconsistent with good governance practices, and same must be reversed.
21. I so move.
