Sankofaonline Editorial | June 22, 2026
For more than three decades, the Ghana National Council, GNC, has survived on one sacred covenant: voluntary service. That covenant is the spine of the Council . It is what kept the Council members honest when personalities clashed. It is what kept budgets disciplined when resources were scarce. It is what kept officers grounded when the temptations of self‑interest whispered at the edges. It is the covenant that protected the Council from the rot that has consumed other community institutions.
And that is precisely why the contract awarded to the sitting Public Relations Officer , PRO, is not merely a mistake. It is a breach of trust. It is a constitutional violation. It is a moral collapse. It is the kind of decision that, if left unchallenged, becomes the beginning of institutional decay.
The facts are cold and uncontested. The Public Relations Officer was paid two thousand dollars shortly after a budget line was approved , for work the constitution already assigns to that office. The constitution is not a suggestion. It is not a menu. It is not a buffet where officers pick what they want to do for free and what they want to monetize. It states clearly that the Public Relations Officer is responsible for all publicity, all communication, and any other assignment the Council may direct.
The word all is not ornamental. It is binding. It is comprehensive. It is the legal perimeter of the office. When the constitution says “all publicity,” it means all publicity. When it says “all communication,” it means all communication. When it says “any other assignment,” it means exactly that. There is no constitutional vacuum that requires a private contract. There is no loophole that allows an officer to be paid for duties already owed.
To attempt to convert constitutional duties into a paid consultancy is not only improper , it is unconstitutional self‑dealing. It is an attempt to amend the constitution through the back door, without debate . It is governance by ambush.
And then comes the most damning revelation: the contract itself structured payments to be made monthly. Monthly , not immediately. Monthly — not in a rush. Monthly , not in a lump sum. So why, then, was the payment pushed through with the urgency of a fire drill? Why the frantic haste to disburse funds tied to a contract whose very foundation is defective?
This was not an accident. This was not confusion. This was not administrative fog. This was a deliberate acceleration of a payment schedule the contract did not require. And when officers rush to execute a flawed agreement faster than the agreement demands, the community must ask the questions that responsible governance must answer :
Who benefits from this haste?
Who stood to gain from bypassing the contract’s own timeline?
Who inside the Council knew what, and when?
Are there financial benefits to insiders the community has not yet been told about?
These are not accusations. These are fiduciary questions , the kind every nonprofit must ask when processes are bent, timelines are manipulated, and constitutional boundaries are ignored. Accelerating a payment meant to be monthly is abnormal on its face and suspicious in its execution . It is not standard. It is not defensible. It is a red flag , the kind that signals intent, coordination, and the possibility of private advantage disguised as public service.
Nonprofit governance experts call this “procedural irregularity with potential insider benefit.” In plain language: something is wrong, and someone may be benefiting.
The payment of two thousand dollars does not cleanse the error. Approval does not legitimize a flawed process. A budget line does not override the constitution. When approval is based on incomplete information, or when leadership fails to consider the constitutional job description, the resulting decision is not binding. It is an error and errors must be corrected, not protected.
This is not about personalities. It is not about factions. It is not about who likes whom. It is about the integrity of the Ghana National Council , the protection of charitable resources, and the fairness owed to every officer who has served and and continues to serve without compensation.It is about whether the GNC remains a community institution or descends into a private marketplace where insiders negotiate benefits under the guise of public service !
If this contract stands, then the constitution is meaningless.
If this contract stands, then any officer can monetize their office.
If this contract stands, then voluntary service becomes optional and the Council becomes a playground for private gain.
That cannot be allowed.
The Council must act. It must review the contract. It must rescind it. It must correct the payment. It must reaffirm that officers cannot be paid for duties already defined in their constitutional job descriptions. And it must strengthen its conflict‑of‑interest policies to ensure that this never happens again.
The GNC belongs to the community , not to any individual officer. Its constitution is the shield that protects its integrity. When that shield is breached, the community must speak. And today, the message must be unmistakable:
The contract was wrong.
The payment was wrong.
The process was wrong.
And the Council must correct it.
Anything less is a betrayal of thirty years of voluntary service and a dangerous precedent for the future.
For deeper context, readers may explore nonprofit governance standards, conflict of interest rules, or constitutional officer duties.
We shall be back , because silence is not an option when the community’s trust is at stake.
