A trail of correspondence, meetings, and reversals now places the Minerals Income Investment Fund at the centre of a deepening governance storm, one that raises uncomfortable questions about transparency, executive influence, and the integrity of public audits.
At issue is a completed, signed audit of MIIF’s 2024 financial statements, and what happened after the numbers failed to support a narrative of mismanagement.
A Finished Audit and a Sudden Pivot
Documents reviewed by this newsroom confirm that the 2024 audited financial statements of Minerals Income Investment Fund were finalised and signed by MIIF’s Chief Executive Officer and Board Chair on 26 June 2025, and by the Auditor-General on 27 June 2025. Under standard public-sector practice, that should have ended the process. It did not.
In September 2025, a former MIIF board member sought access to the signed audit under the Right to Information law. MIIF did not provide the documents.
Weeks later, after the RTI request had already triggered a review before the RTI Commission, MIIF wrote to the Ghana Audit Service seeking a review and restatement of the already signed accounts. The request alleged “material and pervasive misstatements.”
Audit Service Pushback and a Sharp Rebuke
On 7 November 2025, MIIF officials met with the Audit Service to press their case. According to the Auditor-General’s subsequent response to this newsroom, the Audit Service vehemently disagreed. The concerns raised, auditors concluded, did not meet the threshold of material or pervasive misstatement.
That position was formalised in a letter dated 12 November 2025, which described MIIF’s conduct in seeking a rewrite as “improper.” The language was unusually direct. The Audit Service further cautioned that MIIF’s use of the word “pervasive” was itself misleading.
The line was drawn: the 2024 audit would not be altered. From Rejection to the Presidency. What followed moved the dispute from the audit floor to the executive floor of the Jubilee House.
The Auditor-General confirmed to this newsroom that MIIF’s CEO lodged a complaint with the Chief of Staff, prompting a meeting at Jubilee House involving the President. The Auditor-General was invited to explain, directly, why the Audit Service would not reopen the 2024 audit.
The outcome, according to the Auditor-General, was twofold: the Audit Service would stand by the completed 2024 audit; and an external auditor would be appointed to audit MIIF’s 2025 accounts.
An External Auditor Appointed; Then Abruptly Removed
By letter dated 3 December 2025, the Audit Service appointed TRC Consult to audit MIIF’s 2025 financial statements. TRC accepted the engagement on 9 January 2026.
The appointment raised immediate governance questions when it emerged that TRC’s Managing Partner, Dr. Felix Kwame Aveh, also sits on the governing board of the Audit Service and had previously been nominated for the role of Auditor-General in 2016, only to be swerved for Daniel Domelevo after the 2016 elections. While the Audit Service maintains the appointment was lawful, the optics intensified scrutiny given the backdrop of MIIF’s failed attempt to revise its 2024 audit.
Then came another reversal
The Auditor-General confirmed that TRC Consult’s appointment has since been terminated. The reason, he said, was decisive: the Audit Service became aware that MIIF’s management was attempting to direct the audit. Termination, he explained, was necessary to protect public trust in the audit process’s independence and credibility.
MIIF’s Response and the Silence Between the Lines
Contacted for comment, MIIF acknowledged the correspondence and meetings with the Audit Service but declined to discuss the substance, citing confidentiality and ongoing discussions. MIIF also confirmed it responded to the Audit Service’s 12 November letter.
Behind the scenes, however, sources say MIIF’s Board and advisers warned against pursuing a restatement of signed accounts, advice that was not heeded.
Why This Matters
MIIF is a sovereign fund with a statutory duty of transparency. The chronology here is stark:
– A completed audit contradicts a mismanagement narrative.
– Access requests are refused.
– A rewrite is sought and rejected as improper.
– The dispute escalates to Jubilee House.
– An external auditor is appointed and then fired for alleged interference.
The implications go beyond one institution. They test the guardrails that separate professional audit judgment from executive pressure, and they ask whether Ghana’s oversight architecture can withstand attempts, real or perceived, to bend outcomes after the fact.
For investors and the public alike, the question now is not whether the 2024 numbers stand; they do, but what accountability follows when a sovereign fund tries to change them.
As scrutiny intensifies, attention turns to the Presidency’s next steps. The credibility of public audits and confidence in the stewardship of mineral revenues hang in the balance.
The Source
