The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has challenged the enforcement of a GH¢79.65 million judgment debt awarded to Servestar Minwax (WA) Limited, insisting that the amount must first be independently reconciled before any payment is made.

The dispute, which dates back to 2009, reportedly started over an alleged overpayment of import duties involving less than GH¢1 million.

Servestar Minwax subsequently secured judgment against the GRA. However, the Authority says the amount now being pursued through garnishee proceedings has risen to GH¢79,651,132, including what it describes as 35% daily compound interest.

On July 22, 2026, the High Court, Commercial Division 3, issued a Garnishee Order directing the Bank of Ghana to release the amount from the GRA’s Tax Refund Account to Servestar Minwax and its director, Henry Manly-Spain.

The GRA has since applied for the Garnishee Order Absolute to be set aside and has also filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling.

A major development occurred on August 20, 2026, when the court allowed a forensic reconciliation of the judgment sum.

The decision allows an independent auditor to examine the calculations and determine the actual amount legitimately owed.

The GRA said its application for the reconciliation was intended to ensure that the correct figure is reflected in the proceedings.

“GRA’s application includes a request for a forensic reconciliation of the judgment sum as asserted by the plaintiff to ensure that the correct amount is reflected,” the Authority said.

According to the GRA, its own reconciliation indicates that the amount legitimately owed to Servestar Minwax is significantly lower than the GH¢79.65 million being pursued.

The Authority has also cited documents it says were submitted to the solicitor of Henry Manly-Spain, indicating that he disputes the GH¢79.65 million figure.

The GRA said the documents show that Mr Manly-Spain’s legitimate claim relating to overpaid duties and the value of containers sold since 2009 is considerably lower than the amount awarded by the court.

“His legitimate claim against GRA for overpaid duties and the value of containers sold, dating back to 2009, is significantly less than the GH¢79.7 million awarded by the Court,” the Authority said.

The GRA said Mr Manly-Spain’s position has been formally presented to the court as part of the proceedings seeking to set aside the garnishee order and establish the correct value of the judgment debt.

The Authority is also challenging the attachment of its Tax Refund Account at the Bank of Ghana.

It argues that the account is legally protected and was established specifically to facilitate the payment of legitimate tax refunds to taxpayers who have overpaid their taxes.

The GRA is relying on Section 69 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915) in support of its position.

“GRA maintains that the Refund Account held at the Bank of Ghana…is a statutorily protected account designated for the payment of legitimate refunds to taxpayers who have overpaid and cannot be subjected to attachment in the manner directed,” it said.

The Authority’s initial application for a stay of execution was unsuccessful.

The GRA, however, says it intends to renew the application before the Court of Appeal at the beginning of the new legal year.

Meanwhile, the Commissioner-General has directed an internal audit into the reconciliation and litigation processes surrounding the case.

The audit is expected to establish whether any lapses occurred and identify measures to strengthen the Authority’s internal controls.

The GRA said the various steps being taken are aimed at protecting public funds while ensuring that lawful court decisions are respected.

“The Authority reiterates its commitment to abide by the rule of law and adherence to the lawful decisions of the honourable court in the interest of justice; while at the same time it exercises the legitimate responsibility to defend the interest of the state,” the Authority said.

1789568483152

By Mashoud Bawa

Introduction: A Question of Fairness

I am a Ghanaian writer passionate about environmental sanitation and the work of private waste management companies, especially the prestigious Zoomlion Ghana Limited. I am concerned when people, including Manasseh Azure Awuni, appear to undermine a company that has created jobs, helped address sanitation challenges and contributed to Ghana becoming the West African regional hub for sanitation, waste management, and circular economy policy support.
For more than a decade, Manasseh has unjustifiably criticised Zoomlion and its owner, Dr. Joseph Siaw Agyepong, through articles and commentaries that, in my view, have focused almost exclusively on alleged wrongdoing while rarely acknowledging the company’s achievements or its owner’s ingenuity.
That raises a fundamental question: Can journalism be considered fair and balanced when its scrutiny of one company remains overwhelmingly negative over many years?
Constructive criticism, we all know, should identify problems, offer suggestions and acknowledge achievements where appropriate. Has Manasseh ever examined Zoomlion’s job creation, investments in waste-management infrastructure, technological initiatives, recycling operations, expansion beyond Ghana or contribution to environmental sanitation? If so, what did he find?
The Audit Discrepancy
These questions bring me to Manasseh’s current investigation, “Auditing the Auditor-General: How Special Audit Understated a COVID-19 Expenditure.”
The central issue is serious: Why did the Auditor-General’s special audit reportedly record GH¢96.3 million as fumigation expenditure when documents claim from the Ministries of Education, Local Government and Transport allegedly show expenditure of at least GH¢780 million?
That discrepancy requires careful examination.
How did the Auditor-General arrive at GH¢96.3 million? Who supplied and reviewed the figures? Which ministries submitted expenditure records? What methodology determined what qualified as COVID-19 expenditure? Why were some expenditures allegedly audited but not reflected in the reported fumigation figure? Who within the Audit Service made those decisions?
These questions go directly to the investigation’s central premise. If the allegation is that the Auditor-General understated COVID-19 expenditure, the audit process itself must receive detailed scrutiny.
Institutional Responsibility
My concern begins when a question about the Auditor-General’s alleged under-reporting gradually becomes a story about Zoomlion primarily.
The Auditor-General did not award Zoomlion the contracts. Zoomlion did not write the special audit report or determine which expenditures should be included or excluded.
Therefore, if the central allegation concerns an understatement by the Auditor-General, who should answer for it: Zoomlion or the Ghana Audit Service?
If the concern is procurement, equal attention should be given to the ministries and public officials who initiated the procurements, selected the contractor, obtained approvals, supervised the work, certified performance, approved invoices and authorised payment.
Zoomlion does not award itself government contracts. Ministries and public institutions must answer for the decisions they made; the procurement authorities for approvals and ratifications; public officials for supervision, certification and payment; and contractors for the work they were paid to perform.
Accountability should cover every institution and individual involved.
Zoomlion’s Relevance
Manasseh reports that approximately GH¢775 million of the GH¢780 million in fumigation expenditure he identified went to Zoomlion. That makes the company materially relevant to the investigation.
However, relevance does not eliminate the need for proportionality and fairness. The question is whether Zoomlion receives extensive attention because the evidence requires it, or whether the Auditor-General controversy has become another opportunity to revisit longstanding criticisms of the company.
The article also discusses previous Zoomlion contracts, World Bank sanctions, GYEEDA, earlier fumigation arrangements, a 2025 ministerial report and other controversies. This raises a legitimate question: Is it principally an investigation of the Auditor-General’s COVID-19 audit, or another broad prosecution of Zoomlion through journalism?
If Zoomlion received approximately GH¢775 million, it is reasonable to investigate whether it performed the contracted services, whether public authorities certified the work, whether the prices complied with procurement requirements and whether the state obtained value for money. But those questions should be addressed through evidence and accompanied by equal scrutiny of the institutions that awarded and paid for the contracts, not the contractor.
Journalistic Fairness and Consistency
The issue is broader than Dr. Otabil or Zoomlion. It concerns whether journalists apply consistent standards when reporting on people and institutions with whom they have different relationships.
When the Capital Bank saga broke out, some people, including me, called on Manasseh to comment on his pastor and godfather, Dr. Mensah Otabil’s involvement as then chairman of the board of directors. He responded that he would not do so because of their relationship.
That raises questions about consistency. Should the standard of scrutiny change depending on a journalist’s relationship with the person or institution involved? If personal relationships justify recusal in one case, should personal history, previous disputes or long-running negative campaigns against another organisation also be disclosed so readers can assess possible bias?
Rather than allege, without evidence, that Manasseh has paymasters who benefit from attacks on Zoomlion, I would ask him directly:
What explains the persistence and intensity of your focus on Zoomlion over more than a decade? Are there interests, relationships, funding arrangements or institutional considerations that readers should know about?
After years of predominantly negative reporting about the same company and entrepreneur, readers are entitled to examine not only the subject of the journalism but also its consistency, proportionality and fairness.
Conclusion: Auditor-General or Putting Zoomlion on Trial Again
Zoomlion should not be immune from scrutiny because it is Ghanaian, employs people or operates in an important sector. Companies handling public money must answer questions about procurement, performance and value for money.
But accountability cannot be selective. The Auditor-General must answer for the audit report. Ministries must answer for contracts they awarded. Procurement authorities must answer for approvals. Public officials must answer for certification and payment. Contractors must answer for the work they performed.
Journalists, too, should be open to legitimate questions about consistency, conflicts of interest, proportionality and fairness.
If we genuinely want accountability, the same torch must shine in every direction.
Are we auditing the Auditor-General, investigating COVID-19 expenditure, or simply putting Zoomlion on trial again?

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | September 17, 2026

At least 82 people have died following the collapse of an informal gold mine in Sudan’s West Kordofan state, while an unknown number of miners remain missing beneath sand and rubble, according to local officials and community responders.

The disaster occurred at the al-Zara gold mine near al-Nuhud, an area controlled by Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The collapse reportedly began in one shaft and spread to interconnected sections of the mining site.

A local administrator told AFP that 60 bodies had initially been recovered, followed by another 22 on Wednesday, bringing the reported death toll to 82. The same official said about 50 people were injured, while others remained trapped or unaccounted for.

Rescue operation faces severe challenges

The search for survivors has been hampered by a lack of specialised rescue equipment. According to an official cited by The Associated Press, only one privately owned forklift was available to help remove material from the collapsed site.

Survivors described the mine as a large and unstable area, with sections of the workings extending more than 30 metres underground. Rescue workers and local residents have been attempting to remove soil and debris while facing the continuing danger of further collapses.

The Kordofan Observatory, a monitoring group, also reported that the affected mining area stretches across more than a kilometre of fragile, sandy ground and that specialised rescue teams were not available.

Informal mining raises safety concerns

The al-Zara operation is among thousands of small-scale and informal mining sites spread across Sudan. Such operations provide livelihoods for many communities but often operate outside formal safety systems.

Sudan has experienced several deadly mine collapses in recent years. A collapse in 2021 killed dozens of miners, while another incident in 2023 also resulted in multiple deaths. The recurring accidents have highlighted the risks associated with poorly regulated mining and inadequate emergency-response capacity.

Disaster comes amid Sudan’s wider conflict

The latest mine disaster comes as Sudan continues to endure a war between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces, which began in April 2023.

West Kordofan is among the areas affected by the conflict, complicating access to remote communities and limiting the availability of emergency services. The region is also important to Sudan’s gold industry, which has continued operating despite the war.

The Associated Press reported that gold production and trade have become closely connected to the country’s wartime economy, while experts cited by the agency have raised concerns about gold being smuggled from areas controlled by armed groups.

Death toll could rise

With rescuers still searching through the collapsed workings, the final death toll remains uncertain. Different reports have given varying figures during the recovery operation, reflecting the difficulty of counting victims at a remote site where many miners remain missing.

For families waiting for news of relatives, the immediate priority remains locating those still trapped and recovering those who did not survive.

This report is based on information available as of September 17, 2026. The casualty figures may change as rescue and recovery operations continue.

Ed Sheeran’s North American Loop Tour has lost all of its remaining scheduled supporting acts after rapper Macklemore was removed from the tour following pro-Palestinian comments he made during performances in New Jersey.

The departures involve Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe and Irish folk group Beoga, with the artists citing concerns about artistic expression and solidarity with Macklemore.

Ed Sheeran Tickets – Concert Tour Dates – AXS AU

Macklemore removed from remaining dates

Macklemore was scheduled to appear on several of Sheeran’s remaining US stadium dates. During Sheeran’s September shows at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium, he made comments supporting Palestinians, including a call to “Free Palestine”, while performing his protest song Hind’s Hall.

The tour promoter, Messina Touring Group, subsequently announced that Macklemore would not perform the remaining support dates.

The promoter said venues on upcoming dates had indicated they would not host concerts with Macklemore on the bill, creating the possibility that shows could be cancelled.

New Macklemore Single ‘Growing Up (Sloane’s Song)’ Entrenches Old Camps

Sheeran says the decision was not his

Sheeran subsequently addressed the controversy, saying that removing Macklemore was the promoter’s decision rather than his own.

He said venues had communicated that they would withdraw their shows if Macklemore remained on the bill and that he had spoken with venues and other parties in an attempt to find a solution.

Sheeran also said he did not want to turn his concerts into a public political debate and emphasized his concern for fans, touring staff and musicians whose livelihoods depend on the shows.

First look at Ed Sheeran’s new Loop Tour stage in Auckland

Four supporting acts leave

Following Macklemore’s removal, the remaining support artists announced their departures.

Finneas said artists should not be silenced when speaking about people they believe are being oppressed. Beoga, meanwhile, had been performing alongside Sheeran during his shows.

Dispute involving Robert Kraft

Macklemore has said that billionaire businessman Robert Kraft, whose Kraft Group owns Gillette Stadium in Massachusetts, played a role in efforts to prevent him from appearing at some of the remaining shows.

Kraft has defended his opposition to Macklemore’s continued participation, citing what he described as the rapper’s broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. Those characterizations are disputed, and Macklemore has framed his comments as criticism of Israeli government policies and support for Palestinians rather than hostility toward Jewish people.

The promoter’s public explanation has focused on the positions taken by venues and the potential effect on the wider tour rather than attributing the decision solely to one venue owner.

Macklemore pledges tour earnings to Palestinian aid

The controversy has continued beyond the tour itself. Macklemore has said he intends to donate approximately $1 million in net earnings from his time on the Loop Tour to organizations providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

He has also challenged Kraft to match the donation.

What happens to Sheeran’s tour?

The Loop Tour is scheduled to continue despite the departures. The immediate change is that Sheeran no longer has the group of support acts originally planned for the remaining dates.

The episode has also opened a broader debate within the music industry over the boundaries between concert entertainment, political expression and the commercial interests of artists, promoters and stadium operators.

The facts surrounding the dispute are relatively clear — Macklemore was removed, the other supporting acts subsequently withdrew, and Sheeran says the removal was made by the promoter. The competing explanations for why the decision was ultimately made remain contested.

Independent assessment

The incident illustrates how political statements made from a major concert stage can have consequences extending beyond an individual performer. It also raises questions about who ultimately controls the content of large commercial tours when artists, promoters and venue operators hold different positions.

The departures by the other artists make the dispute unusual because the consequences have extended across almost the entire remaining support lineup, rather than being limited to Macklemore’s own performances.

Sources: Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, ITV News, Variety and Al Jazeera.

Snapchat says it is prepared to consider introducing daily limits on how long teenagers can use the platform, as pressure grows on social-media companies to adopt stronger safeguards for young users.

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel told the BBC that a default time limit could represent an industry-wide step toward establishing common standards for protecting teenagers. However, he did not give a timetable for when Snapchat might introduce such a measure.

Was Eltern über Snapchat wissen müssen — Medienzeit

Spiegel signals openness to limits

Asked about the possibility of a default time restriction for teenagers, Spiegel said it was an example of a measure Snap would be “willing to implement.”

He also said the company had been discussing the issue internally but had no further details to announce at this stage.

“We want to figure out how we can be part of the solution,” Spiegel said, according to the BBC report.

The comments do not amount to a formal announcement of a new Snapchat policy. They instead indicate that the company is considering whether and how a daily usage ceiling could work.

Meta’s push for industry-wide standards

The discussion follows changes announced by Meta after legal action in the United States concerning the use of its platforms by teenagers.

Meta has agreed to a settlement involving $12.7 billion and measures including a default two-hour daily limit for teenage users, muted notifications during school hours and nighttime restrictions. Meta has denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.

Meta has also encouraged other major platforms to adopt comparable measures. A Meta spokesperson previously expressed hope that Snap would introduce similar protections.

For Snapchat, Spiegel’s comments suggest the company is examining whether common limits across social-media services could establish what he described as industry norms.

Influencer shares astonishing amount she earns monthly on Snapchat by posting her daily life

Snapchat already offers parental controls

Snapchat currently provides parents with controls through its Family Center feature, which allows parents to see aspects of how their teenagers are using the service.

A daily limit would represent a different approach: rather than relying entirely on parents to monitor usage, the platform itself could impose a maximum amount of daily time.

The precise design remains unresolved. Questions would include the age groups covered, the length of the limit, whether parents could modify it and how the restriction would be enforced.

Debate over teenagers and social media

The proposed changes come amid continuing legal and public scrutiny of major social-media platforms.

Snap, Meta, TikTok and YouTube have faced lawsuits alleging that aspects of their platforms can encourage excessive or compulsive use among young people. The companies have disputed various allegations and have highlighted safety measures and parental controls.

Research and policy debates over social-media use among teenagers remain complex. Evidence concerning harmful or compulsive use exists, but questions remain about causation, individual differences and the effects of particular platform designs.

That distinction is important: a decision by Snapchat to introduce a time limit would be a product and policy response to concerns about youth usage, rather than proof by itself that Snapchat causes a particular health outcome.

The wider technology shift

Spiegel made his comments while discussing Snap’s next generation of Specs smart glasses, which are being developed with AI capabilities.

The company says the glasses will be able to provide recommendations based on information about a user’s goals, relationships and routines. Snap is positioning the product as a lightweight alternative to conventional virtual-reality headsets and as part of a new category of AI-enabled wearable technology.

The announced US price for the new Specs is $2,195, while the UK price is £1,995, according to the BBC report.

What happens next?

For now, Snapchat has not announced a launch date or a specific daily limit for teenagers.

The significance of Spiegel’s remarks is therefore that Snap has publicly indicated a willingness to participate in a broader industry discussion over standardized limits for young users. Whether that becomes an actual Snapchat feature — and what the rules would look like — remains to be determined.

Independent assessment: The development reflects a wider shift from voluntary parental controls toward platform-level restrictions, but the practical and social effects will depend heavily on how any limits are designed and enforced.

Sources: BBC reporting via syndicated publication; Meta-related reporting; Guardian analysis of ongoing social-media litigation.