A legal application has reportedly been filed seeking an order compelling President John Dramani Mahama to appoint a former Chief Justice to the Council of State within 48 hours.

The move could set the stage for a legal confrontation over the appointment process and the obligations of the President under Ghana’s constitutional framework.

The lawyers are seeking the court’s intervention to compel the President to take the requested action within a strict 48-hour period. However, the specific former Chief Justice involved, the identities of the lawyers and the precise legal grounds for the application were not provided in the headline.

The application raises questions about the extent of presidential discretion in appointments to the Council of State, a constitutional advisory body that assists the President on matters of national governance.

The Council of State plays an important role in Ghana’s constitutional arrangements, offering advice on national issues and performing other functions assigned to it under the 1992 Constitution.

Any court proceedings arising from the application could bring renewed attention to the relationship between executive authority and judicial oversight, particularly where applicants argue that a constitutional duty requires action by the President.

The court will have to consider the legal arguments presented and determine whether the circumstances justify the specific order being sought.

It remains unclear whether the application has been heard, whether the court has issued any interim directions or when a decision may be delivered.

Further details from the originating court documents and the parties involved will be necessary to establish the full circumstances of the case.

The development could become a significant constitutional matter depending on the arguments advanced and the court’s eventual determination.

Allegations surrounding the management of visa arrangements for Ghanaian tourism industry players seeking to attend activities related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup have triggered fresh questions about transparency and accountability at the Ghana Tourism Authority (GTA).

The controversy centres on allegations by the President of the Ghana Tourism Federation (GHATOF) concerning visa fees paid by members, discrepancies in the list of applicants submitted for processing, and the inclusion of additional names whose identities and affiliations have been questioned.

The concerns were highlighted in a Facebook post by Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who called on GTA Chief Executive Officer Maame Efua Houadjeto to provide answers regarding the handling of the arrangements.

According to the allegations outlined in the post, GHATOF was initially allocated four slots for the World Cup-related trip, but the number was subsequently increased to 20.

Members reportedly paid GH¢2,000 each to Maame Efua towards the visa arrangements. However, some applicants allegedly discovered at the embassy that their visa fees had not been paid, raising questions about the handling of the money collected.

The post questioned whether the fees had been remitted to the embassy and, if not, what had happened to the funds. It also called for the affected members to receive refunds where payments had not been made.

Another major concern raised in the post involves an alleged discrepancy between the list of applicants submitted by GHATOF and the names that eventually appeared on the visa list.

According to the allegations, GHATOF submitted 20 names, but members later discovered in Accra that the list had expanded to 50, with an additional 30 individuals reportedly listed under the name “Ahwele Dancing Group.”

The post stated that preliminary checks had not established the existence of the group, prompting questions about the identities of the individuals listed under its name and the basis on which they were included.

The GHATOF President also reportedly alleged that individuals who were neither affiliated with the Ghana Tourism Authority nor employed by the institution had been included in the arrangements.

These claims have raised questions about who authorised the additional names, the criteria used to select beneficiaries and whether the allocation process followed established procedures.

However, the allegations have not, in themselves, established that any funds were misappropriated or that the additional names were unlawfully included.

In remarks captured in the video accompanying the Facebook post, the GHATOF President expressed disappointment over the difficulties encountered by members during the visa process.

He said members had been approached months earlier and subsequently informed that their visa fees had not been paid. He added that many applicants, including himself, were told that their names were not even on the relevant form.

The President also described the situation as embarrassing for tourism industry players who had travelled from different parts of the country to participate in the arrangements.

“It is unfortunate, it is embarrassing, it is very disappointing for people to travel from Sunyani all the way to Takoradi,” he said.

The GHATOF President further apologised for the situation and indicated that the matter required attention, stressing that the experience was unacceptable to those affected.

His comments reflected concerns about the treatment of industry players and the potential damage to confidence in arrangements intended to support Ghana’s tourism sector.

During the same remarks, the GHATOF President stated that the visa fees had been paid in the afternoon.

He said any money that had been collected from members but was required to be returned should be refunded immediately.

“It is on record that the visa fees were paid in the afternoon. So, any money that was given to come back immediately, it has to come back,” he said.

He described this as an assurance to the affected members and indicated that the governing council would take a decision on the way forward.

He also suggested that another press conference could be organised if necessary to address the matter.

The remarks introduce an important issue requiring clarification: the precise status of the visa payments, including when the fees were paid, which applicants were covered and whether any outstanding amounts remain to be refunded.

The available remarks do not fully establish the payment timeline or resolve the questions surrounding the funds reportedly collected from members.

Pressure for transparency and accountability

The controversy comes at a time when tourism industry stakeholders are seeking clarity on how opportunities linked to the 2026 FIFA World Cup were allocated and administered.

For GHATOF members who reportedly paid towards the visa arrangements, the immediate concerns include whether their payments were properly accounted for, why some applicants allegedly found their names missing and how the final list came to contain 50 names instead of the 20 reportedly submitted by the federation.

The allegations also raise questions about the process used to identify beneficiaries and the involvement of individuals outside the Ghana Tourism Authority.

Maame Efua Houadjeto is being called upon to clarify the circumstances surrounding the visa fees, explain the reported expansion of the list and identify the individuals associated with the additional 30 names.

The Ghana Tourism Authority’s response would be important in establishing the facts, including the amount collected, the payments made to the embassy, the final list of applicants and the procedures followed in selecting beneficiaries.

Until the relevant records and responses are made available, the claims remain allegations that require verification.

For the affected tourism operators, a clear explanation and an account of the money collected could help address the concerns raised and restore confidence in the management of opportunities intended for the industry.

https://web.facebook.com/reel/1773521690595237

Fourteen directors of the Ghana Tourism Authority (GTA) have petitioned the Right to Information Commission to compel the disclosure of official records relating to the authority’s administration, finances, procurement activities and operations from February 2025.

The directors, in an application dated September 23, 2026, are seeking the Commission’s intervention after alleging that a request submitted to Acting Chief Executive Officer Marilyn Maame Efua Houadjeto in July did not receive a substantive response within the statutory period.

Their request covered a broad range of institutional records, organised in a four-volume schedule, relating to the governance and administration of the authority. The categories identified in the application include leadership and governance, human resource management, financial administration, the Tourism Development Fund and Tourism Levy, procurement and contracts, assets, regional operations, tourism promotion, strategic projects, official travel, institutional communications and general administration.

The application seeks certified official records covering the period from February 2025 to the date of the original request. The directors’ objective, as reflected in the petition, is to obtain access to records held by the public institution through the procedures provided under the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).

The directors said they submitted the request to the Acting CEO on July 24, 2026. Receipt was acknowledged in a letter dated July 27, 2026.

According to the petition, the authority did not provide the requested records, issue a substantive decision on access, grant partial access, give reasons for a refusal or notify the applicants of a lawful extension within the 14-day statutory period.

The directors therefore treated the absence of a response as a deemed refusal under Section 23(5) of the Act and proceeded to seek an internal review.

Their internal review application was dated August 13, 2026, and received on August 14. It was addressed to the Chairperson of the GTA Governing Board, Dorothy Lomotey Engmann.

In a letter dated August 20, the Board Chairperson acknowledged receipt and explained that she had been outside the jurisdiction on medical grounds. She said the matter would be referred for advice and direction.

The directors maintained that the acknowledgement did not constitute a substantive decision on the review. They said the 15-day period for the internal review expired on August 29 without a determination, leading them to invoke Section 35 of Act 989 on deemed affirmation.

The petition to the Commission now seeks an order requiring the GTA to disclose all records requested by the directors that are not protected by a lawful exemption.

The applicants are also asking the Commission to require the authority to specify the legal grounds for withholding any information and explain why each exemption applies. Where a document contains both exempt and non-exempt information, they want the accessible portions released rather than the entire record being withheld.

They have further asked for directions on how the matter should be handled if the GTA claims that particular records do not exist.

The financial and administrative categories in the request make the application relevant to questions of public-sector transparency and institutional accountability. Records relating to the Tourism Development Fund and Tourism Levy, procurement and contracts, assets and financial administration are among the areas covered by the broad request.

However, the petition does not, by itself, establish that funds have been misused, contracts improperly awarded or records deliberately concealed. It is an application seeking access to official information and a review of the authority’s alleged failure to follow the statutory process.

The directors have asked the Commission to determine the legal effect of the missed response and internal review deadlines, confirm its jurisdiction and issue appropriate directions to secure access to non-exempt records.

Angelo Yossi Dogbe, the GTA Northern Regional Director, filed the application as the authorised representative for correspondence and filing on behalf of the concerned directors.

The other directors named in the application are Kwasi Anim-Larbi, William Dzidzomu, Spencer Doku, Isaac Asiam, Frederick Adjei-Rudolph, Alhaj Hakeem A. Ismael, Moses Ndewin Ndebugri, Alfred Asumadu, Henry Yeleduor, Nana Agyenim Boateng, Michael Kpingbi, Kwesi Frimpong and Sulemana Amadu.

The Commission’s determination, if issued, would clarify the next steps in the dispute over access to the requested records. No ruling by the Commission or finding of financial or procurement wrongdoing is established in the material provided.

Kpdonline.net has raised questions about why Bright Asempa Tsadey’s name remains on the Ghana Tourism Authority’s (GTA) official website as Director of Corporate Affairs, despite a formal notice indicating that he has been released from the position.

The concern follows a letter dated August 20, 2026, in which Mr Tsadey acknowledged receiving a notice from GTA Chief Executive Officer, Maame Efua Houadjeto, informing him of his release from duties effective August 28, 2026.

However, a check of the authority’s official Meet Our Team webpage still lists Bright Asempa Tsadey under the Directors section as Director of Corporate Affairs.

The discrepancy has raised questions about whether the website has been updated to reflect the reported change in his employment status.

Why is Bright Asempa still on the GTA team list?

If Mr Tsadey’s release took effect on August 28, 2026, why does the authority’s official website continue to identify him as its Director of Corporate Affairs?

That is the question Kpdonline.net is raising over the continued publication of his name and title on the GTA’s team page.

The website presents the page as a listing of the authority’s leadership and directors, including the CEO, deputy CEOs, departmental directors and regional directors.

Mr Tsadey appears among the directors, with his name and former designation displayed alongside those of other officials.

The continued listing creates uncertainty for members of the public who rely on the authority’s website for information about its leadership and administrative structure.

It is not yet clear whether the listing reflects a delay in updating the website, an administrative oversight or another reason. The continued appearance of his name does not, on its own, establish that he remains in office.

Release letter confirms formal notification

In his August 20 response to the CEO, Mr Tsadey acknowledged receipt of a letter dated August 12, titled “Notice of Release from Duties.”

The notice informed him that his release from the position of Director of Corporate Affairs would take effect on August 28, 2026.

While indicating that he would respect the decision, Mr Tsadey requested clarification about the reasons for his release, particularly concerns reportedly raised about his alignment with the authority’s growth, strategic direction and vision.

He asked the CEO to identify the specific actions, omissions or conduct that had been considered inconsistent with the GTA’s objectives.

His letter also raised concerns about his repeated requests for a formal appointment letter and the personal transportation expenses he said he had incurred while performing official duties.

These issues were presented as requests for clarification and were not accompanied by a response from the CEO in the correspondence made available.

Questions over accuracy of official information

The continued appearance of Mr Tsadey’s name on the GTA website raises a separate issue about the accuracy and timeliness of information published by a public institution.

Official websites are often used by journalists, tourism operators, industry stakeholders and members of the public to identify officials and determine their respective responsibilities.

Where an officer has been formally notified of a release from duties, an outdated staff listing can create confusion about the person’s current status and the appropriate official to contact.

Kpdonline.net is therefore seeking clarity on why the website continues to identify Mr Tsadey as Director of Corporate Affairs despite the release notice.

The GTA has not yet provided a publicly available explanation for the continued listing in the information reviewed for this report.

The authority’s response would help establish whether the webpage is simply awaiting an administrative update or whether there is another explanation for the discrepancy.

Bright Asempa Tsadey, the Director of Corporate Affairs at the Ghana Tourism Authority (GTA), has confirmed his release from the position after responding to a formal notice issued by the authority’s Chief Executive Officer, Maame Efua Houadjeto.

In a letter dated August 20, 2026, addressed to the CEO, Mr Tsadey acknowledged receipt of a letter dated August 12, 2026, titled “Notice of Release from Duties,” which informed him that his release from the position would take effect on August 28, 2026.

His response provides further confirmation of his departure from the position, following earlier reports by Kpdonline.net that he had been removed from his role at the tourism authority.

Although Mr Tsadey said he had taken note of the decision and would respect it, he questioned the reasons given for the action, particularly the assertion that there were concerns about his alignment with the authority’s growth, strategic direction and vision.

Tsadey seeks explanation for alleged lack of alignment

In the notice communicated to him, the GTA CEO reportedly cited concerns regarding the “level of alignment and support demonstrated towards the growth, strategic direction, and vision of the Authority” as one of the considerations informing the decision.

Mr Tsadey said the statement was serious and requested details of the specific actions, omissions or conduct that had been deemed inconsistent with the authority’s objectives.

He argued that fairness, transparency and institutional accountability required that he be informed of the precise grounds for the concerns raised against him.

“I would be grateful to know the specific actions, omissions or conduct on my part that have been deemed inconsistent with the growth, strategic direction and vision of the Authority,” he stated in the letter.

He stressed that his request was not intended to challenge the decision but to enable him to understand the basis on which it was made.

Raises concerns over appointment letter

As part of his request for clarification, Mr Tsadey raised questions about his formal appointment and terms of engagement with the authority.

According to him, he had, on several occasions, requested his formal appointment letter and the conditions governing his engagement but had not received the document.

He therefore asked whether his repeated requests for clarity regarding his appointment and employment terms had been interpreted as conduct contrary to the authority’s strategic direction or interests.

The former Corporate Affairs Director did not indicate in the letter whether the absence of the appointment document had been formally raised with the CEO before the notice of release was issued.

However, he presented the matter as one of the issues requiring clarification in light of the reasons cited for his release.

Details of personal expenses incurred on official duties

Mr Tsadey also highlighted the personal expenses he said he had incurred while carrying out official assignments on behalf of the GTA.

He explained that he had frequently used his personal vehicle to attend official programmes, assignments and engagements in the discharge of his responsibilities.

On occasions when his vehicle was unavailable, he said he had relied on Uber at his own expense to ensure that official duties were performed.

According to him, he had undertaken these responsibilities without receiving a regular monthly vehicle maintenance allowance and, in several instances, without reimbursement for transportation-related expenses.

He consequently sought to understand whether his efforts to ensure the performance of official duties despite the personal financial costs had in any way been considered inconsistent with the authority’s strategic direction.

The letter did not specify the total amount he had spent on transportation or the value of any outstanding reimbursements.

Mr Tsadey maintained that he had sought to perform his duties as Director of Corporate Affairs professionally and in the interest of the authority throughout his tenure.

He requested that the CEO identify any specific instances in which his conduct, decisions, communication or performance were considered to have undermined the GTA’s growth, strategic direction or vision.

He said such clarification would help him understand the concerns and ensure that the official record accurately reflected his position.

“I raise these matters not in defiance of the decision communicated to me, but because I believe that where an adverse decision is partly premised on concerns about an officer’s alignment with an organisation’s strategic direction, it is only fair and reasonable for the officer concerned to understand what specific actions or omissions constitute that alleged lack of alignment,” he stated.

He further requested that the specific concerns, incidents or actions underlying the decision be communicated to him.

Commits to handover despite release

Despite raising questions about the grounds for his release, Mr Tsadey said he remained committed to completing a proper and comprehensive handover of his responsibilities, official documents and authority property in accordance with the CEO’s directive and within the stipulated period.

He also assured the GTA leadership that he would continue to conduct himself with professionalism, dignity and respect for the institution, notwithstanding the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of his engagement.

He expressed gratitude for the opportunity to have served the authority and said he looked forward to receiving a response to the issues raised in his letter.

A copy of his response was also attached for the attention of the GTA Board Chairperson. The letter was copied to the Board Chairperson, the Director of Human Resources, and the Fund Administrator.

The letter from Mr Tsadey establishes that he received formal notification of his release from the position of Director of Corporate Affairs, with August 28, 2026, stated as the effective date.

While he has indicated that he will respect the decision, his response raises questions about the stated reasons for his release, his appointment documentation and expenses incurred on official duties at the centre of the matter.