Bright Asempa Tsadey confirms sacked from GTA duties, demands clarification from CEO

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.