The Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) has become the centre of an escalating governance and accountability storm after a completed and signed audit report of its 2024 financial statements sparked an extraordinary chain of events involving an attempted restatement of the accounts, a complaint lodged at Jubilee House, and the eventual termination of an external audit firm appointed to review MIIF’s 2025 books.
At the heart of the controversy is the Auditor-General’s confirmation that MIIF’s 2024 audited financial statements were fully completed in June 2025, signed off by the Fund’s leadership and the Ghana Audit Service, and should ordinarily have marked the end of the audit process.
Instead, the audit has become the subject of intense dispute, raising broader questions about transparency, executive influence, and the integrity of public financial oversight.
Audit Completed and Signed
According to correspondence issued by the Auditor-General, Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, the Ghana Audit Service completed MIIF’s audit for the 2024 financial year in 2025, with the audit opinion formally signed on 27 June 2025.
Documents reviewed also indicate that MIIF’s Chief Executive Officer, Justina Nelson, and the Board Chair signed the financial statements a day earlier, on 26 June 2025.
Under normal public-sector auditing practice, such sign-off concludes the audit process and allows the statements to be published for accountability and statutory reporting purposes. However, this was not the case for MIIF.
RTI Request Sparks Scrutiny
The dispute intensified in September 2025 when a former MIIF board member submitted a request under Ghana’s Right to Information law seeking access to the signed 2024 audited accounts.
MIIF declined to provide the documents, a refusal that later triggered proceedings before the Right to Information Commission.
The refusal, combined with growing public interest in MIIF’s financial reporting, set the stage for an even more dramatic development: a move by MIIF management to revisit the already completed audit.
MIIF Seeks To Rewrite Signed Accounts
Weeks after the RTI request had been lodged, MIIF wrote formally to the Ghana Audit Service seeking a review and restatement of the signed 2024 accounts.
The Fund alleged what it described as “material and pervasive misstatements” in the financial statements—claims that, if accepted, could have led to an altered audit opinion.
On 7 November 2025, MIIF officials met with the Audit Service to press their concerns. But the Auditor-General’s office rejected the basis of the request, concluding that the issues raised did not meet the threshold of material misstatement required to reopen or revise an audit already completed.
Audit Service Rebukes MIIF Conduct As ‘Improper’
The Ghana Audit Service subsequently issued a sharply worded letter dated 12 November 2025, describing MIIF’s attempt to rewrite the signed audit as “improper conduct.”
The Service also cautioned MIIF against its use of the term “pervasive,” describing the language as misleading.
The message from the Audit Service was unequivocal: the 2024 audit would stand as signed.
Dispute Escalates to Jubilee House
Rather than ending there, the matter moved beyond professional audit engagement into the highest levels of government.
The Auditor-General confirmed that MIIF’s CEO lodged a formal complaint with the Chief of Staff, Julius Debrah, prompting an invitation for the Auditor-General to attend a meeting at Jubilee House to explain the Audit Service’s refusal to reopen the 2024 audit.
In a response letter dated 30 January 2026, addressed to journalist Wilberforce Asare ahead of publication, Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu clarified that the President did not personally summon him, but that the invitation came from the Chief of Staff after MIIF management escalated the issue.
“It is worthy to note that H.E. the President did not invite the Auditor-General… however, the CEO of MIIF lodged a complaint to the Chief of Staff who then invited me to provide insight on our audit position,” the Auditor-General stated.
External Auditor Appointed For 2025 Accounts
Following the Jubilee House intervention, the Audit Service decided that MIIF’s 2025 audit would be conducted by an external private firm, rather than directly by the Ghana Audit Service, as had been the practice in previous years.
The Auditor-General explained that the appointment was done under Regulation 29 of the Audit Service Regulations, 2011 (C.I. 70).
By letter dated 3 December 2025, the Audit Service appointed TRC Consult as MIIF’s external auditor for the 2025 financial year. TRC Consult accepted the engagement on 9 January 2026.
Conflict of Interest Questions Emerge
The appointment of TRC Consult immediately drew scrutiny after it emerged that the firm’s Managing Partner, Dr Felix Kwame Aveh, is also a member of the governing board of the Audit Service.
Dr Aveh was also previously nominated for the role of Auditor-General in 2016 before Daniel Domelevo was appointed after the elections.
Although the Audit Service maintained that the selection process complied with Regulation 29(7), the optics raised fresh concerns given MIIF’s earlier failed attempt to alter its 2024 audit.
External Auditor Sacked After Alleged Interference
In a dramatic reversal, the Auditor-General confirmed that TRC Consult’s appointment has now been terminated.
The reason, he said, was decisive: MIIF management attempted to direct the audit, compromising the independence of the process.
“Management of MIIF attempted directing the audit… and appropriate steps have been taken… The Audit Service would therefore conduct the 2025 audit,” Asiedu stated.
To preserve public trust, the Auditor-General said the termination was necessary to protect the credibility and independence of Ghana’s audit regime, especially for statutory funds of national importance like MIIF.
MIIF Responds With Limited Comment
When contacted, MIIF acknowledged the correspondence and meetings with the Audit Service and confirmed it responded to the Audit Service’s 12 November letter.
However, the Fund declined to address the substance of the dispute, citing confidentiality and ongoing discussions.
Sources familiar with internal deliberations suggest some advisers and board-level actors cautioned against pursuing a restatement of signed accounts, warnings that were not heeded.
About the Author
