Audit Service fined GH¢30,000 for refusing to release information to Martin Kpebu

The Right to Information Commission has fined the Audit Service GHC30,000 for failing to release information on recruitment to private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu.

The Ghanaian lawyer had written to the Audit Service requesting for information on whether the Audit Service Board acted in consultation with the Public Services Commission before recruiting 150 new employees, as required by Article 189(2) of the Constitution.

Lawyer Kpebu also asked the Service to furnish him with details on whether the Board had declared vacancies and placed advertisements in national dailies, as required by Article 3(1) of the Audit Service Scheme of Service 2020 and Article 7(a) of the Collective Agreement between the Audit Service and the Public Service Workers Union.



Aside from these, the lawyer asked the Service to provide him the data on the following;

Total number of candidates who applied for the job

Total number of candidates who were shortlisted for the interview

Interview dates and venue

Composition of the interview panel

Score sheets of successful and unsuccessful applicants at the interview

Final report of the interview panel presented to the Audit Service Board

Copies of appointment letters of the 150 successful candidates

Academic and professional qualifications of all successful applicants

Application letters of 150 successful applicants

Expenditure, if any, incurred about the recruitment exercise

However, the Service refused to give him the information he requested.

He then had to petition the RTI Commission over the matter and in its ruling the Commission said “based on the Respondent’s failure to furnish the Applicant with the information requested coupled with its refusal to respond to all correspondence from the Commission, an administrative penalty of Thirty Thousand Cedis (GHC 30,000) is imposed on the Respondent and this shall be payable to the Commission not later than 14 days after the date of receipt of this decision. The penalty so imposed shall attract an additional default penalty.”