In an attempt to refute an investigation by DisabilityNewsGH.com, the Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (ASHMA) has issued an official rejoinder that inadvertently confirms the core findings of financial irregularities, illegal “taxing” of social grants, and political interference in the management of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Common Fund.
Rather than exonerating the Assembly, the official response, signed by “Management” on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, exposes deep legal misinterpretations, flawed tax mathematics, and a complete failure to account for thousands of Ghana Cedis missing from beneficiary allocations.
Correction: Our original publication stated that the items were presented on May 12, 2026. The Assembly notes the correct date was Thursday, May 8, 2026. We have corrected our records. This variance, however, does not affect the substance of the report.
Below is a point-by-point examination of the Assembly’s claims versus Ghanaian law.
1. The Tax Admission: Quoting Wrong Laws and Staying Silent on Cash Grants
WHAT THE ASSEMBLY CLAIMED:
“The Ashaiman Municipal Assembly, in compliance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) and Public Procurement Act 663, applied the approved statutory taxes on all procured items. All equipment was subjected to the 3% Withholding Tax and the 4% Value Added Tax (VAT) at source on the Ghana Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) as at the end of the year, 2025. No illegal or arbitrary 54% tax was applied, and no amount was withheld from beneficiaries as alleged.”
THE LEGAL & FACTUAL COUNTER:
- On the 54% Figure – A Strawman: Our original publication never mentioned a 54% tax. We reported a GH₵2,700 shortfall between the GH₵5,000 approved and the GH₵2,300 printer procured, which represents a 54% loss of value to the beneficiary. By denying a “54% tax” we never alleged, the Assembly has failed to explain the GH₵2,700.
- Confirmation of the 7% Deduction: By attempting to deny its own invented figure, ASHMA voluntarily confessed to applying a flat 7% deduction (3% Withholding Tax + 4% VAT). This confirms the exact 7% figure documented in our intercepted schedule detailing 39 affected beneficiaries.
- On Cash Grants: While our August 23 publication focused on procured equipment, our subsequent publication – “EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Document Shows Ashaiman Assembly Deducted 7% ‘Tax’ from Disability Common Fund” published on August 25 – revealed that 7% was also deducted from beneficiaries receiving direct cash support, e.g. Awudu Kabura (GH₵5,000 → GH₵350 deducted) and Ankra Daniel Twumasi (GH₵4,000 → GH₵280 deducted). The Assembly’s rejoinder focuses exclusively on procured equipment and offers zero explanation for these cash deductions. Cash grants handed across a table are non-taxable social protection payments under the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896).
- Quoting the Wrong Legislation: ASHMA cited Section 25(6) of Act 921 and GIFMIS regulations (LI 2378). These provisions only mandate that covered entities must enter government contracts into GIFMIS for accounting. Nothing in Act 921 or LI 2378 authorises an Assembly to deduct taxes from a PWD’s approved grant.
- Misapplying Withholding Tax: Under Act 896, Withholding Tax (3% on goods) is deducted from a vendor’s invoice, not from a beneficiary’s grant budget. If a PWD is approved for GH₵5,000.00, the Assembly must deliver GH₵5,000.00 worth of equipment, VAT inclusive.
- The 4% VAT Flaw: ASHMA claimed a “4% VAT.” Under Ghanaian tax law, VAT is 15% plus NHIL and GETFund levies. There is no statutory 4% VAT rate.
2. The Unanswered Math Gap: Where Is the Missing GH₵2,700?
WHAT THE ASSEMBLY CLAIMED:
“All items are procured based on specifications provided by beneficiaries and vetted by the Fund Management Committee (FMC). Mr. Anthony Kwaku Appiah initially requested a second-hand, foreign-used commercial printer, which was declined because procurement of second-hand equipment breaches the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) as amended 914.”
“Per the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) Section 14, procurement with DACF is subject to Act 663, whose object is to secure “judicious, economic and efficient use of state resources. Under powers granted by Section 3(c) and 97, the Public Procurement Act Standard Tender Documents require that Goods shall be new, unused, and of the most recent models”, hence, procurement of used equipment with public funds is not in compliance with the law and will attract audit queries.”
“In view of this, Mr. Anthony Kwaku Appiah subsequently requested an EPSON EcoTank L3250 printer. The EPSON EcoTank L3251, with the same specifications and functions as presented by the beneficiary, was procured for him. Section 33 – Description of Goods, Works or Services. Section 33(1) requires specifications to state the technical and quality characteristics of the goods being procured, and Section 33(2) requires specifications to be based on objective technical and quality characteristics.”
“This provision was satisfied with the procurement of the desired specifications as requested by the beneficiary. It is therefore untrue that the Assembly unilaterally procured a light-duty printer contrary to his request.”
THE LEGAL & FACTUAL COUNTER:
- The Financial Shortfall Remains Unanswered: The Assembly admits Mr Appiah’s approved budget was GH₵5,000.00. Even after its stated 7% deduction (GH₵350.00), he was still entitled to GH₵4,650.00 worth of equipment. The Assembly failed to disclose the cost of the printer it procured. Our independent market investigation found that the same EPSON EcoTank L3251 model procured for him costs approximately GH₵2,300.00 on the open market. ASHMA offers zero explanation for where the remaining GH₵3,350.00 vanished.
- Misusing Section 33 of Act 663: Section 33(1) and (2) mandate that technical specifications must reflect the intended purpose. Procuring a light-duty domestic printer for a commercial printing shop violates Section 33 and constitutes inefficient use of public funds.
3. Admission of Political Interference by the MCE
WHAT THE ASSEMBLY CLAIMED:
“The Hon. Municipal Chief Evecutive (MCE), Mr. Freeman Tsekpo, did not interfer in the work of the Disability Fund Management Committee. What the MCE observed was that the list being presented for disbursement of the 2023 Common Fund was made up of applicants shortlisted in 2021. He drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that it would be improper to disburse 2025 Funds to 2021 applicants without considering 2025 applications and suggested the inclusion of at least ten (10) applicants from the 2025 screening to enaure fairness and to meet current needs.
The Committee declined the suggestion. This advice, given in good faith to ensure equity, cannot be construed as political interterence.”
THE LEGAL & FACTUAL COUNTER:
- Official Admission of List Manipulation: By this statement, ASHMA officially admitted that the MCE attempted to alter the vetted list compiled by the statutory Fund Management Committee (FMC).
- Violation of DACF Mandate: Under the DACF Guidelines, the FMC is an independent statutory body. The MCE is not a member and has zero legal authority to alter or suggest swaps on a vetted list. What the Assembly terms “advice in good faith” constitutes political interference. The FMC was legally right to reject it.
4. Denials of Knowledge and Bureaucratic Deflection
WHAT THE ASSEMBLY CLAIMED:
” ‘The Social Welfare Director, Madam Vida Adjumani, Secretary to the FMC, denied knowledge of the budget she co-signed, while FMC Chairman Joshua Addi confirmed the GH₵5,000 budget but said he did not know the procurement cost.’ ”
“Contrary to this assertion, Madam Vida Adjumani, Municipal Director of Social Welfare and Community Development and Secretary to the Disability Fund Management Committee (DFMC), did not grant an interview to DisabilityNewsGH.com. The journalist told her that beneficiary Mr. Anthony Kwaku Appiah claimed the Department gave him a faulty printer and that GH₵5,000 was allocated for it, but the printer was worth far less. Madam Adjumani expressed surprise at how the beneficiary got allocation details and clarified that the Department did not present the printer – “Social Welfare Officers are not Fund managers”. The Fund is managed by the Disability Fund Management Committee (DFMC), where Social Welfare is only one member. She referred the journalist to the DFMC Chairperson, Mr. Joshua Addy of the National Council on Persons with Disability, who was contacted immediately, ending their engagement. Thus, she never discussed Mr. Appiah’s budget allocation or procurement with the portal and claims that she denied knowledge of the budget are false and misleading.”
WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED:
In the meeting with Madam Adjumani in her office, the journalist did not categorically state that the Social Welfare Department gave Mr Anthony Kwaku Appiah a faulty printer. What the journalist told Madam Adjumani was that the beneficiary reported that he was given a faulty printer and that GH₵5,000 was allocated for it.
In response, Madam Adjumani expressed surprise at how the beneficiary got allocation details. She indeed stated that she did not know how much was budgeted for Mr Appiah and that she did not have the disbursement document with her at that moment. It was at that point that she referred the journalist to the DFMC Chair, Mr Joshua Addy.
WHY THIS DOES NOT HOLD:
Madam Adjumani’s response that she did not know the budget and did not have the document is precisely the issue. As Secretary to the Fund Management Committee, she is the custodian of the FMC’s records and co-signs the vetted list.
It is not possible for the Secretary to credibly claim she had no knowledge of how much was budgeted for a beneficiary whose allocation she is statutorily required to record and keep. We therefore stand by our report that she denied knowledge of the budget.
5. PR Nitpicking: Clinging to a 4-Day Date Discrepancy
WHAT THE ASSEMBLY CLAIMED:
“The Assembly wishes further to correct a factual inaccuracy in the DisabilityNewsGH.com publication. The publication repeatedly states that the PWD items were presented to beneficiaries on 12th May, 2026. For the record, the disbursement and presentation of items to PWD beneficiaries were held on Thursday, 8th May, 2026. This factual error further demonstrates the lack of due diligence and verification by the portal. This glaring error is a clear indication of the portal’s failure to undertake the necessary due diligence, fact-checking and verification before publication. The assembly therefore considers the publication inaccurate, misleading and unreliable and calls on DisabilityNewsGH.com to promptly correct the misinformation and uphold the basic standards of responsible journalism.”
THE LEGAL & FACTUAL COUNTER:
- PR Distraction: A date correction does not invalidate intercepted internal spreadsheets, photos of a faulty printer, illegal 7% deductions from cash and in-kind grants, or the MCE’s admitted attempt to manipulate the beneficiary list.
Conclusion: The Case for a Forensic Audit Is Absolute
Far from clearing its name, ASHMA’s rejoinder confirms that:
- Deductions were made from social protection allocations under the guise of tax, including direct deductions from cash grants.
- Substandard, light-duty equipment was procured, leaving thousands of Ghana Cedis unaccounted for.
- Executive interference occurred in the selection of PWD beneficiaries.
DisabilityNewsGH.com stands firmly by its investigation. We reiterate our call on the Auditor-General, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to launch a full forensic audit into the Ashaiman Municipal Assembly’s Disability Fund.
SOURCE: DisabilityNewsGH.com
