Mary Addah, Executive Director of the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII), has called for urgent legislation to regulate the actions of outgoing governments after electoral defeats, citing recent controversies over last-minute public sector appointments as a critical example.
Her remarks follow a directive by the Chief of Staff to terminate all public sector workers hired after December 7, 2024, and those not formally added to government payrolls—a move critics argue reflects systemic abuse of power during political transitions.
“Losing an election should not grant a government free rein to make rushed decisions it neglected during its tenure,” Addah stated during an interview on Accra-based TV3. She emphasized that outgoing administrations often exploit their final days to push through appointments or policies they had years to address. “Why wait until defeat is certain to fill gaps or hire personnel? These actions undermine public trust and demand legal boundaries,” she added.
The call for reform comes amid growing scrutiny over “midnight appointments,” a recurring practice where outgoing parties hastily recruit allies into civil service roles, often sidestepping due process. Addah argued that such maneuvers strain governance continuity and burden incoming administrations with politically motivated hires. “Four years is ample time to address staffing needs. Last-minute appointments reek of opportunism, not necessity,” she said.
Her proposal seeks legislation to restrict post-election governance activities, ensuring outgoing governments focus solely on transitional duties rather than binding successors to abrupt decisions. While she acknowledged that defeated parties retain constitutional authority until handover, Addah stressed the need for “guardrails” to prevent abuse. “Governance isn’t a sprint to the finish line. It’s a marathon requiring accountability at every stage,” she remarked.
The Chief of Staff’s directive has sparked backlash, with Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Member of Parliament for Tafo-Pankrano, vowing to challenge the move. He described the revocation of appointments as “illegal” and politically motivated, accusing the outgoing government of overstepping its mandate. “These workers were duly employed under existing protocols. Arbitrary reversals disrespect due process and punish innocent citizens,” he argued.
Political analysts note that Ghana’s lack of clear post-election governance rules leaves room for partisan maneuvering, a gap Addah’s proposal aims to close. Similar laws exist in nations like Kenya and Nigeria, where statutory “transition periods” limit major decisions by outgoing administrations. However, critics warn that overly restrictive laws could paralyze essential governance during handovers.
Public reaction remains divided. Civil society groups back Addah’s push, framing it as a safeguard against corruption, while some legal experts caution against conflating ethical governance with legislative overreach. “The challenge lies in balancing accountability with operational flexibility,” said governance researcher Kwame Mensah. “Outgoing governments must retain capacity to address emergencies without exploiting loopholes.”
As debates intensify, the controversy underscores a broader reckoning with Ghana’s democratic maturity. With elections often hinging on narrow margins, the stakes for transparent transitions have never been higher. For Addah, the path forward is clear: “Without laws to check post-election excesses, we risk normalizing a culture of impunity. Ghana’s democracy deserves better.”
The ball now lies with legislators to determine whether legal reforms will curb these practices—or if partisan interests will stall progress.
