The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has recommended that the Auditor-General conduct a forensic investigation into the construction of the much-discussed National Cathedral project.

The recommendation is based on a report compiled by CHRAJ following a complaint lodged by the Member of Parliament (MP) for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa.

About a year ago, the MP petitioned CHRAJ over what he described as discrepancies in the construction of the project and at the National Cathedral Secretariat. Mr Ablakwa also raised concerns about the transfer of GHC2.6 million from the National Cathedral Secretariat to JNS Talent Centre Limited, one of the firms constructing the edifice.

In the findings released by CHRAJ on Monday, November 25, after investigating the case for several months, the Commission recommended that the Office of the Auditor-General intervene and conduct a forensic audit to ascertain whether funds allocated for the project were used for their intended purposes.

“Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the Auditor-General should conduct a forensic audit of the construction of the National Cathedral project from its inception to date to ascertain whether monies released for its construction have been properly utilised,” CHRAJ noted.

The extensive document released by CHRAJ also called for the possible prosecution of the board of trustees of the project, who were responsible for awarding the contract to the contractor, Ribade Company Limited.

The report further indicated several breaches of procurement laws and expressed concern that the inaction of the parties involved in the scandal could damage the country’s reputation both nationally and internationally.

In conclusion, CHRAJ affirmed that Mr Ablakwa’s allegations regarding breaches of mandatory procurement provisions were justified.

Meanwhile, the Commission found that the MP’s allegations concerning the Secretary of the National Cathedral Board of Trustees, Reverend Victor Kusi-Boateng, and the conflict of interest, including possession of multiple identities, could not be substantiated.