Documents available to adomonline.com suggest that allegations of conflict of interest against a senior official of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) may not be grounded on facts.

At the centre of the controversy is Mr. Ato Boateng, who has been accused by Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah, Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, of using his position to influence decisions in favour of Atlas Commodities Limited.

However, documents available to Adomonline.com have challenged the narrative of conflict of interest.

According to the documents, Mr. Boateng resigned as a Board Director of Atlas Commodities Limited in January 2025.

According to the documents, Mr Boateng transferred his shares in the company to one Edinam Yao Cofie and George Ofori, acting as trustees of a duly established trust.

Crucially, these changes were declared in his official assets and liabilities declaration, which was lodged with the Auditor-General in compliance with public office requirements.

The documents also show that COCOBOD does not hold shares in PBC Limited and therefore has no managerial control over the company.

According to the administrative architecture of COCOBOD, regulation of Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs), grading and quality control, and the allocation of seed money are handled by separate directorates and subject to layered approvals hence, cannot be at the unilateral discretion of any single officer, the documents reveal.

In addition, the documents show that for the past two years, COCOBOD has not provided seed money to LBCs for cocoa purchases.

Instead, LBCs have had to secure private financing or borrow from banks, weakening claims that Mr. Boateng could manipulate seed fund allocations in favour of any company.

When Adomonline.com spoke to a source at COCOBOD who spoke on the condition of anonymity, he described Hon. Assafuah’s posture as a political campaign rather than a governance concern.

He pointed out that the MP has reportedly petitioned the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), yet continues to prosecute the matter in the media instead of awaiting institutional findings.

The source argued that if the matter is before oversight bodies, public commentary framed as definitive wrongdoing risks prejudicing due process and turning a governance question into partisan theatre.

He concluded that the allegations do not establish any conflict of interest and characterises the claims as a politically motivated attempt to tarnish the reputation of a “competent and resourceful professional.”

With the matter now reportedly before investigative institutions, observers say the ultimate clarity will come not from political soundbites, but from the determinations of the appropriate constitutional bodies.