About GH¢4.2 million has been deducted from the allowances of national service personnel deployed to government institutions nationwide to fund a capacity-building programme that has since been suspended amid concerns from beneficiaries.

Director-General of the National Service Authority, Moses Doknach Kpeungu, disclosed that 99,508 national service personnel had been deployed across the country, including nurses.

Of this number, nearly 29,000 were deployed to private sector institutions, meaning approximately 70,508 personnel were serving in government institutions and were therefore affected by the deduction

Each affected national service person had GH¢60 deducted from their May allowance. The National Service Personnel Association (NASPA), explained that total amount represents a GH¢15 monthly deduction over four months to fund the capacity-building programme.

JoyNews Research calculations based on the estimated 70,508 personnel serving in government institutions, the deduction amounts to approximately GH¢4.2 million.

The association, however, maintains that the initiative was designed to bridge the gap between graduates and employment by equipping young people with additional skills beyond their academic qualifications

The training programme comprised 5 courses and was scheduled to be delivered nationwide by Zeus Atlas Limited

In an interview, NASPA President Abdul Wahab Bala Mohammed, explained the initiative was first piloted in the Greater Accra Region in 2024.

“The response from the piloting stage was very massive and encouraging. So, we decided to upscale it nationwide. Hence, we took it to council, got the approval, went ahead to contract Zeus Atlas Limited to carry out the training”

The programme has since been suspended following a directive from the Ministry of Youth Development and Empowerment, after concerns were raised over the deductions and the implementation of the initiative

Some national service personnel have questioned the need for the programme, arguing that they have not participated in any training sessions and therefore should not have been subjected to the deduction.

An affected National Service Person said “We do not agree to the fact that we will not receive a refund. First of all, we are not beneficiaries. You don't even inform us about the capacity building. Some of us are NSS people, but we are not children. Because of this delay, I had to use my profit and some of my capital to be coming to work, and to feed myself at work.”

The development, however, raises a broader question about representation and consultation: how did a programme intended to benefit national service personnel, and backed by an association representing them, become the subject of such strong resistance from some of the very people it was designed to serve?