The minority in Parliament has raised concerns over the withdrawal of GH¢350 million allocated for flood relief, questioning the process through which the funds were accessed.

Addressing the media on Wednesday, July 8, the Deputy Minority Leader in Parliament said there were unanswered questions surrounding the release of the funds, particularly because of an ongoing legal process involving the contingency fund, which Parliament had approved as the source of the money.

She said the Ministry of Finance’s announcement that the funds had been released, despite the unresolved court process, raised questions about the actual source of the money and the procedure followed.

“The Ministry of Finance subsequently announced that the 350 million cedis had been released while the court process remained unresolved,” the Deputy Minority Leader said.

She questioned how the funds were accessed under the circumstances, adding that the situation required further explanation.

“The unavoidable question, therefore, is how did the money move? One conclusion is difficult to escape,” she stated.

The Deputy Minority Leader explained that if the contingency fund remained under attachment and could not legally be accessed, then another public account may have been used to finance the emergency disbursement.

“If the contingency fund remained under attachment and could not lawfully be assessed, then the emergency disbursement could only have proceeded through another public account,” she said.

She added that using an alternative source of funding would have implications for parliamentary approval and compliance with financial regulations.

“In other words, when the approved source became unavailable, an alternative source appears to have been used,” she stated.

The deputy minority leader argued that if another account were used without parliamentary approval, it could amount to a breach of constitutional requirements governing withdrawals from public funds.

“If that is what occurred, then Parliament was never asked to approve the alternative source, and the constitutional requirements governing withdrawals from public funds were bypassed,” she said.

She also questioned the Ministry of Finance’s statement that the funds had been released from the contingency fund, arguing that the explanation would not accurately reflect events if another account was used.

“Yet the Ministry of Finance official statement announced without qualification that the money had been released from the contingency fund,” she said.

“If the funds were in fact drawn from another account, then that statement did not accurately reflect what transpired,” she added.

The Deputy Minority Leader further argued that withdrawing funds from a source other than the one approved by Parliament would mean the actual transaction had not received legislative approval.

“If the 350 million were drawn from any account other than the contingency fund, then the approval Parliament granted was never executed. The withdrawal that was executed was never approved,” she stated.

She cited the Constitution and the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), saying the laws provide safeguards against unauthorised withdrawals from public funds.

“The Constitution and the Public Financial Management Act 2016, Act 921, which criminalises unauthorised withdrawals of public funds, have been violated in broad daylight,” she alleged.

The GH¢350 million flood relief fund was approved to support emergency interventions and provide assistance to communities affected by flooding.