Prince Ganaku, lawyer for Mr Frank Oliver Kpodo, says his client feels vindicated following his clearance by the Auditor-General’s Office for the wrongly attributed GH¢427,995,661.40 in unearned salaries to a single public servant.
However, he insisted that the ordeal had caused significant reputational harm that could have been avoided with due diligence.
The Auditor-General’s Office has withdrawn a major error in its nationwide payroll audit report, admitting that it wrongly attributed GH¢427,995,661.40 in unearned salaries to a single public servant.
In a press release dated April 21, 2026, the Office clarified that the amount was not received by Mr Kpodo, but rather related to payroll irregularities involving 3,476 unaccounted staff under the Ministry of Education.
Speaking in an interview on Joy FM’s Middaynews, Mr Kpodo’s lawyer said the impact has been severe, citing widespread circulation of the claims on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter).
He also noted that despite official clarification from the Audit Service and the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department, The Fourth Estate is yet to retract or update the original publication.
“This is not fair,” he stated.
“It has caused horrendous reputational damage. All you need to do is go on Twitter—now X—look up the post about him, and read the replies. Some have even taken screenshots and circulated them widely across the world.
“You might not even be online today to see that the Audit Service or other authorities have issued clarifications. Yet, up to now, the Fourth Estate has not corrected the post or issued a rejoinder to say, ‘No, this is inaccurate,’ even after both the Audit Service and the Comptroller and Accountant-General have cleared him. This is not fair.”
He described the development as “a good thing when the truth comes to light,” but criticised the circumstances leading to the publication of the initial claims.
According to him, Mr Kpodo had engaged journalists from The Fourth Estate before the publication and had indicated that the alleged payments were impossible under the existing controls at the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department. He also pointed out that his client had evidence, including payslips, to refute the claims.
However, the lawyer argued that the story was published prematurely on Monday morning, although supporting documents could not have been accessed on Sunday when the initial interaction took place.
He further criticised the journalists’ handling of the story, describing the reported figure—GH¢14 million per month—as “outlandish” and one that should have triggered deeper verification.
“It is incumbent upon journalists to seek clarification, especially on such extraordinary claims, before publication,” he stressed, adding that the failure to do so suggested disregard for potentially exculpatory evidence.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com