By Issah Olegor
The official relocation of the Ministry of Finance into the newly completed high-rise complex at Kanda, originally built by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), has unfolded against a backdrop of deepening institutional controversies, including ongoing investigations by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and a fresh scandal over a disputed GH¢17 million petroleum lifting arrangement that is raising serious questions about governance, risk management and accountability within the country’s tax administration.
Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson has formally moved the Ministry of Finance into the Kanda facility on Tumu Avenue, with full operations scheduled to commence on Monday, February 9, 2026.
Government sources maintain that the building was constructed by the GRA under a previous administration as part of its long-term plan to establish a new national headquarters for the authority, but has now been hijacked as the Ministry of Finance’s new operational base raising anger among GRA staff who were ready to occupy the ultra-modern edifice.
The move, however, comes at a time when the GRA is under intense public scrutiny.
In December 2025, Dr. Ato Forson himself was reported to CHRAJ over allegations of “selective and biased” ex-gratia payments to Members of Parliament, while CHRAJ has separately indicted a former GRA Commissioner-General for procurement breaches that allegedly caused nearly GH¢9 million in financial loss to the state.
These developments have reinforced public concerns about transparency, procurement integrity and accountability across the financial governance institutions.
CHRAJ has been petitioned to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of a major construction contract for new headquarters of the GRA, amid growing concerns over transparency, value for money and the use of public funds.
The petition, dated 23 August 2022, was submitted by a civil society group.
It centres on a contract awarded in 2020 to Devtraco Builders Limited for the construction of a 14-storey office complex intended to serve as the new GRA headquarters near the Kanda Post Office in Accra.
GH¢73 Million Mobilisation Fee Under Scrutiny
According to the petition, the GRA paid GH¢73 million to Devtraco in 2020 as a mobilisation or advance payment, reportedly representing 15 per cent of the total contract sum.
The payment, it argues, was made at a time when the project had not yet taken off physically on site.
Subsequent developments, however, have raised serious questions.
Due to what has been described as security concerns around the project location, the original design of the building was later scaled down from 14 storeys to four storeys.
The petitioners are now demanding clarity on whether the mobilisation fee was adjusted to reflect the drastic reduction in the scope of work, and if not, what has become of the GH¢73 million already paid and was the entire contract sum.
Delayed Start Of Construction
Further concerns stem from the timeline of the project. Documents attached to the petition indicate that the transfer of funds to Devtraco in respect of the 15 per cent advance mobilisation was initiated on 2 December 2020.
Yet, construction work reportedly did not commence until February 2022, more than a year later.
Silence From GRA Leadership
In an effort to seek answers, the petitioner say it wrote formally to the Commissioner-General of the GRA in April 2022, submitting a detailed questionnaire on the contract and the use of funds.
No response was received. A second questionnaire was sent on 18 May 2022 to the Commissioner in charge of Support Services, but again, no reply was forthcoming.
The lack of official response, the petition argues, left the group with no option but to seek the intervention of CHRAJ.
Read full story on thedailygistonline.com
Compounding the pressure on the GRA is a growing controversy surrounding a GH¢17 million petroleum lifting deal, now widely described by critics as a “sweet oil deal,” involving Muna Energy Limited, an oil marketing company (OMC) that was granted approval to operate under a non-bonded (self-recognizance) regime.
This regime allows companies to lift petroleum products without providing the traditional financial bonds upfront, an arrangement that, if abused, exposes the state to significant revenue risks.
The roots of the controversy date back to 20 November 2024, when Muna Energy formally wrote to the Commissioner of the Customs Division of the GRA applying for non-bonded status.
In its letter, the company claimed four years of operational experience in the oil sector and a strong payment record, arguing that rising bond costs were constraining its business and limiting expansion.
It requested approval to lift petroleum products worth up to GH¢55 million, with a proposed payment window of 60 days after lifting.
The application, signed by the company’s Chief Executive Officer, emphasized ethical conduct, financial discipline and transparency as justification for the request.
However, an internal Customs Division Policy and Programmes memorandum dated 18 December 2024 contradicted the company’s claims.
The Customs assessment indicated that Muna Energy had only been operating as an OMC since the first quarter of 2022, and had conducted its petroleum lifting strictly on a cash-and-carry basis.
Payment records attached to the memo showed irregular and minimal activity, including no payments in the third and fourth quarters of 2022, the first and second quarters of 2023, and from the first to third quarters of 2024. For the whole of 2024, the company reportedly made only one cash-and-carry payment of GH¢46,980, in the last quarter of the year.
Based on these findings, Customs officials concluded that Muna Energy posed a significant revenue risk and recommended that the company should continue operating strictly under cash-and-carry terms rather than being granted non-bonded status. While acknowledging that Section 108(c) of the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) permits self-recognizance arrangements, the memo urged caution and emphasized that the company’s payment history did not justify such a concession.
Despite these red flags, the position of the GRA shifted months later. In a letter signed by Ernest Annan-Prah (PhD), Assistant Commissioner for Petroleum (Downstream), the authority informed Muna Energy that its application to operate as a non-bonded OMC had been approved, referencing a subsequent application dated 20 March 2025.
The approval effectively overturned the earlier Customs assessment, without publicly detailing the conditions attached to the decision or explaining how the previously identified risks had been mitigated.
Further internal records show that the Risk Management Unit (RMU) of the GRA conducted a separate review, culminating in a memorandum dated 7 May 2025 addressed to the Commissioner-General.
The RMU assessment concluded that Muna Energy had fulfilled the mandatory six-month cash-and-carry requirement and had no outstanding domestic tax liabilities as of that date. The review cited cumulative tax-related payments linked to petroleum lifting between 2022 and 2025, amounting to millions of cedis, and recommended the application for consideration.
Notably, the RMU also examined a proposed non-bonded threshold of GH¢100 million, far exceeding the GH¢55 million initially requested by the company.
The controversy has now intensified following reports that Muna Energy has defaulted on payments estimated at about GH¢17 million, triggering fears that the non-bonded approval may have exposed the state to avoidable financial losses.
Critics argue that the approval process reveals deep inconsistencies, with early warnings and risk assessments overridden without transparent justification, and with conflicting internal evaluations failing to halt or delay the concession until payment patterns stabilized.
