Public Officers Must Declare Assets Before Assuming Office – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that public officers must declare their assets before taking office, declaring unconstitutional the six-month grace period previously allowed under statutory law.
The decision was delivered on March 18, 2026, in a case filed by the Executive Director of the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), who challenged the legality of the grace period.
Ghana’s asset declaration regime is governed by Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution and the Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Act, 1997 (Act 550). Article 286 mandates that public office holders declare their assets and liabilities either within three months after the Constitution came into force or before assuming office.
Specifically, Article 286 states that a person holding a public office must submit to the Auditor-General a written declaration of all properties or assets owned, as well as liabilities owed, whether directly or indirectly, before taking office.
However, Section 1(4) of Act 550 provides that such declarations may be submitted not later than six months after assuming office, creating what has been widely interpreted as a grace period.
In the suit, Mr. Thompson, represented by Ismael Andani Abdulai, Esq of Renaissance Law Chambers, argued that the six-month allowance under Act 550 contradicts the Constitution. He urged the court to declare that any public officer who fails to submit a written declaration of assets before assuming office is in breach of the Constitution.
He further requested the court to rule that the provision of Act 550 permitting the six-month period is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, agreed with these arguments, holding that the constitutional requirement must prevail over the statutory provision.
The court has set March 25, 2026, as the date to deliver its full, reasoned judgment on the matter, which is expected to provide further clarity on the implications of the ruling.
