Deputy Minority Leader Rejects GH¢70,000 Payment Linked to Parliamentary Vetting
Patricia Appiagyei says she returned the money because its source was unclear and she would not personally benefit from the vetting of Mahama Ayariga, Zanetor Agyemang-Rawlings and Supreme Court nominees
Date: September 4, 2026
By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi/ Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
Deputy Minority Leader and Member of Parliament for Asokwa, Patricia Appiagyei, has rejected and returned GH¢70,000 she says was allocated to her in connection with the work of Parliament’s Appointments Committee, citing concerns over the source of the money and the circumstances surrounding its payment.
The decision has intensified controversy over recent parliamentary vetting proceedings involving Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, Deputy Majority Leader Zanetor Agyemang-Rawlings, and three nominees to Ghana’s Supreme Court.
“I do not know the source of the money”
In a memorandum dated September 2, 2026, addressed to Minority Chief Whip Frank Annoh-Dompreh and copied to Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, Appiagyei instructed that the entire GH¢70,000 be returned.
She explained that the money had been presented to her as an advance through the Majority Chief Whip, but said she had not been informed of its original source.
“It is with regret that I return the amount of seventy thousand cedis (GH¢70,000) allocated to me as an advance of money from the Majority Chief Whip of Parliament of Ghana. I am returning the money on the basis of the fact that, primarily, I do not know the source of the money being given to me,” she stated. 
Refuses to benefit from vetting colleagues
Beyond questioning the source of the funds, the Deputy Minority Leader said she was uncomfortable receiving any financial benefit connected to the parliamentary vetting of political colleagues.
She specifically referenced the approval processes involving Mahama Ayariga, Zanetor Agyemang-Rawlings, and the three Supreme Court justice nominees, insisting that her participation in parliamentary oversight should never be associated with personal financial gain.
Appiagyei further stated that she had no intention of accepting money that could create the perception of influence over judicial or ministerial vetting.
Minority’s boycott adds context
Her decision comes against the backdrop of the Minority Caucus’ boycott of the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees.
The opposition MPs walked out of the Appointments Committee after objecting to the scheduling and procedure adopted for the vetting, arguing that the process was constitutionally flawed and lacked adequate notice.
Appiagyei said her decision to reject the GH¢70,000 was consistent with the Minority’s broader position on the controversial vetting exercise.
Afenyo-Markin also returned his allocation
The Asokwa MP noted that her action aligns with that of Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who has also reportedly returned his share of the money allocated to members of the Appointments Committee.
The development has raised fresh questions within Parliament over the purpose of the payments, their funding source and whether members of the committee should receive financial allocations linked to vetting exercises.
Growing calls for transparency
Although no formal allegation of bribery has been established, Appiagyei’s memorandum has sparked renewed public debate about transparency and accountability in parliamentary committee work.
Political analysts say the controversy is likely to place additional pressure on Parliament to clarify the origin of the GH¢70,000 allocations and the administrative basis upon which the payments were made.
For Patricia Appiagyei, however, her position remains clear: public service must be guided by integrity, and parliamentary oversight should never carry the appearance of personal reward.
