
Photo: Yoofi Grant, former CEO of the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC)
In the aftermath of a scathing exposé accusing former CEO of the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC), Reginald Yoofi Grant, of irregularities surrounding his contract extension, his record is facing intense scrutiny. However, a deeper dive into the facts reveals that these allegations are not only exaggerated but also misrepresent the legal and administrative framework under which his tenure operated.
LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL VALIDITY
Despite claims that Mr. Grant’s employment unlawfully extended beyond the constitutional retirement age, the reality is quite different. His contract extension was conducted in full compliance with established procedures. Public service roles, especially those tied to national economic policy, have occasionally seen contract adjustments to recognise exceptional performance and ensure continuity in leadership. Mr. Grant’s extension was no exception—it followed the standard review process and garnered the necessary approvals from the appropriate authorities. Legal experts familiar with the administrative framework have confirmed that the extension, though rare, did not breach any statutory or constitutional mandates.
PERFORMANCE-DRIVEN DECISION
Mr Grant’s tenure at GIPC is marked by his substantial contributions to Ghana’s economic development. His contract extension was based on his outstanding performance and the crucial continuity he offered during a pivotal time for the institution. His extended service was not a misuse of power or public funds, but rather a reflection of confidence in his ability to steer GIPC towards its strategic goals. The allegations that he “should have retired” fail to recognise that the extension was a thoughtful administrative decision aimed at preserving institutional stability and ensuring the smooth execution of long-term projects.
MISINTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Critics have pointed to Article 199 of the 1992 Constitution, claiming that Mr. Grant’s extended service violated public service rules. However, a closer examination of the constitutional provisions reveals that there are instances where limited extensions can be granted, particularly when they serve the national interest. Mr. Grant’s contract extension was legally sanctioned and strategically justified. It is misleading to claim that his continued service was merely a disregard for the law when, in fact, it was a considered response to the unique demands of his role at GIPC.
POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE CRITICISM
It’s important to consider the wider political context in which these allegations have arisen. With the recent change in government, a wave of policy reversals and personnel changes has swept through the country, with many actions driven more by political recalibration than by objective assessments of legal and administrative performance. The current administration’s decision to revoke Mr. Grant’s appointment should be seen in this light. Political transitions often lead to retrospective critiques of previous administrations, and the focus on Mr. Grant appears to be part of a larger effort to undermine the past leadership at GIPC rather than a fair evaluation of his service.
NO EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT
The accusations that Mr. Grant misappropriated funds by drawing salaries after reaching the statutory retirement age have not been substantiated by any formal investigation or audit. All financial transactions during his extended tenure were subject to the same stringent oversight mechanisms that govern public institutions in Ghana. To date, no conclusive evidence has been presented to suggest that Mr. Grant failed in his fiduciary duties or engaged in any financial misconduct. Calls for restitution or criminal action must be based on robust, independent evidence—not politically motivated allegations and misinterpretations of standard administrative practices.
CONCLUSION
The portrayal of Reginald Yoofi Grant as a renegade who flouted constitutional rules is both oversimplified and misleading. A thorough review of his contract extension shows that it was granted after the board appealed to the President, who approved the extension, confirming that it was legally sound, performance-driven, and executed within the parameters of established administrative procedures. Before rushing to judgment, it is vital to recognise that Mr Grant’s actions were made with the best interests of GIPC—and, by extension, the economic well-being of Ghana—in mind.
Given the evidence at hand, it is clear that Mr. Grant should be exonerated of any wrongdoing. His record speaks to a strong commitment to public service and the effective management of one of Ghana’s key economic institutions. The current uproar seems more a product of political retribution than genuine legal or ethical misconduct. Until independent, irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise, Reginald Yoofi Grant remains a dedicated public servant who acted by both the letter and spirit of the law.