Kow Essuman Sues Ghana Government: Demands Unpaid Terminal Benefits

• Former presidential legal counsel Kow Essuman is threatening legal action against the Ghanaian government over unpaid salary arrears and terminal benefits.
• His lawyers, Vint & Aletheia, sent a letter to Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson demanding payment by September 11, 2026.
• The claimed entitlements include four months' consolidated salary per year of service, an installation grant, and a resettlement grant.
• Essuman's legal team alleges the withholding of payments is "arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and unlawful," citing that other officials have received their dues.

The entitlements sought by Mr. Essuman are precisely detailed in the correspondence from Vint & Aletheia.

Kow Essuman, who previously held the significant position of legal counsel to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, is now contemplating legal action against the Ghanaian government. This potential lawsuit stems from a dispute over outstanding salary arrears and terminal benefits that Mr. Essuman claims are due to him. The move follows a period of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter through direct communication, with previous correspondence reportedly failing to elicit any response from the government.

Represented by the law firm Vint & Aletheia, Mr. Essuman's legal team has formally communicated their demands to the Finance Minister, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson. A letter dispatched by his lawyers explicitly requested the payment of all outstanding salary arrears and terminal benefits. The communication set a firm deadline of Friday, September 11, 2026, for the government to settle these claims, clearly indicating that failure to comply by this date would lead to the initiation of legal proceedings.

The entitlements sought by Mr. Essuman are precisely detailed in the correspondence from Vint & Aletheia. These include a consolidated salary equivalent to four months for each full year of service completed during his tenure. Additionally, the claims encompass an installation grant, which is stipulated to be one month's salary, and a resettlement grant, calculated at one month's salary for every year or fraction thereof served in his public office role.

Mr. Essuman's legal representatives have characterized the government's continued withholding of these payments as "arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and unlawful." This strong assertion is underpinned by the argument that other public officeholders have, in fact, received their due entitlements. This disparity forms a central part of the legal challenge, suggesting a selective application of payment policies by the state.

This case, where Kow Essuman sues Ghana government benefits, highlights the critical issue of terminal benefits and salary arrears for former public officials in Ghana. The outcome could significantly influence how future entitlements are handled, potentially establishing a precedent for similar claims from individuals who have served in high-ranking government positions. The legal avenues being explored by Mr. Essuman underscore the importance of clear and consistent policies regarding compensation for public service.

The dispute also brings into focus the potential litigation risks faced by government agencies when there are perceived inconsistencies or delays in fulfilling financial obligations to former officeholders. The allegation of 'arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and unlawful' withholding of payments suggests a need for greater transparency and adherence to established protocols in the disbursement of public funds. This situation could prompt a review of existing frameworks for public officeholder entitlements, aiming to prevent future disputes and ensure equitable treatment across the board.

This case highlights the legal avenues available to former public officeholders in Ghana seeking unpaid entitlements and could establish a precedent for similar claims. Lawyers advising government agencies or public officials should monitor the outcome for implications regarding public service compensation, potential litigation risks, and the interpretation of 'arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and unlawful' withholding of payments.

Source: Original reporting via GhanaWeb