The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has strongly condemned the Chief of Staff’s directive revoking all public sector employments made after December 7, 2024, describing the move as “unlawful termination” that exposes the government to potential lawsuits.
The directive, issued by Chief of Staff Julius Debrah, instructs all heads of government institutions to annul appointments and recruitments made into the Public Service after the specified date.
A letter, sighted by Citi News and circulated to government agencies, stated: “Consistent with Government pronouncement in relation to near end-of-tenure appointments and recruitments, I wish to bring to your attention that all appointments and recruitments made in the Public Services of Ghana after 7th December 2024 are not in compliance with established good governance practices and principles.”
“Accordingly, all Heads of Government Institutions are hereby requested to take the necessary steps to annul any such appointments or recruitments and submit a comprehensive report on the actions taken to this Office by 17th February 2025.”
The decision affects individuals who secured various public sector roles after the 2024 general elections.
However, addressing a press conference in Accra on Thursday, February 13, NPP National Organiser Henry Nana Boakye (Nana B) criticized the directive, arguing that it would lead to mass unemployment and hardship for affected individuals.
“Thousands of Ghanaians will suddenly find themselves jobless because of political expediency,” he told journalists, adding, “Just as Akufo-Addo took responsibility for Mahama’s last-minute appointments in 2016, he [Mahama] must also take responsibility for the appointments made legitimately.”
Nana Boakye warned that the NPP would explore legal options to challenge the directive, arguing that such actions discourage young professionals from seeking public sector employment.
“We will leave no stone unturned in challenging this decision in court,” he emphasized.
The directive has sparked concerns among affected workers, with labor groups and legal experts weighing in on its implications.
