Bagbin Advocates for Abolition of Ex-Gratia Payments, Deems System Outdated

Speaker of Parliament Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has reiterated his stance against ex-gratia payments to Article 71 officeholders, arguing that these payments no longer serve their original purpose.

Bagbin explained that the initial intent behind ex-gratia payments for certain public servants and political officeholders was to combat corruption. Speaking at a public forum in Kumasi marking the 30th anniversary of the Fourth Republican Parliament, he emphasized that the payments were meant to ensure that public servants and political officeholders would have their needs met after leaving office, allowing them to prioritize public interests over personal gain.

However, Bagbin acknowledged that, in practice, these payments have not effectively curbed corruption. He expressed his support for amending Article 71 of the Constitution to abolish ex-gratia payments, which he believes have become unnecessary.

“The issue of ex-gratia is very thorny. The founders intended it for a particular category of public servants, including political officeholders. It’s not just for members of Parliament; it’s for a range of public servants and political officeholders, including the auditor general, chairpersons of constitutional commissions, ministers of state, the presidency, judiciary, and others,” he said.

Bagbin elaborated that the concept was to assure these officeholders that, due to the importance of their positions and the decisions they make on behalf of the public, they should focus on the people they represent rather than themselves, with the assurance that they would be taken care of after leaving office. This was intended to help curb corruption.

“Unfortunately, in practice, it has not served its purpose. It has not helped to curb or contain corruption,” he stated. Bagbin recalled that during his presidential candidacy, he promised to amend this article if elected. “I agree totally with anyone who says we should do away with Article 71 of the Constitution. It hasn’t served its purpose; there’s no use maintaining it,” he concluded.

Scroll to Top