The Ranking Member of Parliament’s Youth and Sports Committee and Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has challenged the Executive Secretary of the National Identification Authority (NIA), Wisdom Yayra Koku Deku, to explain the justification for paying a purse holder US$10,000 during Ghana’s participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Mr Assafuah insists that the controversy surrounding the payment should focus on value for money and accountability rather than whether the official was merely responsible for carrying the Sports Minister’s purse.
His response follows a public defence by Mr Deku, who argued that the purse holder was not a personal assistant carrying the Minister’s belongings but an official responsible for handling financial transactions relating to the Black Stars’ World Cup campaign.
Mr Deku maintained that the official was the Ministry’s chief spending officer, paid by the Ministry of Finance to manage payments for per diems, accommodation, flights and other tournament-related expenses, and was required to account for the money.
He also cited the 2022 World Cup budget, which reportedly made provision for a similar US$10,000 honorarium for the purse holder, questioning whether the payment under the previous administration had attracted the same criticism.
However, Mr Assafuah has rejected the argument that the existence of a similar payment in 2022 adequately explains the expenditure under the current administration.
In a statement responding to Mr Deku, the Old Tafo MP argued that the government must demonstrate why the additional payment was necessary, particularly when the official was already employed and remunerated by the state.
Mr Assafuah said the central issue is whether the US$10,000 payment represented value for money, given the explanation provided by Sports and Recreation Minister Kofi Adams during his appearance before Parliament’s Select Committee on Sports.
According to the legislator, the Minister indicated that cash was not physically carried around during the tournament, as payments were made through direct bank transfers, which attracted transfer charges and commissions.
Against that background, Mr Assafuah questioned the rationale for paying an additional US$10,000 to an official whose regular duties already involved financial administration.
“At the Committee meeting, the Minister himself stated that cash was not carried around during this World Cup; payments were made through direct transfers, attracting transfer charges and commissions. So why pay someone an additional $10,000 to handle payments when he is already employed and paid by the government to perform official duties? What exactly are we paying for?” he asked.
The MP’s argument centres on whether the official’s responsibilities during the tournament justified the additional honorarium, separate from his regular government remuneration.
He is seeking a clearer explanation of the specific services performed, the basis for determining the amount and whether the expenditure was necessary.
Mr Assafuah also questioned the Minister’s reliance on the previous administration’s expenditure to defend payments made to support personnel during the 2026 tournament.
He cited reported payments to catering and security personnel, arguing that the amounts had increased compared with the figures recorded for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
According to him, the caterer and chef each received US$5,000 in 2022, while the corresponding figures for the 2026 tournament had increased to US$10,000.
He said the reported increase raised questions about the government’s commitment to its Reset agenda, which has been presented as a drive to improve governance and public-sector accountability.
“In 2022, we paid the caterer/chef $5,000 and security $5,000. Under your reset, both figures have doubled to $10,000,” he stated.
Mr Assafuah questioned whether the increase is supported by additional responsibilities, changes in the duration of the officials’ engagement or other identifiable cost considerations.
“Is this a reset or a more expensive version of the same system?” he asked.
He maintained that comparing current expenditure with previous budgets should not replace the need to justify the amounts spent.
“You cannot double expenses and then hide behind the previous administration’s budget. If the old figures were justified, what justifies the increase? And if they were not, why repeat them?” he added.
The MP argued that the government must explain the basis for the payments instead of relying solely on precedents established under previous administrations.
Mr Deku, in his response to the concerns raised by Mr Assafuah, disputed the description of the purse holder as someone whose role was limited to carrying the Minister’s personal belongings.
He explained that the position involved handling official financial transactions associated with the national team’s participation in the tournament.
According to him, the official was responsible for payments involving per diems, hotels, flights and other expenses, with an obligation to account for the funds managed.
Mr Deku further argued that the purse holder was paid by the Ministry of Finance rather than the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
He cited the 2022 World Cup budget, which reportedly contained the same US$10,000 honorarium, and questioned why the payment is now being presented as a concern.
In his post, Mr Deku urged the MP to ensure that his parliamentary scrutiny was grounded in facts, describing the allegations as appearing to be a personal attack on the Sports Minister rather than legitimate oversight.
“Vincent, Parliamentary oversight is a vital duty, but it must rest on facts. These allegations appear to be a personal attack on the Minister rather than legitimate scrutiny. You can do better,” he wrote.
The exchange follows a parliamentary review of expenditure associated with Ghana’s participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the committee proceedings, Mr Assafuah questioned payments reportedly made to several officials and support personnel who accompanied the Black Stars to the tournament.
These included US$10,000 payments to the purse holder, a chef, a caterer and a security officer.
The MP also raised questions about honoraria reportedly paid to senior GFA officials, including US$50,000 for GFA President Kurt Okraku and US$20,000 for General Secretary Prosper Harrison Addo.
Mr Adams defended the expenditure by comparing the amounts with payments made to officials in similar categories during the 2022 World Cup, arguing that some personnel had received less than they did under the previous arrangement.
The Minister indicated during the committee proceedings that the figures presented to Parliament reflected actual payments made.
The debate has since centred on whether the expenditure was justified, how the amounts were determined and whether the government can demonstrate that public funds were used efficiently.
Mr Assafuah has maintained that his questions are part of his parliamentary responsibility to scrutinise government expenditure and demand explanations for the use of public resources.
He rejected Mr Deku’s suggestion that his concerns amounted to a personal attack on the Sports Minister, insisting that the focus should remain on the justification for the payments.
“Rather than accuse me of a personal attack, answer the questions. Parliamentary oversight is my duty; accountability is your responsibility,” he stated.
The exchange highlights continuing questions over the management of public funds for Ghana’s national football team, particularly the allowances and honoraria paid to officials who travel with the squad for international competitions.
The key issue remains whether the Ministry of Sports and Recreation can provide a clear breakdown of the responsibilities attached to the payments, the criteria used to determine the amounts and the reasons for the reported increases in some expenditure categories.
While Mr Deku has defended the purse holder’s official responsibilities and cited the 2022 budget as a precedent, Mr Assafuah maintains that previous payments do not, on their own, establish that the current expenditure represents value for money.
By 1960news.com
