GIPC says it has no tenancy agreement with GoldKey Properties in GH¢7.6m rent saga
The Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) moved out of office spaces it occupied for free into a private property where the rent increased from GH¢3.25 million to GH¢7.6 million, way above 100 per cent increment within three years, the entity has said it has not signed a formal tenancy agreement with Goldkey Properties, the new landlords.
The Centre has faced intense scrutiny and criticism over its controversial decision to relocate from a free public office space to an expensive private rental facility, after a Ghana Business News exposé on the matter.
The exposé had reported that 65-year-old Reginald Yoofi Grant, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre, persuaded the board of directors to relocate from the Public Services Commission (PSC) building to a facility managed by GoldKey Properties Limited, which is owned by Kwaku Bediako.
GIPC is now paying a significantly higher rent, with the cost increasing from GH¢3,55,840.00 in 2020 to GH¢7,594,213.00 in 2023 – over a 100 per cent increase, but the Centre claims the rent hike is due to “inflation and currency fluctuation,” despite regulations that limit rent increases to 10 per cent under Ghana’s Rent Control Act.
Surprisingly, the GIPC when asked to provide the tenancy agreement with the property owners, it said there is “no formal tenancy agreement between the Centre and GoldKey Properties,” raising concerns about compliance with laws and regulations.
The GIPC’s response does not provide satisfactory rationale for the move. The organization claims it cannot provide information on the rationale for the move or the lack of a tenancy agreement. Critics however, argue that the move contradicts government efforts to reduce public expenditure, especially as the country is in dire economic straits.
Public policy experts and economists have expressed concern over the decision and called for parliamentary scrutiny and investigation into the decision-making process behind the relocation.
As the controversy continues to unfold, the GIPC faces mounting pressure to justify its actions and address the growing skepticism from the Ghanaian public over the use of taxpayer funds.
In a response by the GIPC’s Right to Information Officer, Jonas Danquah as to why the GIPC boss convinced the board of directors to relocate from the free Public Services Commission (PSC) building to the private facility, he said, “the need to move to a new office was not solely the preserve of the CEO as even prior to his appointment, there had been pressure to relocate due to the inappropriateness of the old office which had run down considerably but sources at the Commission said “PSC did not mount pressure on GIPC to move out.”
The PSC responding to queries sent to them said the GIPC first occupied the PSC building in the 1970’s but moved out in 2008 and returned to re-occupy the building in October 2009. Subsequently, GIPC moved out of the PSC building in October, 2020. The PSC added that on the two occasions that the GIPC moved out, they gave no reasons for their actions.
According to the PSC, there was not any tenancy agreement on GIPC’s occupancy, and that when GIPC was there, they used 41 offices and eight washrooms, stressing that, the Centre was not paying rent when they occupied the building.
The Commission however indicated that the GIPC’s contribution toward the maintenance of the building were electrical installations, power and water purchases, fumigation exercises, security and cleaning services, safety, re-roofing and other works on the building, as well as collection and disposal of refuse.
When we questioned the GIPC as to why they didn’t use the money it paid to the GoldKey Properties to fix the problem which necessitated their relocation, the response was, “Information for enquiry on this cannot be provided as there is no recorded data on the opinion/explanation being sought. Therefore, the request does not fall under the definition of information as captured in section 84 of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).”
However, this explanation has done little to quell concerns about the financial wisdom of the decision. Critics point out that at a time when the GIPC is reportedly struggling to pay employee salaries, committing to high rent in a private property seems counterintuitive at best. Further raising alarm bells is the revelation that the GIPC has no formal tenancy agreement with the property owners. When asked about compliance with Ghana’s Rent Control Act, 1963, Act 220, which regulates rent increases and requires assessment by the Rent Control Department, the GIPC claimed that these provisions were “not applicable” to their transaction.
This stance has left many legal experts and good governance advocates scratching their heads. Dr. Kwame Agyeman, a public policy analyst at the University of Ghana, expressed his concerns: “It’s troubling to see a government entity seemingly sidestepping regulations that are in place to protect tenants. This raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in public spending.”
The move also appears to contradict government efforts to reduce public expenditure. Economist Dr. Joycelyn Ama Mensah notes, “At a time when Ghana is grappling with economic challenges, seeing a state institution move from a free accommodation to an expensive rental arrangement sends the wrong message about our commitment to fiscal prudence.”
Critics argue that this situation highlights a broader issue of potential conflict of interest, leading to calls for an investigation into the decision-making process.
A US-based Ghanaian economist, Samuel Ofosu Larbi has called for parliamentary scrutiny of the deal. “We need to understand how this decision was made and whether proper procedures were followed. The public deserves answers, especially when we’re talking about the use of taxpayer money,” he stated.
“How can the GIPC justify this move to the public and address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?” he queried.
As the controversy continues to unfold, many are left wondering about the long-term implications of this move for the GIPC and its ability to fulfill its mandate of promoting investment in Ghana. With questions of financial strain, regulatory compliance, and potential conflicts of interest swirling, it seems the GIPC’s new address may come at a cost far greater than just the monthly rent.
Meanwhile, civil society organizations have begun calling for new guidelines on major decisions involving public funds, hoping to prevent similar controversies in the future.
As Ghana watched and waited, the GIPC saga served as a stark reminder of the challenges of maintaining public trust in government institutions, and the delicate balance between progress and accountability in the realm of public service.
By Innocent Samuel Appiah