Counsel for the National Cathedral of Ghana Board, Charles Owusu Juanah, Esq., has issued a public statement challenging the decision by the Government of Ghana to dissolve the leadership of the National Cathedral and direct the handover of the project site.
The decision was communicated through the Minister for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs.
In the statement, Mr. Juanah said the move raises fundamental questions concerning corporate governance, the rule of law, property rights, administrative justice and the protection of legitimate stakeholder interests.
According to the counsel, the statement is not an argument that the National Cathedral is beyond scrutiny, nor an attempt to shield any person from investigation, accountability or prosecution where evidence establishes wrongdoing.
He also stressed that it is not a demand that the Government must continue financing the project.
Rather, he said, it is a firm insistence that the pursuit of accountability must itself be accountable to the law.
“A government may change policy, discontinue public funding, investigate suspected financial impropriety and take lawful steps to protect public assets. What it cannot properly do is assume that a presidential directive, by itself, overrides every company-law obligation, contractual arrangement, registered property interest or applicable legal procedure,” the statement said.
Mr. Juanah traced the history of the project, noting that it was publicly introduced by former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on 6 March 2017 as an interdenominational Christian worship centre with a national ceremonial purpose.
He explained that the project was initially overseen by a Board of Trustees, but the National Cathedral of Ghana was subsequently incorporated as a company limited by guarantee on 18 July 2019.
According to the corporate history presented by the Board, the leadership thereafter operated as the company’s registered Board of Directors, also referred to as the Executive Council.
Mr. Juanah argued that the distinction is fundamental, stating that a board of trustees, a statutory public board established by an Act of Parliament, and the board of directors of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) are not automatically interchangeable legal entities.
He added that their powers, appointment procedures, tenure and removal mechanisms depend on the laws and instruments governing them.
“The fact that an earlier administration initiated a project does not, without more, establish that every subsequent corporate decision concerning it falls within the President’s unilateral discretion,” he said.
He said the decisive questions are what legal entity holds the relevant rights, what its registered constitution provides, who possesses the lawful authority to appoint or remove its directors, and what statutory procedure applies.
According to him, these questions cannot be answered merely by describing the project as a government initiative.
