The Managing Director of Tema Development Company (TDC) Ghana Limited, Courage Kweku Makafui Nunekpeku has come under intense pressure over the company’s financial controls, with allegations that cash and in-kind donations received for renovation works at its head office were not properly accounted for.
The allegation sits at the heart of a broader dispute over how money is received, recorded and spent within the state-owned company.
According to information gathered, TDC management solicited funds and donations in cash and kind to finance renovation and painting works at the company’s head office after Courage Kweku Makafui Nunekpeku assumed office.
Meanwhile at the end of the exercise, neither the Managing Director nor the Head of Corporate Planning, who it says received the donations, had accounted for what was collected.
The alleged conduct raises issues under Ghana’s public financial management framework, particularly requirements concerning the receipt, recording and disclosure of public-sector revenue and donations.
However, the critical investigative task is to establish the money trail.
How much was received? Who made the donations? Were they cash, materials or services? Who authorised the solicitation? Were receipts issued? Were the items entered into TDC’s books? Where were cash contributions deposited? And what was the total cost of the renovation?
This in itself goes against provisions of the Public Financial Management Act and its regulations concerning the treatment of donations by covered entities.
Those provisions make documentation particularly important because the distinction between a private contribution and an asset or revenue received by a public entity can have significant accounting consequences.
It is interesting to note that TDC made an advance payment for the purchase of Dzata Cement without securing an Advance Payment Certificate.
That allegation creates a second financial-control question: was public money released before the contractual safeguards required to protect the company had been satisfied?
Investigators would need to examine the payment voucher, purchase order, contract or supply agreement, bank instruction, approval chain, invoice, advance-payment security and evidence of delivery.
Another allegation concerns GH¢200,000 allegedly paid by Alhaji Yakubu Musah in connection with the regularisation of an industrial plot, where after receiving the money, the Managing Director failed or refused to respond to subsequent calls.
A separate and considerably larger allegation involves GH¢2 million said to have been received from the chief executive of Jobade Company Limited.
The matter as having subsequently become the subject of an arbitration process at a shrine in the Volta Region.
These allegations require especially careful verification because the petition does not, by itself, establish that either payment constituted a bribe or that the alleged recipient committed an offence.
The appropriate documentary questions are whether money changed hands, the stated purpose of each payment, whether the money entered TDC’s accounts, whether official receipts were issued, whether the transactions were connected to land approvals and whether any legitimate contractual obligation existed.
Bank records, receipts, correspondence, allocation files, accounting entries and statements from the alleged payers would be central to such an investigation.
Also, some TDC land was sold or allocated at commercial rates and that proceeds from such transactions may not have been properly accounted for.
This introduces a potentially wider financial question: how much revenue did TDC generate from land transactions during the period under review, and how much was actually captured in its financial statements?
A reconciliation of land allocations against payments could provide an unusually powerful audit trail.
For every plot allocated during the period, investigators could compare the allocation letter with the official price, payment receipts, bank deposits, accounting entries and eventual transfer documentation.
Any significant discrepancy between the value of land allocated and revenue recorded would warrant further examination.
According to our checks, the Managing Director personally negotiated the supply of ready-mix concrete to contractors at the Affordable Housing Project and separately raises concerns about payments and contractor relationships.
Taken together, these allegations point to a broader governance issue: whether TDC’s internal controls are strong enough to prevent individual management decisions from bypassing established financial safeguards.
It should establish the transactions, identify the approving officers, trace the money, determine whether goods or services were received, compare the transactions with TDC’s approved procedures and establish whether the company’s financial statements accurately captured the activity.
The decisive evidence would therefore lie in TDC’s accounting records, procurement files, bank statements, land transaction records, audit reports and responses from the individuals and companies named in the allegations.
The three investigations have different editorial purposes
- Land investigation: follows the plots, beneficiaries and allocation process — potentially the strongest public-interest story because TDC’s core mandate is tied to land development.
- Procurement investigation: follows the contracts, contractors and procurement decisions, particularly the controversial shift from 10 to 38 contractors at Kpone.
- Financial investigation: follows the money trail — donations, advance payments and alleged GH¢200,000/GH¢2 million transactions.
Some other questions are emerging; “Who Controls TDC? The Board–Managing Director Power Struggle and the Removal of Senior Professionals.”
That would focus on the alleged sidelining of the Board, staff dismissals/reassignments, the procurement officer who allegedly refused to sign a padded evaluation, the dispute involving the TDC Managing Director and Tema MCE, and the circumstances surrounding the Board’s dissolution.