“Don't Push Me, I Will Expose You!” Ex-Valco Ceo Fires Back At Titus Glover: What Really Happened At Valco?

A public disagreement between former Volta Aluminium Company Limited (VALCO) Chief Executive Officers Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover and Kingsley Aboagye Gyedu has suddenly become much bigger than a quarrel between two former executives.

It has opened an uncomfortable window into how political appointments, public-sector employment, corporate accountability and party loyalty can intersect inside a strategic state-owned industrial company.

The latest exchange began after Titus-Glover, now seeking the position of National Organiser of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), publicly criticised some former government-appointed CEOs and linked their conduct to the NPP's defeat in the 2024 general election. He specifically mentioned former VALCO CEO Kingsley Aboagye Gyedu.

Titus-Glover said he personally helped secure Aboagye Gyedu's appointment, claiming that he presented his CV to former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and subsequently informed Aboagye Gyedu of the appointment.

He also alleged that after leaving VALCO, Aboagye Gyedu dismissed more than 100 people whom Titus-Glover had helped recruit, including his driver.

Aboagye Gyedu has now fired back.
He says his professional qualifications were sufficient for the VALCO position and questioned the suggestion that he owed his appointment to Titus-Glover. He further argued that the two men worked together when Titus-Glover was his superior and that he sometimes chose to raise sensitive matters privately rather than publicly.

And that is where the real questions begin.
VALCO IS NOT JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COMPANY
To understand the controversy, one must first understand what VALCO represents.

The Volta Aluminium Company was established as a partnership involving the Government of Ghana and American aluminium interests. Construction of the Tema smelter began in the 1960s, with the first aluminium ingot produced in November 1966 and official operations commencing in 1967.

At its peak, VALCO was one of Ghana's most important industrial enterprises.

The plant was designed around a production capacity of roughly 200,000 tonnes of aluminium annually. But decades of power constraints, ageing equipment, financial difficulties and operational interruptions have left the company operating far below its historic capacity.

Ghana eventually became the sole owner of VALCO following the withdrawal of its foreign shareholders.

That makes the company more than a workplace.

VALCO is a national industrial asset.
Its performance affects employment, energy consumption, aluminium production, industrialisation and Ghana's ambition to establish an integrated bauxite-to-aluminium industry.

So when former CEOs begin publicly accusing one another, Ghanaians have every reason to ask:

What exactly happened inside the company?
THE TITUS-GLOVER ERA
Titus-Glover was appointed Managing Director of VALCO in 2023. His appointment was reported in March 2023, with the presidency directing that the appointment be regularised under the Companies Act and the company's constitution.

During his tenure, there were efforts to improve the company's operating infrastructure.

One documented example was the installation of a new steam boiler costing approximately US$300,000.

However, Titus-Glover himself acknowledged that the project had already been approved by the previous management and that 30 percent of the payment had been made before he assumed office.

The boiler was delivered in December 2023 and installed by January 31, 2024. Management said it would support carbon-anode production and improve operational efficiency.

Titus-Glover also spoke about plans to modernise VALCO and increase production dramatically from tens of thousands of tonnes to as much as 300,000 tonnes annually.

Those ambitions were significant.
But ambition is not the same thing as achievement.

And this is where Ghana's public conversation should become more analytical.

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID TITUS-GLOVER EMPLOY?
This is one of the most important questions emerging from the dispute.

Titus-Glover has said that he helped recruit about 100 people during his time at VALCO. He subsequently alleged that Aboagye Gyedu dismissed those employees shortly after taking over.

But there is an important complication.
Contemporary reporting in July 2024 referred specifically to 62 young recruits who had been employed earlier in the year under Titus-Glover and were subsequently dismissed under Aboagye Gyedu. The report said allegations emerged that the dismissals were politically connected, although those allegations were disputed and were not established as fact by an independent finding in the source.

So which figure is correct?
100?
62?
Or were there approximately 100 recruits in total, of whom 62 were among those subsequently dismissed?

That distinction matters.
A serious investigation should obtain VALCO's employment records, appointment letters, payroll records and board approvals rather than rely on competing political narratives.

AND WHAT WERE THESE WORKERS PAID?
This may be one of the most important unanswered questions.

Public reports available to me establish the competing claims about the number of recruits, but I could not find reliable public documentation giving the individual salaries of those employees.

That information should not be guessed.
Instead, VALCO should be asked to disclose, subject to legitimate privacy protections:

- How many people were recruited during Titus-Glover's tenure?

- What positions were they given?
- What were the approved salary scales?
- What was the total annual payroll impact?
- How many were permanent employees?
- How many were temporary or contract workers?

- What qualifications were required?
- Who approved the recruitment?
- Were the positions contained in VALCO's approved staff establishment?

- How many remained after the subsequent management change?

These questions would transform the argument from political accusations into an evidence-based examination of public-sector corporate governance.

DID TITUS-GLOVER CREATE JOBS OR CREATE A POLITICAL EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE?

This is perhaps the hardest question.
Creating employment is not inherently wrong.
Indeed, Ghana desperately needs productive jobs.

But in a state-owned company, the central question should be:

Were people employed because VALCO needed their skills, or because political relationships made their employment possible?

The answer cannot be determined merely by the political affiliation of the recruits.

A person can belong to a political party and still be fully qualified for a job.

Conversely, someone without an obvious political affiliation can still be improperly recruited.

The evidence that matters is therefore much more fundamental:

What qualifications did each recruit possess, what positions were available, what recruitment process was followed, and who authorised the appointments?

THEN CAME THE DISMISSALS
The employment controversy became even more explosive after Aboagye Gyedu took over.

Reports in 2024 said 62 recently recruited workers were dismissed. Some reports alleged that political considerations were involved and that the dismissed workers were replaced with people connected to the new CEO's political network. Those allegations were reported as claims, not as established findings.

The Tema Traditional Council also publicly expressed concern about the reported intention to lay off workers after Titus-Glover left office.

That raises another uncomfortable question:
If the recruitment was legitimate, why were so many people removed?

But there is an equally important question on the other side:

If the recruitment was not legitimate or financially sustainable, why were those people employed in the first place?

Both questions deserve answers.
THE MOST IMPORTANT FINANCIAL QUESTION
There have also been claims circulating that VALCO was profitable before Titus-Glover took over and subsequently suffered losses.

A social-media account attributed to Aboagye Gyedu's position claims that VALCO was making a profit of about GH¢5.7 million before Titus-Glover's tenure and recorded a loss of about GH¢17 million in his first year.

But these figures should not be treated as independently established without seeing VALCO's audited financial statements for the relevant years.

And that distinction is crucial.
A company's financial performance cannot automatically be attributed to one CEO.

VALCO has historically been affected by electricity prices, ageing equipment, alumina costs, international aluminium prices, production capacity and capital investment requirements.

Indeed, the company has struggled for decades.

Government acquired full ownership after the exit of foreign investors, while the company continued to face operational and financial challenges.

Therefore, blaming one CEO for every loss would be simplistic.

But equally, management should be held accountable for decisions made during its tenure.

DID TITUS-GLOVER ACTUALLY IMPROVE VALCO?
There is evidence of some initiatives during his tenure.

The new boiler was installed, management discussed expanding production and there were plans to modernise the ageing facility.

But the larger question is whether these interventions produced measurable improvements.

Did production increase?
Did productivity per employee improve?
Did operating losses decline?
Did revenue increase?
Did equipment availability improve?
Did the number of operational cells increase?

Did VALCO become less dependent on government support?

Did the company's balance sheet improve?
These are the questions that should determine the assessment of a CEO not political speeches from either side.

And there is another uncomfortable question:
If VALCO was genuinely transformed under Titus-Glover, where are the audited numbers demonstrating the transformation?

THE POLITICS OF VALCO
The dispute becomes even more intriguing because Titus-Glover is now openly positioning himself for a senior leadership role within the NPP.

He has argued that some CEOs appointed during the Akufo-Addo administration contributed to the NPP's 2024 electoral defeat. He specifically cited Aboagye Gyedu.

That brings politics directly into the VALCO argument.

Aboagye Gyedu has responded by challenging Titus-Glover's claim that he secured his appointment, saying that his professional qualifications were sufficient for the position.

Now Ghana is confronted with an uncomfortable question:

Were appointments to strategic state enterprises primarily about competence or political relationships?

And if political loyalty influenced appointments, how much did that cost the taxpayer?

THE QUESTION NOBODY SHOULD AVOID
There is a deeper issue here.
If a politician says:
“I helped get you the job.”
What exactly does that mean?
Was the person recommended because they were qualified?

Was the recommendation merely part of the normal political appointment process?

Did the recommending politician expect loyalty in return?

And if employees were subsequently recruited through political networks, who ultimately carried responsibility for those decisions?

These questions are bigger than Titus-Glover and Aboagye Gyedu.

They concern the entire culture of public-sector appointments in Ghana.

WHO WAS VALCO SERVING?
Was VALCO being managed primarily as a commercial enterprise?

Or was it becoming another arena for political patronage?

That question deserves particular attention because VALCO is currently at another crossroads.

Government is again pursuing strategic investment to modernise the company, while workers and organised labour have expressed concerns about the future of the company and possible restructuring. In August 2026, government established a team to negotiate with potential strategic investors, stressing the need for transparency, value for money and long-term industrial benefits.

This means Ghana cannot afford another cycle in which political actors fight over who appointed whom while the factory struggles underneath them.

“DON'T PUSH ME, I WILL EXPOSE YOU”

The most striking element of the current controversy is not merely the accusation and counter-accusation.

It is the threat of disclosure.
When former public officials tell one another, in effect, “Don't push me, I will expose you,” the public is entitled to ask:

Expose what?
Were there recruitment irregularities?
Were there politically motivated appointments?

Were there questionable dismissals?
Were public resources used for partisan purposes?

Were management decisions properly approved by the board?

Were financial losses properly explained?
Were employees recruited according to established procedures?

Were some employees employed because of political connections?

If there is documentary evidence, Ghana deserves to see it.

If there is no evidence, then allegations should not become substitutes for evidence.

WHAT ARE GHANAIANS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?
One former CEO says he helped the other obtain the position.

The other says his professional qualifications speak for themselves.

One says more than 100 people he helped recruit were dismissed.

Contemporary reports refer to 62 young recruits being dismissed.

One side raises political loyalty.
The other side raises professional merit.
Meanwhile, VALCO remains an ageing industrial asset requiring massive investment.

So perhaps the real story is not:
Titus-Glover versus Aboagye Gyedu.
The real story is:
Who is accountable for VALCO?
THE QUESTIONS GHANA MUST NOW ASK
1. Exactly how many people did Titus-Glover recruit at VALCO?

2. How many of those recruits were employed through a competitive process?

3. What qualifications did they possess?
4. What were their salaries and allowances?
5. What was the total annual cost of those appointments?

6. Were those positions approved in VALCO's staff establishment?

7. Why were 62 of the recruits reportedly dismissed?

8. If the dismissals were justified, what documented reasons were given?

9. If the dismissals were politically motivated, where is the evidence?

10. Did Titus-Glover's recruitment decisions improve VALCO's productivity?

11. What happened to production, revenue and operating costs during his tenure?

12. What do VALCO's audited accounts say about the company's performance before, during and after his tenure?

13. Did Aboagye Gyedu improve or worsen those indicators after taking over?

14. How much did VALCO spend on salaries, management benefits and recruitment during the two administrations?

15. Were political considerations allowed to influence recruitment?

16. Who approved the appointments and who approved the dismissals?

17. What role did VALCO's board play?
18. Was Titus-Glover's claim that he secured Aboagye Gyedu's appointment documented anywhere officially?

19. If political connections influenced the appointment, does that tell us something bigger about Ghana's system of appointing CEOs of state-owned enterprises?

20. And perhaps the biggest question: were the two men fighting for VALCO or fighting over political influence inside VALCO?

DEVELOPMENT OR PARTY POLITICS?
It would be unfair to conclude from the current dispute alone that Titus-Glover is more interested in the NPP than Ghana's development.

His political ambitions are publicly documented, but his motivation is ultimately something only he can properly explain.

What can be examined objectively is whether his decisions at VALCO produced measurable improvements in the company's performance.

That is where the argument should ultimately end.

Not at political rallies.
Not on radio.
Not on social media.
In the audited accounts.
In the payroll.
In the recruitment records.
In production figures.
In employment records.
And in the measurable performance of VALCO.
Because Ghana does not need another political fight over a national asset.

Ghana needs answers.
And perhaps the most important question is one that neither former CEO should be allowed to escape:

If both men genuinely believe they acted in VALCO's best interest, why not open the records and let the numbers tell the Ghanaian people who did what?

That is where the argument should go.
Not “Who knows whom?”
Not “Who got whom the job?”
But:
Who delivered results and who can prove it?
By:
Patrick Belebang Yagsori
+233240292413
[email protected]