Probation or Purge? Ghana’s Central Bank at a Constitutional Crossroads

In June 2025, the Bank of Ghana (BoG) terminated the appointments of over 100 probationary staff, citing non-confirmation after a six-month review. While the Bank insists the move was a routine HR exercise grounded in policy, the Minority in Parliament has condemned it as unconstitutional, unlawful, and morally indefensible. This development has ignited a national debate—not just about legality, but about institutional ethics, labor rights, and the soul of public service.

The Bank’s Position: Policy or Pretext?

The BoG maintains that the affected individuals were on probation and did not meet the performance benchmarks required for confirmation. According to internal communications, the Bank followed its HR protocols, including issuing one month’s salary in lieu of notice and requesting the return of institutional property. Officials argue that probation is a professional mechanism—not a formality—and that the Bank has a duty to uphold performance standards, especially in a post-restructuring economy where credibility is paramount.

The Micro Minority’s Rebuttal: Legal Loophole or Constitutional Breach?

The Micro Minority Caucus in Parliament sees the dismissals as a veiled political purge. They argue that the terminations were influenced by a directive from the Chief of Staff to revoke all public sector appointments made after December 7, 2024. They contend that:

• Probation does not nullify constitutional protections under Articles 23 and 24, which guarantee fair treatment and due process.
• The dismissals lacked transparency, documentation, and individualized performance reviews.
• The Bank acted despite a pending parliamentary inquiry, undermining democratic oversight.

They have called for the immediate reinstatement of the affected staff and the appearance of the BoG Governor before Parliament.

Ghana’s Legal Framework on Probation and Dismissals

Ghana’s Labour Act (Act 651) permits probationary employment, typically for up to six months. While the Act does not specify a maximum duration, it requires that the terms of probation be clearly stated in the employment contract. Employers may terminate probationary contracts without cause, but the law emphasizes that such dismissals must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

In practice, however, the line between lawful discretion and abuse of power can blur—especially when political directives intersect with HR decisions. The Act also mandates that dismissals be based on justifiable grounds such as misconduct, incapacity, or redundancy. Probationary status does not exempt employers from these standards if the termination is challenged as unfair.

Global Benchmarks: How Other Central Banks Handle Probation

A comparative glance reveals that many central banks treat probation as a structured, transparent process:

• Central Bank of Ireland: Probation typically lasts six months and includes scheduled performance reviews, documented feedback, and the possibility of extension. Termination during probation requires clear justification and HR oversight.
• European Central Bank (ECB): Probation is treated as a developmental phase. Employees receive mentorship, and any concerns must be formally documented before termination is considered.
• Reserve Bank of India (RBI): Probationary officers undergo rigorous training and evaluation. Dismissals are rare and usually follow a documented pattern of under institutions emphasize fairness, documentation, and employee development—principles that reinforce institutional integrity and reduce the risk of politicization.

The Bigger Picture: Trust, Governance, and Institutional Culture

The BoG episode is not just about HR policy—it’s a litmus test for Ghana’s commitment to rule of law, institutional independence, and ethical governance. If the dismissals were purely performance-based, then transparency and documentation should be readily available. If they were politically motivated, then the implications are grave: it signals a regression into patronage and undermines public trust.

Recommendations for Fair and Transparent Probation Practices

1. Codify Clear Performance Criteria

Every probation contract should clearly define measurable goals, timelines, and expectations. This prevents ambiguity and supports both employee accountability and institutional transparency.

2. Implement Structured Performance Reviews

Probation should include periodic assessments (e.g., at 3 and 6 months), supported by written feedback and coaching. This allows employees to improve and fosters trust.

3. Document Every Decision
All decisions related to non-confirmation should be supported by HR-reviewed documentation outlining performance gaps and prior warnings. This guards against legal challenges and claims of bias.

4. Ensure Oversight and Appeal Mechanisms

Introduce internal probation review panels or third-party audits to assess fairness before termination. Allow employees to appeal decisions and request written justifications.

5. Avoid Political Interference

Shield public sector HR functions from executive directives. Appointment reviews—especially after elections—must comply with constitutional provisions, not partisan timelines.

6. Public Communication Standards

Communicate policy decisions with clarity, compassion, and evidence. Public trust in institutions thrives on how decisions are explained, not just how they’re made.

For a country navigating economic recovery and democratic consolidation, the credibility of its central bank is non-negotiable. The international community, investors, and civil society are watching—not just for outcomes, but for the principles that guide them.

Retired Senior Citizen
Teshie-Nungua
akpaluck@gmail.com

   Comments0