Claims And Counterclaims: Who Is Right In The Fraud Case At Ghana’s Washington D.c Mission?

It is said that a single story is dangerous because it is incomplete, but even two stories can be more dangerous especially when it leaves many critical questions unanswered, or when each side picks to deliver a version that suits them. This is the case with information coming from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Ghana's Former Ambassador to the US, H.E Hajia Alima Mahama. IMANI CPE had expounded on the visa fraud issue and how Ghana’s diplomatic missions abroad can be brought under the government’s reset accountability agenda. See CAGI of May 25-30, 2025.

In the expectation of more information on the happenings at the embassy in Washington D.C., the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa (MP) took to the floor of Parliament on June 18, 2025 to brief the house on the matter. He alluded to allegations of fraud, conflict of interest and corruption in the operations of the embassy with respect to visa and passport delivery. Summing up the case, he explained that one Fred Kwarteng recruited as IT Officer in August 2017 modified the embassy’s website to direct applicants to his company’s (Ghana Travel Consultant, GTC) website to facilitate visa and passport delivery. According to the Minister, GTC’s services with the embassy started in September 2019. Mr. Kwarteng in November 2019 was queried by the Head Chancery on the ‘unilateral important decision’ to modify the website but no action whatsoever was taken against him. In January 2023, GTC’s services were contracted formally with blatant disregard for Act 914, Act 921 and Act 1080. Within the said period, GTC had accrued a total revenue of $4 million without a single cent due to the Government of Ghana. However, GTC was depositing certain amounts to an unaudited welfare account of the embassy, accessible by the staff.

H.E Hajia Alima Mahama, in an interview on 3 FM on June 20, 2025, clarified the controversy surrounding the allegations by the minister saying that the minister had less knowledge of the operations of the embassy. First, she mentioned that the embassy does not provide delivery services so it could not sublet that through a contract with a third party. However, visa and passport applicants have the option to pick up or have their visas and passport sent by self-addressed envelopes that they submit their applications in through mailing services like FEDEX and UPS. This was however fraught with issues like delays in postage as the embassy did not operate a mailing department, underpaid postage stamps which the embassy incurred the burdened cost though it had no budget for that, and wrong mailing address leading to returns. So, in finding a solution to this, she had asked the IT services to find a solution which Mr. Kwarteng offered. He has a company, GTC, that offers similar solutions—retrieval and delivery. He was asked to undertake the services provided that the embassy does incurs zero-cost in the retrieval and delivery, and that the embassy is indemnified and not liable in the cases of non-delivery and loss of passports and visas. The Ambassador added that the GTC’s services drastically reduced issues with passport delivery and enhanced the efficiency and operations of the embassy.

The Ambassador alludes that the embassy does not provide mailing services so it cannot subcontract the service which it would benefit from financially. Hence the claim by the Minister that there was a breach of the PPA Act (Act 914 as amended) is untenable, and that there could not have been any revenue sharing agreement. She also added that there was no loss of revenue to the embassy or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the Government) as applicants paid their application fee online which is separate from the fees charged for opting for retrieval and delivery by GTC; thus, using a third party for collection of their passports and visas.

While these two explanations provide insights into the case, it leaves many questions unanswered. For instance,

a. Where is Fred Kwarteng, the IT Officer around whom this whole scandal revolves?

b. Upon the reopening of the embassy after the short closure, the Minister mentioned that a team was being sent to restructure the embassy. In his address to Parliament, he mentioned that the link that directs applicants to GTC’s website to facilitate retrieval and delivery is still active. Why is it so, after more than a month if there is indeed suspicion of fraud, conflict of interest, and corruption?

c. When was GTC founded? Was Fred Kwarteng operating GTC jointly or solely before joining the embassy?

d. Why are there conflicting years of employment for Fred Kwarteng? The minority after the Minister's presentation suggested that he was employed in 2015.

e. If the embassy was not providing mailing services, why would it sublet it as a contract to GTC, to the point that it allowed its website as a conduit for GTC?

f. If there was indeed a contract as both the Minister and Ambassador all allude to, what is the sort of legal, regulatory and institutional modalities that govern the embassy’s engagement with GTC and Fred Kwarteng? Was there any breach at all?

g. Did GTC serve only Ghanaian passport and visa applicants?

h. Why was GTC depositing funds into the Embassy’s Staff Welfare Account and why was that account not allowed to be audited?

i. Why did the Washington D.C. mission not allow EMH Global—the company contracted by the Government of Ghana to standardise the websites of its missions abroad in 2022 and 2024—to standardise the embassy’s website?

These questions, if answered will help Ghanaians to get to the crux of the matter and appreciate the full weight and implications of the fraud, conflict of interest and corruption allegations. For a strategic mission like the embassy in Washington D.C. these happenings and allegations are a dent on Ghana’s image at heart of the territory of its foremost strategic partner.

In recent memory, Ghana has had to deal with its international image on finance and economic fronts. The country in 2022 was removed from the EU’s list of high risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Finance of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. Fast forward to June 2025, the country faces potential ban on entry into the US because of students overstaying their F-1 visas.

While these two instances may be unrelated to the situation at the embassy in Washington D.C., they speak volumes into growing concerns about Ghana’s dwindling international image. That is why aside from the special forensic audit of the embassy in Washington D.C., it prompts the launch of special investigations into the allegations of fraud, conflict of interest and corruption to bring any unscrupulous beneficiary of the deal to justice for the state and the people.

It is welcoming news that EOCO and the Attorney General have been invited to probe the full scope of the Washington D.C. embassy operations, particularly the origins and legality of GTC’s involvement, the handling of state-linked funds, and the procedural lapses that enabled this situation. Simultaneously, a clear digital governance framework must be introduced across Ghana’s foreign missions to regulate third-party services, website administration, and welfare accounts, with all contracts subjected to standard procurement rules and external auditing. These reforms should not only address the current case but serve as a systemic accountability reset to insulate Ghana’s diplomacy from reputational risk and institutional fragility.