A months-long investigation has uncovered a coordinated plan within the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) to manufacture a corruption narrative against its former executives — and to secretly pressure the Auditor-General to rewrite already-signed audited financial statements after they contradicted that storyline.

For much of the year, MIIF’s new leadership has insisted that its predecessors mismanaged billions of cedis.

That narrative, repeatedly amplified through internal memos, media engagements, and state-led arrests, has shaped public perception and triggered high-profile detentions by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

But interviews across MIIF, the Audit Service, Parliament, and law enforcement agencies paint a starkly different picture: a deliberate effort led by MIIF CEO Justina Nelson to create the illusion of financial mismanagement — even when the evidence showed the opposite.

When the Auditor-General refused to validate the narrative, MIIF allegedly attempted an unprecedented move: rewriting an audit that had already been completed, signed, and sealed.

What emerges is a scandal that strikes at the core of public accountability and threatens serious political fallout for the Mahama administration.

According to insiders, the plot began immediately after the new MIIF leadership took office.

Top executives launched an aggressive internal and public campaign alleging that the former CEO, Board Chair, and senior executives had grossly mismanaged the Fund.

This campaign soon escalated into a string of coordinated arrests — not only of former MIIF officials, but even private sector partners who had simply done business with the Fund.

The OSP and EOCO relied heavily on financial statements drafted not by independent auditors, but by MIIF’s new management itself.

Multiple insiders with direct knowledge of the process say those internal statements were intentionally crafted to suggest losses, despite the actual records showing profitability.

Several staff who questioned the narrative were dismissed and are now pursuing legal action for wrongful termination and victimisation.

The management-prepared financial statements were sent to the Auditor-General for mandatory auditing.

That is where the narrative began to unravel.

Instead of confirming mismanagement, the Auditor-General’s team reportedly found the opposite: MIIF had been prudently run, posting strong returns and healthy growth.

A respected international auditing expert consulted for this investigation said:“The audit evidence overwhelmingly showed competent management. It appears the financial statements were initially drafted to imply mismanagement, but the numbers refused to cooperate.”

On 26 June 2025, MIIF’s own CEO and Board Chair signed the audited financial statements confirming these outcomes.

The Auditor-General signed the next day.

With three signatures on the document, the claims of “financial mismanagement” collapsed.

As media houses began to review the audited statements, several outlets published stories highlighting MIIF’s profitability.

A widely circulated analysis by Okaikwei Central MP Patrick Boamah further amplified the positive results.

Rather than welcome the transparency, the MIIF CEO reportedly reacted with fury.

She instructed the Corporate Affairs Department to issue public rejoinders disputing the very numbers she had personally signed — even though the figures were already validated by the Auditor-General.

Then, in what insiders describe as selective and vindictive targeting, the CEO allegedly compiled a list of former MIIF officials and referred them to the OSP.

Some board members were arrested or interrogated, while others with identical responsibilities were inexplicably excluded.

As one insider put it:“The arrests were weaponised to reinforce a false narrative.”

The crisis escalated in September 2025 when a former board member filed an RTI request seeking the 2024 audited financials.

MIIF ignored the request — twice. A separate RTI request on statutory reporting obligations was also disregarded.

Shortly after, MIIF leadership made an unprecedented move.

On 31 October 2025, MIIF wrote to the Audit Service claiming that the signed 2024 financial statements contained “material and pervasive misstatements.”

This claim surfaced months after all parties had signed off the audit — and only weeks after MIIF refused to release the documents under RTI.

On 7 November 2025, MIIF officials met the Audit Service to negotiate a restatement of the audit.

Senior auditors described the request as “shocking,” “improper,” and “unprecedented.”

The Audit Service flatly rejected the proposal.

On 12 November 2025, the Audit Service issued a formal letter to MIIF that dismantled the attempt to rewrite history.

The letter stated clearly:

There were no material or pervasive misstatements in the signed audit.

MIIF’s use of the term pervasive was misleading.

The request to redo the audit was “improper”.

The Audit Service would not alter the 2024 statements under any circumstances.

They were open to auditing 2025 — but would not falsify past records.

MIIF received the letter on 13 November 2025 but has refused to discuss its contents, describing the correspondence as “confidential.”

MIIF is legally mandated to operate with the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

Instead, its current leadership stands accused of:

Manufacturing a narrative of corruption without evidence

Weaponising law enforcement agencies

Attempting to rewrite an already-signed audit

Violating the RTI Act and MIIF Act

Targeting former officials for retaliation

Misleading the public and Parliament

These are not procedural errors. They represent ethical breaches and institutional sabotage that undermine Ghana’s sovereign investment framework and threaten investor confidence.

The Mahama administration now faces a defining moment. Will it defend due process and the rule of law — or allow this attempt to falsify audited financial records to stain the presidency?

The truth is out. The consequences are now political, legal, and national.