IMCC dismisses Miracles Aboagye’s claims as inaccurate, reveals forensic audit found him personally liable for multi-million cedi irregularities

The Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee (IMCC) on Decentralisation Secretariat has issued a blistering rebuttal to former Executive Secretary Dennis Miracles Aboagye, accusing him of misrepresenting the findings of a 2025 forensic audit that allegedly found him and the institution’s Accountant jointly and personally liable for a raft of financial improprieties. In a statement released Monday, the Secretariat not only rejected Aboagye’s media claims but also dropped a bombshell: that Aboagye had privately sought to have damaging portions of the audit expunged—including transactions totaling over GH¢102 million that were never disclosed in his official handing-over notes.

The Backdrop: Bail and a Radio Interview

The controversy erupted after Aboagye, who was granted bail by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) on July 14, appeared on Asempa FM’s Ekosiisen program on July 21. During the interview, he disputed widespread media reports that his arrest was tied to a GH¢55 million financial irregularity. Instead, he claimed investigators questioned him about only three specific matters: transactions involving roughly GH¢9 million, a separate GH¢5,000 issue, and a procurement case worth GH¢5.2 million. He also suggested that the current Executive Secretary had pressured him to stop commenting on government matters, and alleged that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration had directed officials to “find something” against him.

IMCC’s Counter-Narrative: Audit Findings Unmasked

In its strongly worded statement, the IMCC Secretariat dismissed Aboagye’s version as “inaccurate and unsubstantiated.” It clarified that the institution—established under Section 207(3) of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936)—is bound by the Public Financial Management Act, the Public Procurement Act, and other statutory regulations. The Secretariat revealed that a comprehensive forensic audit conducted in 2025 had already implicated Aboagye and his accountant in multiple non-compliant transactions, and that Aboagye was given due opportunity to respond before the report was finalized. The completed report was then forwarded to EOCO for further investigation, though the Secretariat said it is unaware of the full scope of EOCO’s ongoing probe.

The Bombshell: Alleged Attempt to Suppress Evidence

Perhaps the most explosive detail in the IMCC statement is the allegation that Aboagye, through a lawyer and a mutual acquaintance, requested a private meeting with the current Executive Secretary on July 18, 2025—nearly a year before his arrest. At that meeting, the Secretariat claims, Aboagye asked that several findings be removed from the final audit report. Specifically, he sought the excision of:

· Findings related to two bank accounts, one of which allegedly recorded transactions amounting to GH¢102,256,802.69—a sum that, the Secretariat notes, was not included in his official handing-over notes upon leaving office.
· Findings concerning PNY Investment Limited, BMABA Enterprise, and GAPTE—entities whose dealings were flagged in the audit.

The Secretariat said the current Executive Secretary flatly declined to interfere with the report, affirming that the audit process was independent and that any adjustments would be improper.

Context: The Decentralisation Reforms and Institutional Transition

To understand the gravity of the dispute, one must look at the IMCC’s recent transformation. Following the passage of the Local Governance Act, 2016, the Secretariat’s staff were integrated into the Office of the President and the Civil Service as part of broader reforms to strengthen Ghana’s decentralisation framework. That integration was completed by the end of 2025, meaning the Secretariat now receives its budget allocations and reports directly through the Office of the President. It is within this transition period that the forensic audit was conducted—a routine governance measure, the Secretariat insists, not a witch-hunt.

Rejecting Victimisation Claims

The Secretariat also took strong exception to Aboagye’s suggestion that the audit was a vendetta tied to his previous employment. It called those claims “false and misleading,” emphasizing that administrative, financial, and operational audits are standard accountability tools, not instruments of persecution. “We remain committed to transparency, professionalism, and the rule of law,” the statement read, adding that the institution would not be distracted by “baseless allegations intended to undermine its integrity.”

Appeal for Return of Official Documents

In a final twist, the Secretariat appealed to Aboagye and law enforcement agencies to facilitate the return of official documents—including previous handing-over notes—referenced during his media interview but currently not in the Secretariat’s possession. This request suggests that key documentary evidence, which could shed light on the disputed transactions, may be missing or withheld.

What’s Next?

EOCO has not yet commented on the IMCC’s latest revelations, nor has it confirmed the specific sums under investigation. However, with the forensic audit now publicly implicating Aboagye in over GH¢102 million in undisclosed transactions—far exceeding the GH¢55 million figure originally reported—the case appears to be taking a more serious turn. Legal experts say that if the audit findings are substantiated, Aboagye could face charges under the Public Financial Management Act and the Criminal Offences Act.

Aboagye, for his part, has not issued a formal response to Monday’s statement, though his earlier radio appearance made clear he intends to fight the allegations. The IMCC, meanwhile, has pledged full cooperation with EOCO, signaling that it will provide all requested documents and information to ensure a thorough investigation.

As the battle of narratives intensifies, the public is left to parse competing accounts—one from a former official crying foul, and another from a state institution wielding a forensic audit that paints a damning portrait of financial mismanagement. For now, the ball remains firmly in EOCO’s court.