Conflict of interest claims against deputy COCOBOD CEO nominee are baseless

Supporters of Mr. Ato Boateng, the nominee for Deputy Chief Executive (Finance & Administration) of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), have dismissed a petition seeking to block his appointment, describing the move as lacking substantive evidence and driven by a quest for “cheap popularity.”

In a formal response issued on Monday, the camp of Mr. Boateng pushed back against allegations of conflict of interest raised in a petition filed by the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Hon. Vincent Ekow Assafuah. The rebuttal, authored by Media Advisor Adnan Adams Mohammed, characterizes the parliamentary petition as “much ado about nothing” and built on conjecture rather than facts.

The controversy stems from Mr. Boateng’s previous role as CEO of Atlas Commodities Limited. The MP’s petition, dated February 25, 2026, called for the nominee to step aside over potential conflicts arising from his past private sector employment.

Rebuttal: A ‘Speculative Leap’

In defense of the appointment, Mr. Boateng’s team has argued that the allegations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of conflict of interest laws. The rebuttal emphasizes several key points to counter the claims:

· No Current Interest: It asserts that the petition fails to prove Mr. Boateng currently holds any shares or maintains ownership in Atlas Commodities Limited.
· Lack of Control: There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Boateng exercises any executive control or decision-making power over the private company while serving in his official capacity.
· No Policy Interference: The response notes that the petition does not demonstrate any instance where Mr. Boateng has used his position at COCOBOD to steer benefits or contracts toward his former employer.
· Absence of Financial Gain: No evidence has been presented to show that Mr. Boateng has derived any financial benefit from the company since his nomination.

Constitutional Interpretation

The rebuttal addresses the invocation of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the conduct of public officers. It argues that a legal conflict of interest requires a “real and present” personal interest, whereas the petition relies solely on historical employment.

“To suggest that a person’s professional background constitutes a conflict of interest is to suggest that the public service should be devoid of industry experts. This is not only illogical but a disservice to the state,” the statement read. It further argued that disqualifying individuals based on prior sector experience would deprive critical state institutions of the expertise needed to function effectively.

Allegations of ‘Interference’ Dismissed

The rebuttal also strongly refuted claims that Mr. Boateng attempted to interfere with records at the Registrar General’s Department (RGD) on February 20, 2026. Labeling the accusations a “distortion of facts,” the response argued it is illogical to suggest an “abuse of office” at COCOBOD based on alleged actions at a separate government institution where Mr. Boateng holds no authority.

Conclusion

The statement concluded by urging the Governing Board of COCOBOD and the public to dismiss the petition, maintaining that it is based on speculation rather than proof of any regulatory or constitutional breach. It framed the challenge not as a genuine pursuit of transparency, but as an attempt to stall a qualified candidate.