Front desk report
The Ghana Enterprises Agency (GEA) has moved swiftly to counter what it describes as “misleading and inaccurate” media reports alleging that its Chief Executive Officer, Margaret Ansei, has summarily dismissed staff following the circulation of an internal memorandum dated 3 December 2025.
In a strongly worded rejoinder issued on 8 December, the Agency categorically denied any mass dismissal of staff, clarifying that the individuals referenced in the memo were not permanent employees but rather contract-based District Coordinators engaged under a time-bound project framework.
Their contracts, the Agency noted, had expired as of 31 August 2025, with a discretionary two-month extension granted until 31 October.
The memo, which has since become the subject of media speculation, merely instructed those whose contracts had lapsed and who had not completed renewal procedures to cease reporting to work until formal processes were concluded.
The directive also applied to National Service Personnel who had completed their statutory service period and, under national policy, could not continue working without a new engagement.
GEA management emphasized that the internal communication was a routine administrative measure aimed at ensuring operational integrity, preventing irregularities, and maintaining accountability over staff deployment and agency property.
“No permanent or mainstream GEA staff have been dismissed,” the statement stressed, adding that the memo was never intended to affect career employees.
The Agency’s leadership further underscored that contract renewals are not automatic and are contingent upon performance, attendance, funding availability, and project needs a standard clause in such engagements.
Observers note that the swift rebuttal reflects a growing sensitivity within public institutions to reputational risk, particularly in an era of heightened media scrutiny and politicized narratives.
The GEA’s response also signals a broader institutional pushback against what it perceives as sensationalist reporting that undermines public trust in governance processes.
While the agency reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, due process, and fair treatment of all categories of staff, it also issued a cautionary note to the media: seek clarification before publication to avoid misrepresentation.
The episode, though seemingly administrative, has exposed the fragile interface between bureaucratic communication and public perception a space where misinterpretation can quickly spiral into controversy.