Deputy Minority Leader in Parliament and Member of Parliament for Asokwa, Patricia Appiagyei, has dismissed as “fake” a purported memorandum circulating in the media which alleges that she rejected GH¢70,000 allegedly allocated to influence her during Parliament’s recent vetting exercises.
The alleged memo, which surfaced in some media reports on Friday, September 4, 2026, purportedly suggested that the Asokwa MP had turned down the money because she did not know its source.
However, Ms Appiagyei has denied authoring the document, describing it as fabricated. Speaking to Graphic Online’s Parliamentary Correspondent, Nana Konadu Agyeman, the Deputy Minority Leader reportedly categorically dismissed the memo as “fake”. The development follows reports that members of Parliament may have received financial allocations in connection with the recently conducted vetting of ministerial nominees and nominees to the Supreme Court.
According to the reports, the purported memorandum was dated September 2, 2026, and was allegedly copied to the Minority Chief Whip, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, who is also the Member of Parliament for Nsawam/Adoagyiri. The document was said to have indicated that Ms Appiagyei had rejected an amount of GH¢70,000 because she could not establish the source of the money.
The allegation has, however, been rejected by the Deputy Minority Leader, who has disowned the memo and insisted that it does not originate from her. The controversy comes against the backdrop of heightened disagreements between the Majority and Minority sides of Parliament over the manner in which the recent vetting of nominees to the Supreme Court was conducted.
The Minority Caucus boycotted the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees on August 27, 2026, following strong objections to what it described as a rushed and compressed timetable. The Minority argued that Parliament had not been given adequate time to scrutinise the nominees and allow sufficient public participation in the process.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin led members of the caucus in walking out of the vetting proceedings after the committee rejected preliminary objections raised against the process. Mr Afenyo-Markin argued that the nominations had been brought before Parliament without adequate notice and that the process did not provide the customary 14-day period for public scrutiny.
“These nominations came to the House on Monday. Let us reason together and let us be seen as being consistent with our political views. If you want to follow the precedent, please suspend today’s sitting, properly put out the advert as you requested when you were in opposition, and let us wait for the 14 days,” he said.
He further contended that there was no pressing need to accelerate the appointments because the Supreme Court already had a full complement of Justices. According to the Minority Leader, the absence of an emergency meant Parliament could afford to follow what the Minority considered to be the appropriate procedure for the consideration of the nominees.
Mr Afenyo-Markin raised nine grounds in support of the Minority’s procedural objections before leading members of the committee to withdraw from the proceedings.
The walkout followed a decision by the Chairperson of the Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, to dismiss the preliminary objection raised by the Minority. Mr Ahiafor described the grounds presented by the Minority as “flimsy”, “hollow” and “baseless”, arguing that the committee was bound by decisions already taken by the full House.
He maintained that the committee could not independently alter or suspend a decision that had already been made by Parliament in plenary. “If you are aggrieved by the decision of the House, the method available for you to reverse that decision is contained in our own Standing Orders,” Mr Ahiafor said.
He subsequently indicated that he would not preside over the committee in a manner that sought to vary the orders, directions or decisions of the full House. The disagreement ultimately resulted in the Minority’s boycott of the vetting exercise.
The emergence of the alleged GH¢70,000 memo has added another layer to the political controversy surrounding the vetting process. The purported document appeared to suggest that the money had been allocated to influence parliamentary decisions during the consideration of the ministerial and Supreme Court nominees.
However, Ms Appiagyei’s denial means the authenticity of the document and the allegations contained in it are now in question. Her description of the memo as “fake” also directly challenges reports that she personally acknowledged receiving or rejecting the alleged amount. As of Friday, there has been no independent confirmation establishing the authenticity of the purported memorandum or substantiating the allegation that GH¢70,000 was allocated to the MP for the stated purpose.
The controversy is likely to attract further attention given the political sensitivity surrounding parliamentary vetting and the constitutional role of Parliament in scrutinising presidential nominations.
For now, Ms Appiagyei has distanced herself from the document and rejected the claims attributed to her. The alleged memo therefore remains disputed, with the Deputy Minority Leader maintaining that it is not genuine.
By: Philbert Amiba Ayuusah