By West Africa Times Staff
The forensic audit of Ghana’s Embassy in Washington, D.C., which identified approximately $19.38 million in financial irregularities between 2019 and 2025, has triggered serious questions about governance, procurement and the handling of visa and passport services.
But a former Embassy staff member familiar with the operations is challenging key aspects of the emerging narrative, arguing that some charges now being described as improper were legitimate service costs or approved logistical arrangements.
The Auditor-General’s report, officially listed by the Ghana Audit Service, calculated total irregularities of $19,379,765.23, including visa and passport mailing charges, application-support services, merchant-processing costs and other transactions.
However, the entire $19.38 million should not automatically be described as money “extorted from visa and passport applicants,” since the audit total also incorporates other categories, including approximately $104,397 in disputed merchant fees and $295,907 involving separate transactions linked to STEFRANN LLC.
One issue requiring greater distinction involves credit-card merchant fees.
The former staff member argues that merchant-processing charges are a normal feature of electronic credit-card payments in the United States and that the fees charged when applicants paid online were processing costs rather than diverted government revenue. According to the former official, the underlying visa or passport fee went directly into the Government of Ghana’s account.
That argument does not necessarily contradict the Auditor-General’s entire finding. The audit did not simply question whether merchant-processing fees exist. Rather, it reported that charges associated with the Square payment platform were between 19 and 52 percent above Square’s published processing rates, resulting in an estimated $104,397.09 in additional charges.
Auditors also questioned the absence of a formal contract and prior ministry approval for Square’s use.
The former staffer further maintains that the approximately $5 credit-card charge per application was a legitimate merchant fee and says this was confirmed through Treasury channels. West Africa Times has not independently located a publicly released Treasury document confirming that specific assertion.
Consequently, the question is more accurately framed as whether the additional processing charge was properly authorized and correctly calculated—not whether credit-card processors ordinarily charge merchant fees.
A second issue concerns the use of an external website for applications.
It is inaccurate to suggest that every external portal linked from the Embassy website was inherently unauthorized. Ghana has long used outside technology platforms to manage consular applications. Significantly, the Embassy’s official website today continues to direct visa applicants to http://dashboard.ecimsglobal.com, the eCIMS Global platform. Passport applications currently go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ passport portal.
The audit controversy instead centers on allegations that applicants were redirected from official systems to privately controlled platforms connected with then-Embassy IT official Fred Kwarteng and his business interests. Kwarteng has denied misconduct and has publicly argued that the services he developed—including document tracking, communication and return-mail assistance—were known to Embassy management and provided genuine benefits to applicants.
The mailing arrangement is similarly contested.
Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa told Parliament in June 2025 that, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Washington Mission adopted an online system for dispatching visas and passports. Applicants were offered FedEx and USPS delivery and charged $29.75. The Minister maintained that the arrangement was not approved by Parliament and said investigations found no genuine alternative offered to most applicants.
The former Embassy staffer disputes that characterization.
According to the official, the Embassy did not operate its own mailing infrastructure and management therefore outsourced document return services to a private company. Applicants supplied their own addresses, while address-verification and tracking systems were used to reduce lost mail. The former official also maintains that the $29.75-$30 mailing charge covered priority mailing through FedEx or USPS and, in group cases, could cover as many as three passports.
There is documentary support for at least part of that description. The GhanaPV mailing portal associated with the previous arrangement currently states a $29.75 return-mail charge and says the maximum number of passports allowed under one return-postage payment for a group application is three.
Perhaps the most important factual dispute involves whether applicants were forced to purchase the private mailing service.
The Foreign Minister told Parliament that the private courier arrangement provided applicants with no meaningful alternative and said about 99 percent of applicants used it.
The former staff member, however, says applicants could submit their own prepaid, self-addressed envelopes and that a notice informing applicants of that option appeared on the application page.
Current Embassy procedures lend some support to the broader proposition that applicants can provide their own return postage. The Embassy’s official 2026 FAQ explicitly instructs passport applicants to bring a “prepaid, self-addressed return envelope with tracking.” Its terms also advise applicants to use prepaid courier services.
That current policy does not, by itself, prove that the same option was consistently available throughout 2019–2025. Establishing that point conclusively would require archived versions of the Embassy and application websites, contemporaneous application instructions or internal records.
The larger issue therefore remains more complicated than either side’s headline suggests.
The forensic audit raises serious and legitimate questions about procurement procedures, conflicts of interest, authorization of fees and relationships between Embassy employees and private service providers. The Foreign Ministry says it found no evidence that the 2023 courier agreement received the required ministerial, legal or procurement approval.
At the same time, legitimate merchant-processing costs, Ghana’s official use of external consular platforms, actual courier expenses and the possibility that some applicants could provide prepaid envelopes must be separated from allegations of unauthorized profit.
The critical question is no longer simply whether applicants paid additional money. They clearly did.
The questions investigators must answer are: Which charges represented genuine third-party costs? Which were legally authorized? Which services were optional? Who approved the arrangements? What portion, if any, constituted improper profit? And where did each dollar actually go?
Until those questions are conclusively answered through documentary evidence and, where appropriate, judicial proceedings, the $19.38 million figure should be reported as the Auditor-General’s calculation of financial irregularities—not automatically as $19.38 million proven to have been stolen or extorted from applicants.
