In recent times, public discourse around the performance of the education sector has taken a troubling turn. Rather than focusing on the root causes of inefficiencies, some critics have hastily directed blame at the education minister—despite clear indications that the real problem may lie elsewhere. It raises an important question: why hold an assiduous minister accountable for the colossal political disloyalty of an administrator who appears to be undermining progress?
At the centre of this issue is the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund), an institution established to provide financial support for educational infrastructure and development. The success of GETFund depends heavily on competent, transparent, and cooperative leadership—particularly from its administrator.
The GETFund Administrator falls under the Ministry of Education.
Details:
1. Legal basis: The Ghana Education Trust Fund Act, 2000 (Act 581), as amended by Act 972 (2018), establishes GETFund.
2. Supervising Ministry: Ministry of Education. The Act says the Fund is “under the ministry responsible for education”.
3. Reporting line:
– Administrator reports to: The Minister for Education and the GETFund Board of Trustees.
– Board composition: Chaired by a person appointed by the President. Includes reps from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, GES, NCTE, etc. The minister for education has oversight.
– Financial reporting: The administrator submits annual reports to Parliament through the minister for education, per Act 581 Sec 14.
4. Day-to-day operations: The administrator manages the fund, but policy direction comes from the Ministry of Education. For releases, the Ministry of Finance actually pays the money into GETFund based on the 2.5% VAT levy, but the administrator doesn’t report to Finance.
Current structure 2026:
– Minister for Education: Still has overall responsibility for GETFund policy
– Administrator: Appointed by President in consultation with Council of State + Board. Runs secretariat.
– Board of Trustees: Approves allocations to SHS infrastructure, tertiary, scholarships, etc.
Common confusion: People think it’s Ministry of Finance because Finance releases the money. But Finance only handles the revenue side. Policy + administration = Ministry of Education.
Want the exact section of Act 581 that states this?
Got it — here’s the exact legal wording from Act 581 + Act 972 amendments:
1. Ministry of Education as supervising ministry
Act 581, Section 1(2):
> “The Fund shall be under the Ministry responsible for Education.”
That’s the direct line putting GETFund under MoE, not Finance.
2. Administrator reporting line
Act 581, Section 14(1):
> “The Board shall, within six months after the end of each financial year, submit to the Minister an annual report on the activities and operations of the Fund for that year.”
The “minister” is defined in Section 21 as “minister responsible for education”.
3. Administrator appointment
Act 972 of 2018, Section 5, which amends Section 4 of Act 581:
> “The President shall, acting in consultation with the Council of State, appoint the Administrator of the Fund.”
But the administrator works under the Board, and the Board is chaired by a presidential appointee. Section 4(2): The board includes reps from the MoE, MoF, GES, etc. The minister for education gives policy direction.
4. Parliament reporting
Act 581, Section 14(3):
> “The Minister shall, within one month after receipt of the annual report, lay the report before Parliament.”
So: Administrator → Board → Minister for Education → Parliament.
Why the confusion with the Ministry of Finance?
Act 581, Section 2: Money for GETFund comes from “two and one half per cent of the value added tax”. MoF collects VAT and “shall pay directly” into the fund. So MoF handles cash but doesn’t supervise the fund.
Summary of chain:
GETFund Secretariat/Administrator → Board of Trustees → Minister for Education → President/Parliament
Need me to pull the full PDF of Act 581 + Act 972 for you?
The administrator, Paul Adjei, is doing a disservice to the powers in power, and he is being politically colossally disloyal.
He must put his interest aside and help the education minister to achieve his policies as enshrined in the GETFund Act rather than his aim of sabotaging the education minister because he is the campaign manager for Ato. Forson’s presidential ambition, knowing that at no point can his candidate defeat Haruna Iddrisu in any of the NDC’s internal elections.
His candidate is also sabotaging the work of education minister so that people will undermine the minister but the issue has to do from the finance Minister’s allocation to the education minister.
When an administrator fails to align with the vision and directives of the Education Ministry, the consequences can be severe. Delays in project execution, misallocation of funds, and bureaucratic bottlenecks can all emerge, ultimately stalling progress in the education sector. If such actions are deliberate or politically motivated, they amount to nothing less than sabotage.
The Education Minister, by contrast, is tasked with policy formulation, oversight, and the general advancement of education. An assiduous minister—one who works diligently to improve schools, expand access, and enhance quality—should not be scapegoated for failures that stem from administrative disloyalty or negligence. Holding the wrong person accountable not only distorts public understanding but also weakens institutional responsibility.
Equally concerning is the allegation that the GETFund administrator is not operating in accordance with the governing legal framework. The GETFund Act clearly outlines the duties, limitations, and expectations of the office. Any deviation from this Act is a serious breach of public trust and must be addressed decisively.
If an administrator is indeed acting outside the law, disregarding ministerial direction, or frustrating national education goals, then calls for removal are not only justified—they are necessary. Leadership in public institutions must be accountable, transparent, and aligned with national interests, not driven by political disloyalty or personal agendas.
In conclusion, it is both unfair and counterproductive to blame a hard-working education minister for systemic failures caused by an uncooperative administrator. The focus should instead be on enforcing accountability where it truly belongs. If the allegations hold true, decisive action—including dismissal—must be taken to restore efficiency, legality, and trust in the management of educational funds.
By: Lambert Appiah Rockson, Aspiring Parliamentary Candidate for Ablekuma South, NPP.
