Ayikoi Otoo Critiques Auditor-General Domelovo’s Conduct in High-Stakes Dispute Over Alleged Fake Evidence

Introduction: A High-Profile Audit Controversy

The recent clash between former Attorney-General Ayikoi Otoo and ex-Auditor-General Daniel Domelovo has reignited debates about ethical conduct in Ghana’s public institutions. Otoo, a prominent legal figure known for his role in probing allegations against late Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, publicly criticized Domelovo’s handling of a contentious audit report. Central to the dispute: claims that Domelovo accused Otoo of submitting fabricated evidence during a judicial investigation. This article dissects the allegations, explores their implications for Ghana’s audit transparency, and offers actionable insights for professionals navigating similar conflicts.

Analysis: The Core of the Dispute

The Allegations: Fake Evidence or Miscommunication?

At the heart of the controversy lies a document allegedly submitted by Otoo—a letter purportedly issued by the Judicial Secretary’s office. Domelovo asserted this letter was fabricated, implying Otoo’s team acted dishonestly. However, Otoo counters that Domelovo failed to pursue proper verification channels before making his accusations publicly.

Why Did Domelovo Publicize the Controversy?

Critics argue that airing claims on media platforms like Joy FM’s *Top Story* rather than following internal protocols undermines professional integrity. Audit processes require meticulous documentation, and public accusations without substantiation risk reputational damage and legal repercussions.

Prior Findings: Contradicting the Current Claims

Notably, multiple audits conducted earlier had cleared Otoo and his team of financial misconduct allegations. Dominelovo’s shift in focus—post-acquittal—to procedural grievances raises questions about his motives and adherence to due process.

Summary: Key Takeaways from the Controversy

1. **Allegation Chronology**: Domelovo’s recent claims about fabricated evidence arise after Otoo’s prior exoneration in multiple audits.
2. **Verification Lapse**: Otoo emphasizes the auditor’s duty to validate documents internally before public critique.
3. **Reputational Risks**: Public accusations without evidence verification can erode trust in Ghana’s audit mechanisms.

Key Points: Understanding the Stakeholders’ Positions

Ayikoi Otoo’s Defense

Otoo maintains that Domelovo’s actions reflect poor professional judgment. He stresses that auditors must follow protocol when questioning evidence authenticity, prioritizing direct communication with document originators over speculation.

Domelovo’s Perspective

Though unspoken in this conflict, Domelovo’s stance likely centers on accountability for alleged misuse of state resources. His frustration may stem from perceived legislative bias during earlier probes.

Practical Advice: Best Practices for Public Auditors and Legal Professionals

Verify First, Accuse Later

Auditors should exhaust internal channels—like contacting the Judicial Secretary’s office—to confirm document legitimacy before broadcast public doubts.

Document with Transparency

Maintain detailed records of all communication and evidence submissions. This practice protects both parties and ensures accountability in contested cases.

Leverage Independent Panels

Resolution through impartial third-party mediators can prevent reputational harm and set precedents for ethical cross-institutional collaboration.

Points of Caution: Risks Associated with Public Accusations

Reputational Damage

Unsubstantiated claims, even if partially true, can irreparably harm an auditor’s credibility. Ghana’s audit system relies on public trust—a fragile asset that once lost, is hard to rebuild.

Legal Repercussions

While no charges have been filed yet, false allegations could invite defamation lawsuits or professional disciplinary actions under Ghana’s judicial code of conduct.

Chilling Effects on Collaboration

Public in-fighting may deter whistleblowers from coming forward, fearing retaliation or dismissal of valid concerns.

Comparison: Auditing Standards vs. Political Dynamics

Unlike neutral referees, Ghana’s audit institutions occasionally become entangled in partisan politics. Otoo’s remark—“I don’t depend on an officer to behave the easiest way Domelovo is behaving”—highlights systemic challenges where personal biases eclipse procedural rigor. Comparatively, bodies like the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) mandate impartiality, regardless of political pressure.

Legal Implications: Cross-Institutional Accountability

While this dispute remains a professional clash rather than a legal one, the line between critique and misconduct blurs in Ghana’s context. If Domelovo’s claims gain traction, it could lead to calls for reforms in audit independence or stricter penalties for unverified accusations.

Conclusion: Toward Ethical Audit Governance

The Otoo-Domelovo feud underscores the need for Ghana to strengthen internal audit protocols and public accountability mechanisms. Clearer guidelines on handling procedural disputes and fostering inter-institutional cooperation could mitigate such conflicts. As stakeholders, we must demand auditors and legal experts uphold the highest standards of integrity.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Who is Ayikoi Otoo?

Ayikoi Otoo is a former Attorney-General of Ghana and lead counsel in high-profile cases, including the investigation into allegations against former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

What is the dispute about?

Domelovo accused Otoo of submitting fake evidence during a judicial inquiry, while Otoo alleges Domelovo aired unverified claims without proper verification.

How does this affect Ghana’s audit system?

It risks undermining public confidence in audit institutions and highlights gaps in conflict-resolution mechanisms between state agencies.

Could Domelovo face legal consequences?

Potentially, if his allegations are proven false. Ghana’s defamation laws could apply if Otoo files a lawsuit.

What reforms are suggested?

Stricter verification protocols for evidence, mandatory training on professional conduct, and enhanced mediation frameworks could prevent similar disputes.

Sources: Verifiable References

– *Life Pulse Daily* article, October 7, 2025.
– Joy FM *Top Story* interview transcript (October 7, 2025).
– Auditor-General Dominic Armah’s 2023 audit findings referenced by both parties.

Conclusion

This article navigates the complex interplay between accountability and procedure in Ghana’s governance landscape. By prioritizing verification over speculation and collaboration over confrontation, stakeholders can safeguard the integrity of the nation’s audit and judicial systems.