Linda Bartels-Poku, a former finance manager at the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), has resorted to social media to express her rage at Justina Nelson, the Fund’s CEO, for what she claims to be her “dishonest” leadership.
responding to a post on MIIF’s official LinkedIn site about Ms. Justina Nelson’s outstanding leadership at the Fund. According to Ms. Bartels-Poku, the CEO of MIIF portrays a different image to the cameras, but in reality, she mistreats her coworkers at the Fund.
“I stand here not as a victim, but as a woman who refuses to be distracted,” was the MIIF post that prompted Ms. Bartels-Poku’s response. As Ms. Justina Nelson once said, “Let us hold and defend one another, for we are few at the top.”
“As women, let us be authentic and honest in holding each other, not just when cameras are on us,” Ms. Bartels-Poku said to Ms. Nelson’s quotation. In all we do, we must ensure justice and fairness while upholding the rule of law and procedures.
In response to the MIIF post, Ms. Bartels-Poku commented on LinkedIn, “Without that, there will be even fewer of us at the top, and when that happens, the honest ones will choose to be in the background. Leadership shows in the impact we make on others’ lives and the effort we put in helping others up!”
In a related development, Ms. Linda Bartels-Poku filed a lawsuit against MIIF, the Attorney General, and the Chairman of the Public Services Commission (PSC) alleging that Ms. Justina Nelson, MIIF’s CEO, unlawfully dismissed her from public service without cause.
On November 19, 2025, Chris Osei Yeboah Esq. of Accra-based Cartesian Consult Unlimited submitted Ms. Bartels-Poku’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim at the High Court registry. The Attorney General (AG) was listed as the third defendant, PSC as the second, and MIIF as the first.
In her Statement of Claim, Ms. Bartels-Poku explained why she should be granted the relief she is requesting by stating that on June 2, 2025, she received a letter from Rosetta E. Asmah, the Human Resources and Administrative Manager, informing her that she had been summarily dismissed by the company due to her gross disobedience to Mrs. Justina Nelson, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of MIIF.
Ms Bartels-Poku stated that she was entitled to 36 days of annual leave under her appointment and that she sought approval from her supervisor and Department Head, the Chief Finance Officer, and the Human Resource Department to take a 14-day leave from her statutory annual leave beginning on May 20, 2025 and ending on June 6, 2025 to care for her sick daughter in the United States of America.
The approval was granted, and specific dates were set by the Human Resource and Finance Department of MIIF. Based on the set dates, she had made personal arrangements, including flight and hotel bookings and payment, based on the certainty in the corporate practice of MIIF and the grant of the approval by the Human Resource Department to travel with her young daughter to the United States of America to visit and care for her other sick daughter who was residing in the
According to Ms. Bartels-Poku, she was supposed to return to work on June 9, 2025, as stated on her authorised leave form. However, three (3) days after receiving the initial approval form, she received an amended version.
Ms. Bartels-Poku, who was taken aback by the event, claims that when she asked the Human Resources Department for clarification, the personnel there told her to see the Acting Chief Executive Officer.
She asked to speak with the Acting Chief Executive Officer in order to get clarification and beg her to reevaluate her stance in light of the previously made agreements.
Days after she had the chance to meet with her, Ms. Bartels-Poku claimed that the Acting Chief Executive Officer flatly rejected her request and gave her no explanation for the reduction in her leave.
“The Plaintiff asseverates that these actions by the Acting Chief Executive Officer were unfair, unjust, and arbitrary in the circumstances. In fact, an email was sent to the acting Chief Executive Officer to outline reasons for the 14-day leave, and that at no point will there be a gap in the office, which the Acting CEO never responded to.
“The Plaintiff states that she prepared the payroll and performed other functions while on leave and was in constant communication with the Human Resource Department and other officers of the 1st Defendant, pursuant to her terms of engagement,” Ms Bartels-Poku noted in her Statement of Claim.
Ms. Bartels-Poku alleges that on June 2, 2025, she was summarily fired by MIIF through the Acting CEO. Her termination letter stated that her leave days were cut to five days due to work-related emergencies, but she disregarded the CEO’s order.
Ms. Bartels-Poku said that under the MIIF Human Resource Policy and Ghanaian laws, her behaviour does not justify a summary dismissal, even if she did not acknowledge that she was guilty of gross insubordination or that her actions or inactions constituted to insubordination.
Ms. Bartels-Poku argued in her statement of claim that MIIF did not carry out any inquiry, “which would have offered her the opportunity to tell her side of the story, and the unilateral decision of the Acting Chief Executive Officer was arbitrary and contrary to the rules of natural justice.”
In her case, Ms. Linda Bartels-Poku, the plaintiff, is requesting ten (10) reliefs.
First, “a declaration that the officers of the first defendant (MIIF management) unilaterally, arbitrarily, and unfairly altered the approved leave form after the plaintiff had been granted a prior leave form for 14 days.”
Second, “a declaration that the Plaintiff, a public servant, was wrongfully dismissed by the First Defendant without good reason.”
Third, a permanent order prohibiting the defendants from recording the plaintiff’s termination in both the Public Service Commission’s and the first defendant’s employment records.
Fourth, “an order against the Defendants jointly and severally for the payment of the Plaintiff’s salary, as pertaining to increases, from the date of unlawful summary dismissal to the date of final decision by this Honourable Court.
Fifth, “an order granting interest against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the accumulated salary due the Plaintiff from the date of unlawful dismissal to the date of final decision by this Honourable Court, including unused leave days.
Sixth, “general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for unlawful dismissal.
Seventh, “punitive and exemplary damages of GHc 800,000.00 against the Defendants jointly and severally for the unfair and cruel treatment meted out to the Plaintiff
Eighth, “an order directed at the 1st Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff her accrued terminal benefits and all entitlements.
Nineth, “costs inclusive of Counsel’s fees at 25% of total sums recovered in this suit and assessed in accordance with the GBA Scale of Fees, 2022, against the Defendants jointly and severally, and lastly, general costs.
Source: newsthemegh.com