Former Finance Manager at the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), Linda Bartels-Poku, has taken to social media to vent her anger at the Fund’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Justina Nelson, for what she says is her “dishonest” leadership.
Reacting to a post on the official LinkedIn page of MIIF on what the Fund said is Ms Justina Nelson’s positive leadership at the Fund. Ms Bartels-Poku said the MIIF CEO presents a different image to the cameras, but in practice, she is maltreating those she works with at the Fund.
The MIIF post that necessitated the reaction of Ms Bartels-Poku read as follows: “I stand here not as a victim, but as a woman who refuses to be distracted. Let us hold and defend one another, for we are few at the top,” to quote attributed to Ms Justina Nelson read.
In her reaction to Ms Nelson’s quote, Ms Bartels-Poku said: “As women, let us be authentic and honest in holding each other, not just when cameras are on us. We need to uphold the rule of law and processes and ensure fairness and justice in all we do.
“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!” Ms Bartels-Poku wrote on LinkedIn in reaction to the MIIF post.
Ms Linda Bartels-Poku, in a related development, has instituted a court action against MIIF, the Chairman of the Public Services Commission (PSC), and the Attorney General for what she says is an unlawful summary dismissal from public service by Ms Justina Nelson, MIIF’s Chief Executive Officer, without cause.
Ms Bartels-Poku’s Writ of Summons and accompanying Statement of Claim were filed at the registry of the High Court on 19 November 2025 by Chris Osei Yeboah Esq. of Cartesian Consult Unlimited, a law firm based in Accra. It named MIIF as the 1st Defendant, PSC as the 2nd Defendant, and the Attorney General (AG) as the 3rd Defendant.
Ms Bartels-Poku’s case
Justifying why she should be given the reliefs she is seeking, Ms Bartels-Poku submitted in her Statement of Claim that she received a letter informing her that she had been summarily dismissed by the Company under the hand of the Human Resources and Administrative Manager, Rosetta E. Asmah on grounds that she acted in gross insubordination to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of MIIF, Mrs Justina Nelson, on 2nd June 2025.
Ms Bartels-Poku noted that per her appointment, she was entitled to annual leave of 36 days 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 commencing on 20 May 2025 and ending on 6 June 2025 to take care of 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 and 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 United States.
Ms Bartels-Poku states that she was to resume work on 9 June 2025 as indicated on her approved leave form, but she subsequently received an edited version of her approved leave form, three (3) days after the first approval form was received by her.
Surprised by the development, Ms. Bartels-Poku says she sought clarification from the Human Resource Department, but the officers there directed her to see the Acting Chief Executive Officer.
She sought an audience with the Acting Chief Executive Officer to seek clarification and plead with her to reconsider her position, bearing in mind the arrangements that had already been made.
Ms Bartels-Poku stated that the Acting Chief Executive Officer outrightly dismissed her plea and offered her no reason for the reduction in her leave days after she got the opportunity to meet with her.
“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.
On 2 June 2025, Ms Bartels-Poku says she was summarily dismissed by MIIF through the Acting CEO, and her termination letter indicated that her leave days were reduced to 5 days based on the exigency of work, but she defied the CEO’s directive.
Ms Bartels-Poku further noted that, assuming without admitting that she was guilty of gross insubordination, or her action or inaction amounted to insubordination, that conduct does not warrant a summary dismissal under MIIF Human Resource Policy and the Laws of Ghana.
MIIF did not conduct any investigation, “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,” Ms Bartels-Poku contended in her statement of claim.
Reliefs sought
Overall, the Plaintiff, Ms Linda Bartels-Poku, is praying the court for ten (10) reliefs in her action.
First, “a declaration that the 1st Defendant’s officers (MIIF management) acted unilaterally, arbitrarily, and unfairly in altering the approved leave form after the Plaintiff had been granted a prior leave form for 14 days.
Second, “a declaration that the 1st Defendant unlawfully dismissed the Plaintiff, a public servant, without just cause.
Third, a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from entering dismissal in the employment record of the Plaintiff at the 1st Defendant and with the Public Service Commission.
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: asaaseradio.com
