SIC Insurance Leadership Dispute Exposes Deeper Debate on Executive Pay and Accountability

A legal clash between outgoing SIC Insurance Managing Director Hollistar Duah-Yentumi and the state-owned firm has thrust executive compensation into the spotlight, but the real conversation lies elsewhere.

While Duah-Yentumi’s reported GH₵70,000 monthly salary and benefits have drawn public scrutiny, the controversy risks overshadowing a more critical question: What tangible value did this investment in leadership deliver for SIC Insurance and its stakeholders?

The outcry over high salaries for executives at state institutions is familiar in Ghana, yet it often glosses over a key principle of corporate governance. Competitive pay is not inherently problematic—strong institutions require skilled leaders, and attracting talent demands market-aligned compensation. Private insurers routinely offer comparable or higher packages, recognizing that leadership quality directly impacts growth and innovation. The issue, then, isn’t the figure on the paycheck but whether SIC Insurance saw proportional returns under Duah-Yentumi’s tenure.

Insurance companies today operate in a rapidly shifting landscape. Digital transformation, rising competition, and evolving customer expectations demand agile leadership. Did SIC’s market share grow? Were new products or technologies introduced to keep pace with rivals? How did financial metrics like profitability or liquidity fare during this period? These are the benchmarks that matter, yet they remain conspicuously absent from public discourse.

State-owned enterprises face a unique tightrope walk: balancing public accountability with the need to compete in a cutthroat market. If SIC aims to retain relevance, it cannot afford to lag in securing top-tier executives. However, this requires transparent frameworks linking pay to performance. For instance, were clear targets—such as customer satisfaction improvements, cost-reduction goals, or expansion into underserved markets—established and met? Public records show SIC reported GH₵477 million in gross premiums for 2022, but deeper analysis is needed. How much of this growth stemmed from strategic decisions versus broader industry trends?

The legal dispute itself—centered on alleged contract breaches—highlights a broader institutional gap. Unlike private firms where board accountability often ties compensation to quantifiable results, state entities like SIC risk fostering cultures where scrutiny fixates on inputs (salaries) rather than outputs (performance). This case should catalyze reforms, such as mandating public scorecards for executives that track metrics like claim settlement efficiency, solvency margins, or digital adoption rates.

Ghana’s conversation about leadership in state institutions must evolve. Rather than defaulting to outrage over compensation, citizens and policymakers should demand transparency on how executive decisions translate to public value. After all, the true cost of leadership isn’t measured in cedis paid but in opportunities lost when vision and accountability fall short.