Beyond the numbers – The real question in SIC Insurance’s leadership controversy

In recent days, public attention has been captivated by the legal battle between SIC Insurance’s outgoing Managing Director, Hollistar Duah-Yentumi, and the company.

While much of the discussion centers around her compensation package—which includes a GH?70,000 monthly salary and various allowances—this focus misses the more crucial point. We should be asking what value this investment in leadership has brought to SIC Insurance.

The outcry over executive compensation packages in Ghana often overlooks a fundamental truth in corporate governance.

To build and maintain strong institutions, we must be prepared to compensate competitively. The real issue isn’t whether GH?840,000 per annum is too much for a Managing Director of a state insurance company. Rather, we should examine whether the institution is getting adequate return on this investment.

In an era where insurance companies face unprecedented challenges—from increasing competition to evolving customer needs and digital transformation—SIC Insurance needs leadership that can deliver results. The focus of public discourse should shift from the compensation package to the metrics that matter.

We need to understand how SIC’s market share has evolved under this leadership, what innovations have been introduced, how the company’s financials have performed, and what strategic initiatives have been implemented to ensure SIC’s continued relevance in an increasingly competitive market.

Consider that private sector insurance companies often offer similar or even more attractive packages to their top executives. They do this not out of extravagance, but because they understand that capable leadership is an investment, not an expense.

State-owned enterprises like SIC Insurance must compete in the same talent pool if they hope to attract and retain the caliber of leadership needed to drive performance and protect public interests. The current controversy presents an opportunity to establish a more meaningful dialogue about corporate governance in state institutions.

Instead of fixating on compensation figures, we should be asking deeper questions. What specific performance metrics were set for the Managing Director’s tenure, and how well were they met? How has SIC’s financial position improved or deteriorated during this period? What strategic initiatives were implemented to modernize and strengthen the institution? How has customer satisfaction and service delivery evolved? What measures were put in place to ensure sustainable growth and competitiveness?

The legal battle over contract termination aside, this situation highlights the need for greater transparency in how we evaluate leadership performance in state institutions. High compensation should come with high expectations and clear accountability measures.

Moving forward, the discussion should center on establishing clear performance metrics for executive positions in state-owned enterprises. This would ensure that compensation packages, regardless of their size, are tied to measurable outcomes that benefit both the institution and the public it serves.

The question isn’t whether we’re paying too much—it’s whether we’re getting enough in return. Until we refocus the conversation on value creation rather than cost, we risk missing the forest for the trees in our evaluation of corporate leadership in Ghana’s public sector.

By: Aaron Baneseh

([email protected])

The post Beyond the numbers – The real question in SIC Insurance’s leadership controversy first appeared on 3News.

Read Full Story