Staff of the Energy Commission have dismissed reports suggesting agitation and internal unrest at the Commission, describing such publications as inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the situation on the ground.
According to staff members, there is no chaos, tension, or agitation within the Commission, and work is proceeding normally across departments.
The staff, who say they were surprised by the earlier reportage portraying the institution as being engulfed in controversy, shared an internal memorandum circulated to workers as evidence that no such agitation exists.
The memo, issued by the Divisional Chairman of the Public Services Workers’ Union (PSWU) of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) at the Energy Commission, categorically refutes claims that staff are demanding the removal of the Acting Executive Secretary, Ing. Mrs Eunice Biritwum.
In the statement, the union leadership describes reports of staff agitation as “false, baseless and misleading,” stressing that they do not represent the position or sentiments of workers at the Commission.
Staff members believe the union memo was issued specifically to correct what they describe as misinformation circulating in sections of the media and to prevent workers from being drawn into narratives they have no part in.
“The environment here is calm. People are working normally, and there is nothing chaotic happening as has been reported,” a staff member said, adding that issues relating to appointments or tenure are not matters staff are engaging in.
The memo further states that the Energy Commission remains a calm, professional and productive work environment, with no protests, industrial actions or internal disturbances taking place.
Staff insist that the earlier report, particularly its claims of staff agitation, is not factual and does not reflect realities within the Commission, noting that the union remains the only authorised body to speak on collective staff concerns.
They have therefore urged the public to disregard claims of unrest, emphasising that any attempt to use “staff agitation” as justification for broader narratives is misleading.
End
