The findings were clear. A senior executive had breached internal policy. The misconduct was serious (the investigations and disciplinary inquiry had proved it). The board felt justified. After years of service, this was how it was ending. There was little appetite for negotiation. The prevailing view at the board was straightforward: wrongdoing must attract consequences. The company needed to send a message. The executive was dismissed.
From a purely legal standpoint, the decision seemed right. From a strategic standpoint, it was poorly managed. The executive had been with the company for years. He had attended sensitive meetings. He had observed how decisions were made. He knew which past issues had been quietly resolved and which had been overlooked. He deeply understood the company’s commercial strategy and its vulnerabilities. It was a sensitive termination.
He left angry and potentially dangerous. There was no structured exit. No negotiated release. No reinforced confidentiality obligations beyond the original contract. No carefully managed narrative.
Within weeks, uncomfortable questions began circulating. Anonymous disclosures surfaced. Industry contacts began asking difficult questions. Whether triggered by the former executive or emboldened insiders, the company found itself managing a reputational issue it had not anticipated. The dismissal addressed misconduct. But it did not address risk. This scenario illustrates why many companies now favour carefully planned exit strategies over the ‘clean break’ option for senior executives and sensitive roles.
Under Ghanaian employment law, termination by mutual agreement is a recognised mode of terminating an employment contract. Lawyers like to call it “mutual separation”. It is typically used at senior levels (and for terminating other sensitive roles such as IT, Strategy and accounts workers with access to information that is commercially or otherwise sensitive).
More Read
A mutual separation is usually documented in a “mutual separation agreement” between the employer and the employee. The agreement records such terms as the termination date, the financial terms of the exit and the treatment of outstanding benefits. It also confirms that the separation is voluntary and typically includes a waiver of claims. The agreement provides clarity and finality, ensuring that the exit is properly structured rather than left to informal understandings or chance.
Ghanaian employment law expects mutual separation agreements to be presented to a labour officer at the Labour Department for approval. The purpose is to confirm that the employee has freely consented to the arrangement and that all liabilities between the parties have been settled. In practice, particularly in executive exits, this procedural step is not always strictly followed or enforced.
Mutual separation is sometimes misunderstood as a soft or generous option. In reality, it is better to see it as a structured risk-management mechanism. The issue is not whether misconduct deserves consequences. That is obvious. The issue is whether dismissal is always the most strategic response when dealing with a deviant senior executive (or other worker in a sensitive role) who wields influence, knowledge and leverage.
Mutual separation rarely emerges overnight. It usually begins with a private discussion in which management raises the possibility of an amicable exit. If the idea is accepted in principle, a draft separation agreement is shared, and the parties negotiate the terms (including timing, compensation and post-employment obligations). The process allows both sides to shape the outcome in a controlled and deliberate manner. If it is carefully structured, mutual separation offers several advantages that boards and HR leaders should consider.
- It reduces litigation exposure
Senior executives are rarely passive employees. They understand their contracts. They understand process. They often have access to legal advice. Even where clear misconduct is involved, a dismissal can generate claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract or procedural unfairness. Even weak claims can consume the time of management and create unwanted publicity.
A properly drafted mutual separation agreement typically includes a waiver of claims, a full release of liabilities and an acknowledgement of voluntary exit. This creates defined legal closure. For boards, certainty has commercial value.
- It reinforces confidentiality and information protection
Senior executives possess more than titles. They hold institutional memory, strategic insight and commercially sensitive information. While employment contracts often contain confidentiality clauses, a negotiated exit provides an opportunity to restate and strengthen those obligations clearly. In exchange for an agreed exit package, employers can obtain strong confidentiality undertakings, non-disclosure commitments and non-disparagement provisions. The objective is not punishment for the exiting employee. It is protection for the employer.
- It protects reputation and market stability
Executive disputes can unsettle markets, employees and stakeholders. Public accusations, social media commentary and leaked correspondence can escalate quickly. A structured separation allows the organisation to manage messaging carefully. It enables coordinated internal communication and consistent external positioning. Instead of reacting to a dispute, the company controls the narrative. Once damaged, reputation is difficult and expensive to repair.
- It provides speed and commercial certainty
Disciplinary processes involving senior executives can become prolonged and disruptive. They often draw in multiple stakeholders and external advisers, and consume valuable board time. Mutual separation creates a defined pathway: a negotiation window, agreed terms and a clear departure date. The business moves forward. Successor planning can proceed without prolonged internal tension.
More Read
An important practical feature of mutual separation negotiations is that they do not remove the employer’s existing contractual rights. If negotiations fail, the employer may still proceed with other forms of termination in accordance with the employment contract and employment law. Mutual separation operates as an alternative pathway; not the employer’s only option.
- It allows tailored restrictive protections
If the terms are reasonable, and are properly drafted, mutual separation agreements may include restrictive covenants designed to protect legitimate business interests. These may cover non-compete obligations, non-solicitation of clients and non-poaching of key staff. Such protections must be proportionate. Overreach can render them unenforceable. But if structured carefully, they can safeguard the organisation during a vulnerable transition period.
- It reduces escalation risk
Emotional exits create unpredictable outcomes. An executive who feels publicly humiliated may become adversarial. Even where wrongdoing is established, the manner of exit can influence subsequent behaviour. Mutual separation does not erase misconduct. It does, however, provide a structured, negotiated closure that may reduce the likelihood of retaliation, public disputes or prolonged hostility.
Wrapping up
Mutual separation arrangements often succeed because they address the interests of both sides. The employer secures legal certainty, confidentiality and a managed transition. The executive typically leaves with a negotiated financial package and the opportunity to preserve their professional reputation and future career prospects. If handled carefully, the arrangement can provide a dignified and commercially sensible conclusion to the employment relationship.
Not every case warrants mutual separation. In some circumstances, dismissal or other forms of termination are necessary and appropriate. But executive exits are governance events. They involve legal exposure, commercial risk, internal morale and public perception. The question for boards is not only whether the conduct was unacceptable. It is also what outcome best protects the company. Dismissal may satisfy immediate indignation. But if properly structured, mutual separation may better protect long-term corporate interests. In the boardroom, employers’ rights must be balanced with strategy.
A final note
Getting mutual separation right requires a careful blend of employment and contract law, together with expertise, negotiation, judgement and timing. The unique facts of each situation will also influence how a mutual separation proceeds. Organisations should therefore obtain advice from an employment lawyer before applying these ideas.
>>> David A. Asiedu is Partner in Charge of Commercial Dispute Resolution at the law firm ENS Ghana. His practice areas include commercial litigation and arbitration. He may be reached at dasiedu@ensafrica.com
