Why Ghana must demand value for money in public projects

President John Dramani Mahama’s recent remarks on the striking difference in construction costs between private and government projects have reignited an important national conversation.

At his first press briefing of his second term, the President questioned why a private mining company such as Gold Fields could build a 10,000-capacity stadium in Tarkwa at a fraction of the state’s usual expenditure.

This demonstrates his commitment to ensuring that government spending delivers real value for money, which is commendable because it sets an important tone for prudent public financial management.

However, while his observation is refreshing, it also highlights deep systemic weaknesses that require a bold rethink of governance and accountability in Ghana.

The comparison between private and public construction costs is troubling and invites closer scrutiny.

It has long been alleged that foreign mining companies sometimes inflate the cost of their corporate social responsibility projects.

These inflated costs are believed to secure tax benefits or other favourable concessions from the state, under the assumption that weak oversight institutions will not detect or challenge them.

However, even if such projects are inflated, they often remain cheaper than similar state-funded initiatives.

This reality paints a grim picture of how poorly Ghana manages its public finances and raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of government procurement systems.

If an alleged inflated private price still represents the more cost-effective option, then the state is fundamentally failing its citizens.

Inflated contracts

The question then becomes: Why are state projects so consistently overpriced?

Ghana’s Public Procurement Act was designed to guarantee transparency and value for money in public spending.

Yet the persistent disparity in costs suggests the Act is not working as intended. It may be poorly implemented, deliberately bypassed, or structurally flawed in practice.

The President’s candid acknowledgement is, therefore, more than a criticism of past or present administrations.

It is an admission of systemic failure.

Asserting that successive governments have allowed inflated contracts to drain state resources, often awarding deals to individuals or companies that lack both capacity and integrity.

This practice not only undermines efficiency but also erodes public trust in governance.

One critical but often overlooked factor driving inflated projects is the opaque financing of political parties.

Political campaigns and party structures require vast resources, and most funding comes from wealthy individuals or corporate entities.

Once a party gains power, it is widely perceived that financiers must be rewarded.

This frequently occurs through the awarding of inflated government contracts, enabling sponsors to recoup their investments while burdening taxpayers with unjustifiable costs.

The result is a destructive cycle: underfunded political parties depend on private financiers, who in turn expect contracts as compensation, creating a fertile ground for corruption.

Without reform, this cycle will continue to undermine public finances and weaken democratic accountability.

Solution/role of citizens

The solution may lie in establishing a transparent and accountable system for financing political parties.

A national political fund, managed with strict oversight and public reporting, could provide a sustainable alternative to private sponsorship.

Such a system would reduce the pressure on governments to “pay back” financiers through inflated projects.

Until these reforms are implemented, however, ordinary Ghanaians must remain vigilant and demand transparency at every stage of public spending.

Citizens cannot afford to leave the stewardship of public funds solely to political leaders because doing so almost guarantees waste and abuse.

This issue also underscores a wider flaw in Ghana’s democratic practice.

Too often, democracy is treated as the act of voting every four years, after which citizens retreat into silence.

In reality, true democracy requires active engagement between elections.

Citizens must monitor projects in their communities, demand accountability from contractors, and insist on clarity regarding costs and timelines.

Asking these questions is not adversarial, but an essential civic duty.

When citizens actively monitor spending and project delivery, corruption becomes harder to conceal, and inefficiency becomes easier to challenge.

To strengthen accountability, communities should demand full disclosure whenever new public projects are announced.

Information about project budgets, contractors, and delivery timelines should be routinely available for public scrutiny.

Such openness would allow citizens and civil society to measure whether funds are being used effectively.

This level of engagement will transform citizens from passive observers into genuine partners in governance.

It is through this collective vigilance that wasteful practices can be reduced, and public resources can be safeguarded for national development.

Transparency and accountability must, therefore, become the foundation of Ghana’s democratic and developmental journey.

They are not political buzzwords but vital safeguards that ensure national resources serve the public good.

The Tarkwa Gold Fields stadium illustrates what can be achieved when projects are delivered with efficiency and cost-effectiveness in mind.

It should set the standard for all future state-funded infrastructure, reminding us that better outcomes are possible when value for money is prioritised.

Such examples demonstrate that high-quality projects need not drain the public purse, and Ghanaians must demand similar efficiency across all sectors.

Ultimately, the responsibility for protecting national resources does not rest solely with elected leaders. It is a shared duty that involves every citizen.

By actively engaging in governance and demanding accountability, Ghanaians can prevent corruption from eroding development gains.

The current administration has a rare opportunity to lead this change by adopting transparent practices and setting benchmarks for fiscal prudence.

If successful, it would not only restore public confidence but also establish standards that future governments would find difficult to ignore.

The writer is a Political Scientist