Let me state this clearly: I am not opposed to an Accra–Kumasi Expressway.
No serious policymaker will oppose a modern, high-capacity highway between our two largest cities. The issue is not the vision, but the logic, prudence, and honesty behind government’s approach.
1. There is already an ongoing Accra–Kumasi Highway project that is 64% complete.
The Finance Minister conveniently ignores this fact.
Ghana is currently constructing an upgraded dual carriageway on the same corridor, and the project has already achieved 64% physical progress.
When completed, this ongoing project will:
• Deliver the same functional outcome as the proposed expressway
• Cost far less than an entirely new corridor
• Be completed much faster, since it is already underway
So the real question is simple:
Why abandon a 64%-completed national highway only to restart an entirely new one that has no feasibility study, no final design, no cost, and no secured funding?
2. The existing route is not only functional; it is strategically important for national development.
The ongoing highway connects key towns and economic zones along the Accra–Kumasi spine:
• Nsawam
• Suhum
• Koforidua (Regional Capital)
• Kyebi
• Anyinam
• Nkawkaw
• The Kwahu mountains
• The Afram Plains
. Konongo
. Ejisu
This corridor is not accidental — it is part of Ghana’s long-term spatial development plan.
Government itself has announced plans to build a major bridge across the Afram River to unlock the Afram Plains as a new agricultural hub; the potential breadbasket of the country.
So again:
Why would any responsible government choose to abandon a nearly completed strategic corridor that already aligns with long-term national plans?
3. This is not opposition; it is common sense, fiscal discipline, and continuity of governance.
What I have consistently argued is simple:
• Complete the ongoing project
• Deliver value for money
• Avoid waste
• Follow constitutional requirements for planning and procurement
• Honour the principle of continuity in national development
No country develops by abandoning major infrastructure midway, only to start a new one without the basics of feasibility, design, or financing.
4. Announcing a 200km three-lane expressway with timelines without feasibility, design, cost, or funding is simply questionable.
It is deeply worrying that Government announced a starting date and completion date for a 200-kilometre, three-lane greenfield expressway when:
• Feasibility studies had not been conducted
• The design had not been finalised
• No cost estimate existed
• No funding had been secured
• Key statutory milestones had not been met
How do you announce timelines for a major national expressway without the basic prerequisites of infrastructure planning, especially when a similar project already exists and has achieved 64% progress?
This approach raises serious issues of credibility, planning integrity, and responsible use of public resources.
5. The Finance Minister’s narrative is propaganda. The facts are public.
Trying to twist my position as opposition to development is dishonest and diversionary.
The facts, engineering data, and national planning documents all support what I have said.
This is not politics; this is responsible governance.
