When Ghana’s official debt figures are overstated by almost GH¢139 billion, it is not a footnote error. It is a breach of public trust with serious implications for our markets, creditworthiness and democratic accountability.
The 2024 Audit Report on the Public Accounts of Ghana reveals that the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) reported total public debt of GH¢876.01 billion, whereas the Ministry of Finance, the institution legally mandated to account for all borrowing, recorded GH¢737.17 billion. The discrepancy includes a staggering GH¢132.98 billion overstatement in domestic debt and a GH¢1.77 billion overstatement in external debt.
This is no ordinary mistake. This is a breakdown of institutional coordination, internal control systems and executive oversight within our public financial architecture.
A National Concern, Not Just a Technical One
The public discourse must not be allowed to reduce this to an internal housekeeping matter. The implications of such a misstatement are macro-critical:
– For markets, this undermines the credibility of all fiscal data that inform investment decisions and risk pricing.
– For development partners and creditors, it casts doubt on Ghana’s fiscal reporting integrity, especially as we restructure debt and negotiate new external support.
– For the Ghanaian public, already grappling with inflation and fiscal adjustment, it deepens scepticism about how national resources are managed.
Let us be clear: this is not just a data entry problem. This is a governance failure at the highest level of public financial management.
Where Is the Accountability?
The duty to compile government accounts lies squarely with the CAGD. But institutional silos, weak reconciliation mechanisms and perhaps political expediency have all played a role in this outcome.
It is therefore not enough to call for “better collaboration.” We must demand answers, accountability, and reform.
1. Who authorised the inflated figures and why were they published without validation from the Ministry of Finance?
2. How did nearly GH¢139 billion go unflagged by the Bank of Ghana, Auditor-General or the Fiscal Risk Unit?
3. What checks exist today to prevent this from happening again and are they working?
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) must not only engage the relevant institutions, but recommend concrete consequences. There must be disciplinary action where negligence or misconduct is proven.
The Broader Risk: Reputational Damage
Ghana is not operating in a vacuum. Investor sentiment is shaped as much by perception as by policy. If stakeholders from multilaterals to rating agencies begin to doubt the authenticity of our national accounts, we risk elevated risk premiums, downgraded credit ratings and delayed investment flows. Trust is a currency. And once lost, it is not easily regained.
This Must Be a Turning Point
This moment should catalyse urgent reforms in our Public Financial Management (PFM) framework, including:
– Real-time data harmonisation between MoF, CAGD, BoG and SOEs.
– An independent Fiscal Council with statutory authority to validate all key fiscal aggregates.
– Legal amendments to make the misreporting of public financial data a sanctionable offence.
– Capacity upgrades at CAGD and internal audit units tied to measurable performance outcomes.
Above all, there must be a cultural shift from opacity and approximation to rigour, precision, and institutional discipline.
Conclusion
The overstatement of GH¢138.91 billion is not just about numbers it is about the integrity of the Republic’s financial reputation.
Ghana is at an inflection point. We can either continue papering over cracks in the system, or we can treat this error as a clarion call for bold and irreversible reform. The stakes are too high for business as usual.
By Kwame Adu-Darkwa
