An analysis by Dr. Frank Bannor, spokesperson for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Committee on Finance and Economy, has identified what it describes as significant gaps between Ghana’s 2026 Budget Statement and the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review, raising questions about the reporting of government expenditure across several sectors.
The analysis, which compares figures from the 2026 Budget with the Mid-Year Review presented to Parliament on July 23, 2026, argues that several major budget commitments cannot be traced in the government’s mid-year report. According to the report, the inconsistencies affect education, health, roads, agriculture and infrastructure spending.
Education Allocation Missing
One of the report’s key findings concerns the Ministry of Education’s allocation.
According to the analysis, the government announced a GH¢33.3 billion allocation to the Ministry of Education in the 2026 Budget Statement. However, the Mid-Year Review reportedly provides only programme-specific expenditure without presenting a ministry-wide breakdown, making it difficult to determine how much of the overall allocation has been utilized.
The report argues that while individual education programmes can be assessed, the absence of a consolidated ministry allocation limits comprehensive accountability.
Capital Projects Difficult to Track
The analysis also identifies several capital expenditure commitments that it says cannot be directly matched with figures in the Mid-Year Review.
Among them are:
Ghana Secondary School Improvement Programme (GSLIP)
Basic school construction projects
Hospital construction initiatives
Ministry of Roads and Highways capital expenditure
Oil Palm Development Finance Facility
Agricultural enclave roads programme.
According to the report, some of these projects reappear in the Mid-Year Review under U.S. dollar-denominated financing instead of the original cedi allocations announced in the Budget, without clarification on whether they represent the same projects, revised facilities or entirely new funding arrangements.
Buffer Stock Figures Raise Questions
The report also points to what it describes as an inconsistency involving the Ghana Buffer Stock Company GH¢200 million allocation, the Budget’s Appendix reportedly allocates GH¢105 million to the same institution to the analysis, this reflects a broader pattern of differing figures between budget narratives and supporting append.
It notes that while the Budget narrative refers to a GH¢200 million allocation, the Budget’s Appendix reportedly allocates GH¢105 million to the same institution, leaving a GH¢95 million difference that is not explained.
According to the analysis, this reflects a broader pattern of differing figures between budget narratives and supporting appendices.
Questions Over Health and Infrastructure Spending.
The report further highlights discrepancies involving the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) and GETFund.
It argues that figures cited in the Mid-Year Review narrative exceed provisional appendix transfers by substantial margins, calling for clarification on whether the differences arise from differing accounting classifications or other reporting methods.
The analysis also questions reported spending under the Big Push Infrastructure Programme, noting differences between narrative figures and appendix data regarding first-half disbursements.
Budget Reallocations.
The Mid-Year Review states that government did not seek supplementary budget approval but instead reallocated funds within existing appropriations.
According to the analysis, disclosed reallocations include:
GH¢350 million for flood relief
GH¢226 million for flood mitigation
GH¢400 million for Metro Mass Transit and STC buses
A GH¢3 billion reduction in foreign-financed capital expenditure linked to reserve accumulation under GANRAP.
While acknowledging these disclosed reallocations, the report argues that government has not published a comprehensive schedule identifying every budget line affected by the transfers.
Calls for Greater Transparency
The analysis recommends that the Ministry of Finance provide detailed reconciliations for several major spending items, including education allocations, hospital construction, road projects, agriculture programmes and health-sector transfers.
It also calls for the publication of a consolidated table showing all budget reallocations undertaken during the first half of 2026.
The report concludes that while differences between budget documents may sometimes reflect varying accounting or reporting classifications, the absence of reconciled figures across multiple sectors makes it difficult to independently verify the implementation of key government spending commitments.
Source: metrotvonline.com
