By Toby McIntosh
The International Monetary Fund has sharply criticizing anti-corruption efforts in Ghana and made a dozen “Priority Recommendations.”
Corruption in Ghana “is systemic and is worsening,” according to the 112-page Governance Diagnostic Assessment.
Considerable attention is focused on public procurement processes, that the diagnostic states “are considered an important source of corrupt financing, including through side payments, bribes, kickbacks, non-enforcement of contract terms, and judgment debt.”
“Gaps” in procurement processes “provide an avenue for incumbents to reward party agents and supporters, collect kickbacks and raise money for political objectives and personal enrichment,” according to the report.
“Weak” budgetary processes have resulted in “the accumulation of large expenditure arrears, a situation that presents major corruption vulnerabilities through a risk of discrimination in the selection of what creditors to pay and in what order, according to the report.
Poor transparency in Ghana comes up in many contexts in the report. The Right to Information law “is incomplete and exemptions to disclosure are broad,” the report states. In addition, “Proactive transparency requirements are weak, and enforcement mechanisms are not effective.”
Similarly tough assessments on other topics occur throughout the report, which was posted without comment on Nov. 3 by Ghana’s Ministry of Finance and simultaneously published on the IMF website, without issuance of a press release.
Readers: EYE sucks at social media. For reliable notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics.
12 Priority Recommendations
The Ghana diagnostic contains one dozen “Priority Recommendations.” In brief they are:
- Strengthen the financial autonomy of anti-corruption agencies
- Strengthen the asset declaration system
- Enhance the external audit function’s role
- Clarify and properly demarcate the roles within the enforcement apparatus
- Establish the conflicts of interest framework
- Strengthen transparency of beneficial ownership (BO) information
- Address governance vulnerabilities in the public procurement system
- Strengthen the governance of the GRA including through delegation, streamlining processes and legal reform
- Implement revenue loss mitigation measures
- Strengthen GRA [Ghana Revenue Authority] Board oversight
- Adopt measures to strengthen financial sector oversight including through legal reform and strengthening prudential regulatory and supervisory framework which are closely related to governance aspects
- Complete the e-Justice project and prioritize the implementation of court automated systems,
A few of these issues were addressed in the context of a recently concluded package of IMF financial support for Ghana, conditioned on “an economic reform program to address the serious balance of payments and economic crisis.” The authorities “are implementing ambitious structural reforms in tax policy, revenue administration, and public financial management, as well as taking steps to address weaknesses in the energy and cocoa sectors.” summarized the diagnostic.
No Action Plan, But Suggested Targets
However, the diagnostic for Ghana is not accompanied by any agreed-on timetable to implement the recommendations, although the original goal of creating an “action plan” is mentioned in the report’s preface.
“The purpose of the mission,” according to the report’s preface, “included helping the authorities design an action plan with specific prioritized, sequenced recommendations and structural reform to enhance transparency and accountability, prevent and combat corruption, in line with the IMF’s 2018 Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement on Governance.”
There have been suggestions that the still under-preparation diagnostic for Pakistan will come with an action plan. An IMF statement specified that “the authorities are also committed to publish their action plan to implement the GDA’s recommendations.”
The Ghana diagnostic incudes a table that categorizes the 12 priority recommendation as “immediate,” meaning implementation in six months, “short term” (6-12 months) and “medium term” (“that may require up to 24 months”).
Six of the 12 recommendations are classified as “immediate” and another six are “medium.”
In what could be read as a cautionary note, the diagnostic states, “By many accounts, corruption has been prevalent regardless of the administration in office and various attempts to address the problem have recorded limited success.”
Lengthy, Behind-the-Scenes Process
Publication came 32 months after the assessment was requested (Feb. 17, 2023) by the previous government of Ghana, which held up its completion in advance of the 2024 election. New President John Mahama has pledged “governance and constitutional reforms” to fight corruption. but the discussions with the IMF about the assessment were only wrapped up recently.
The diagnostics are prepared by IMF staffer members in consultation with government officials, and after meeting with “senior officials and representatives of the private sector, professional bodies, academia, civil society and international development partners.”
IMF officials rarely not say much, if anything, about their talks with governments. Draft reports are not released for comment. But negotiations with government officials are involved. In late August, an IMF spokesperson on Aug. 27 told EYE, “The draft Governance Diagnostic report for Ghana has now incorporated formal comments from the new authorities.”
The preparation of diagnostics is underway in six countries: Pakistan, Kenya, Togo, Malawi, Lebanon and Sierra Leone. Final stage negotiations on a diagnostic with the Pakistan government are ongoing.
Publication is normal, but is at the discretion of the governments. There seems to be some question about whether the Malawi report will be issued.
The governance diagnostic process was examined in an Oct. 24, 2025, EYE article.
