- Finance Ministry Says US$65 Million Flood Defence Funds Were Diverted to Covid Spending
Ghana’s Ministry of Finance has accused the previous Akufo-Addo administration of diverting US$65.00 million from a World Bank-funded flood protection programme to finance Covid-19 interventions, raising fresh questions over the use of project-specific loans and the country’s preparedness for recurring floods.
Frederick Amissah, Technical Advisor at the Ministry of Finance, said the funds were drawn from the Greater Accra Resilient and Integrated Development Project, a US$350.00 million World Bank-backed programme designed to strengthen flood management, drainage infrastructure and climate resilience in the capital.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, Mr Amissah rejected suggestions that the project had stalled because of lack of available funding.
He argued instead that the main problem was how resources under the facility were used by the previous administration.
According to him, Ghana had drawn down US$137.00 million under the GARID facility, with nearly half of that amount, approximately US$65.00 million, redirected to support pandemic-related expenditure rather than the flood mitigation works for which the financing had been secured.
The Ministry said US$60.80 million of the transferred funds has been accounted for, while US$4.20 million remains unretired.
That disclosure is expected to intensify scrutiny of Covid-era expenditure, particularly the use of concessional and donor-backed project loans for emergency spending outside their original development objectives.
Mr Amissah argued that the diversion was unnecessary because Ghana had other financing mechanisms available at the time to support the pandemic response.
He cited the Stabilisation Fund, emergency financing from the International Monetary Fund and support from the African Development Bank as alternatives that could have been used without weakening a long-term flood resilience programme.
The Finance Ministry official said portions of the redirected GARID funds were used for fumigation exercises, quarantine feeding, transfers to Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies, and an additional US$3.00 million described simply as “support for Covid-19 activities.”
He questioned the level of detail provided for that category, suggesting that the description lacked sufficient explanation.
The allegations come at a sensitive moment for Ghana, following recent flooding incidents that have revived public frustration over poor drainage, weak urban planning, encroachment on waterways and the slow pace of flood control investments.
The GARID project was designed to address some of the structural weaknesses that expose parts of Greater Accra to repeated flooding.
Its objectives include improving drainage systems, strengthening solid waste management, supporting flood early warning systems and improving resilience in vulnerable communities within the Odaw basin and other flood-prone areas.
If funds intended for such long-term interventions were redirected to emergency expenditure, the Ministry’s claim would raise significant accountability concerns.
It would also underline a broader problem in public financial management: the risk that development loans secured for specific projects may be diverted to short-term spending pressures, leaving the country with debt obligations but weaker infrastructure outcomes.
The Finance Ministry’s position also places renewed political attention on the former administration’s management of Covid-related expenditure.
Ghana, like many countries, faced extraordinary fiscal pressure during the pandemic, requiring urgent spending on health, social support, sanitation, food distribution and economic relief.
However, the question now being raised is whether funds borrowed for flood resilience should have been used for pandemic purposes when other emergency financing options were available.
The allegation is likely to deepen the debate over fiscal accountability, debt management and the discipline required in using externally financed project funds.
For development partners, the matter could also raise concerns about project integrity and the credibility of government commitments attached to concessional loans.
World Bank and other donor-funded projects are typically approved for defined objectives, with disbursements tied to agreed implementation plans, safeguards and development outcomes.
Where funds are redirected, even during emergencies, governments are expected to account fully for the use of those resources and demonstrate that the reallocation was properly approved, documented and justified.
The Finance Ministry also raised concerns over the use of funds from other externally financed programmes.
Mr Amissah alleged that nearly GH¢1.00 billion from the World Bank-supported Ghana Economic Transformation Project was spent on travel in 2024, describing the expenditure as inconsistent with the objectives of a development financing programme.
That claim, if substantiated, would broaden the accountability debate beyond the GARID project and point to wider concerns over the management of donor-funded development interventions.
The Ghana Economic Transformation Project was intended to support private sector development, investment promotion, industrial transformation and reforms to strengthen competitiveness.
Spending such resources heavily on travel would likely attract scrutiny from Parliament, civil society and development partners, particularly at a time when Ghana is under pressure to improve fiscal discipline.
The allegations come as the Mahama administration continues to review public finances inherited after assuming office in 2025.
Government officials have increasingly focused on the use of concessional loans, externally funded projects and public expenditure commitments made under the previous administration.
The latest disclosure is therefore likely to trigger both policy and political responses.
On the policy side, it strengthens the case for tighter controls over project funds, stronger reporting on donor-backed loans and clearer rules governing reallocations during emergencies.
On the political side, it is expected to feed into the broader debate over whether the previous government managed public borrowing prudently and whether funds were applied to their intended development purposes.
For citizens in flood-prone communities, the issue is more immediate.
If flood defence funds were redirected and project implementation slowed, the cost may be measured not only in audit queries or debt figures, but in damaged homes, lost livelihoods, flooded roads, disrupted businesses and avoidable loss of life.
Flood resilience is not an abstract infrastructure concern. It is a matter of public safety, urban planning and economic stability.
The GARID controversy therefore touches on two of Ghana’s most urgent governance questions: how public funds are managed, and whether development spending is producing real protection for citizens.
For investors and development partners, the matter reinforces the importance of transparency in public financial management.
Ghana is seeking to rebuild confidence after a period of fiscal stress, debt restructuring and renewed engagement with international lenders. Demonstrating discipline in the use of concessional financing will be central to that effort.
The Finance Ministry’s allegations now place pressure on the relevant institutions to provide full documentation on the transfers, approvals, expenditure categories and outstanding unretired balances. The key issue will be whether the funds were lawfully reallocated, whether the spending was properly accounted for, and whether the diversion materially affected the delivery of flood resilience infrastructure.
Until those questions are fully answered, the US$65.00 million GARID diversion claim will remain a major test of Ghana’s commitment to accountability, fiscal discipline and climate resilience planning.
