- Finance Ministry Denies Withholding ABFA Data, Defends Transparency Plan
Ghana’s Ministry of Finance has rejected suggestions that it withheld information on the use of petroleum revenues from the Public Interest and Accountability Committee, escalating a dispute over why Annual Budget Funding Amount utilisation data was excluded from PIAC’s 2026 Semi-Annual Report.
In a statement dated October 23, the Ministry said it provided the statutory watchdog with petroleum receipts and distribution data and explained the arrangements governing the utilisation of ABFA resources, including the decision to ring-fence funds for the Accra–Kumasi Expressway.
“The exclusion of ABFA utilisation data from PIAC’s report should therefore not be presented as evidence that the Ministry withheld information,” it said.
The response follows PIAC’s October 21 statement concerning the absence of utilisation information from its report. The disagreement raises a larger question than whether meetings occurred or documents were exchanged: what level of information is sufficient for independent oversight of Ghana’s petroleum revenues?
The Ministry’s position is that engagement took place. Officials participated in PIAC’s virtual validation workshop and held in-person meetings with the Committee, during which they explained petroleum receipts, distribution and the arrangements for ABFA utilisation.
PIAC’s concern, however, arose because utilisation data was unavailable for inclusion in a statutory public report. Receipt and distribution figures show how much petroleum revenue entered the fiscal system and where it was allocated. Utilisation data should ordinarily show what was actually spent, on which projects, at what stage and with what results.
That distinction is central to public accountability. An allocation is an intention; expenditure is an action; and an outcome is the public value created. Effective scrutiny must follow petroleum money across all three stages.
The Ministry says the unusual position in 2026 reflects the government’s decision to reserve ABFA resources for the Accra–Kumasi Expressway rather than spread them among numerous projects.
It cited paragraph 572 of the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review, which states that all funds allocated to the expressway, including the total ABFA realised during 2026, have been ring-fenced. The money will be used for construction when the contract is awarded.
This means the funds may have been received and assigned to a purpose without yet being disbursed for physical construction. If no expenditure has occurred because the contract has not been awarded, conventional project-level utilisation data may naturally be limited.
But ring-fencing does not reduce the need for disclosure. It changes what must be disclosed. The public should be able to determine the amount accumulated, the account or mechanism holding it, any returns earned, the rules protecting it from diversion, the procurement timetable and the conditions that must be met before payment begins.
The Ministry argues that concentrating ABFA on the expressway follows PIAC’s own recommendation that petroleum revenues should not be spread thinly across numerous projects with limited economic impact. The policy seeks to create a major infrastructure asset with identifiable national benefits and better value for money.
That rationale has merit. Ghana’s petroleum spending has frequently faced criticism for fragmentation, with relatively small allocations distributed across many projects. Concentration could improve visibility, reduce abandoned works and produce an asset capable of generating wider economic benefits.
The Accra–Kumasi corridor is strategically important to domestic commerce and regional transportation. A well-executed expressway could reduce travel time, vehicle operating costs and logistics bottlenecks while improving connectivity between southern ports, major commercial centres and northern markets.
Yet concentrating an entire funding stream in one project also concentrates risk. Delays in procurement, contract disputes, cost escalation or weak project design could immobilise substantial petroleum resources. The larger the allocation, the stronger the requirements for transparent procurement, independent verification and regular reporting should become.
Robust oversight will occasionally create institutional tension. That tension is productive when it results in fuller disclosure, clearer reporting standards and stronger safeguards. It becomes damaging when disagreements over terminology obscure the underlying public-interest question of where the money is and how it will be used.
The Ministry also rejected suggestions that Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies had been deprived of their petroleum-revenue share. It said the five per cent ABFA share due to the District Assemblies Common Fund is being paid from the Consolidated Fund, an arrangement it explained to PIAC.
“Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies have therefore not been shortchanged by the decision to ring-fence ABFA resources for the expressway,” the statement said.
That financing substitution deserves clear reconciliation in subsequent fiscal reports. If the assemblies’ entitlement is financed from the Consolidated Fund while ABFA is reserved for the expressway, the government should disclose the amounts due, amounts released, payment dates and budgetary treatment. This would demonstrate that local authorities received the full value promised and that the substitution created no hidden arrears.
The Ministry pledged to continue providing PIAC with information required to discharge its mandate and to account publicly for petroleum revenues.
Those publications offer a route to resolve the controversy, but timing matters. Accountability loses value when complete information arrives long after decisions have been taken. PIAC requires sufficiently detailed and timely records to validate government claims before publishing its statutory reports.
A practical resolution would be a reconciled disclosure jointly acknowledging the information supplied, identifying any data still outstanding and explaining why conventional utilisation figures may not exist where money remains unspent. The Ministry could then publish a dedicated schedule for the ring-fenced funds, updated periodically until construction begins.
The controversy also provides an opportunity to standardise the meaning of receipts, distributions, allocations, ring-fenced balances, commitments and utilisation across petroleum reports. When institutions use these terms differently, technical disagreements can quickly become public disputes about transparency.
Petroleum revenues belong ultimately to Ghanaian citizens. The standard should therefore not be whether the government can prove that it attended PIAC meetings or whether PIAC can demonstrate that a table was missing. The test is whether an ordinary citizen can trace the money from receipt to allocation, custody, expenditure and outcome.
The Finance Ministry has firmly denied withholding information. Its next task is to make the disputed record sufficiently complete, timely and verifiable that the question no longer arises.
