- Ghana’s Dirty-Money Problem: Why Abusing the Cedi is Costing the Nation More Than Pride
Ghana’s currency problem is often discussed in the language of depreciation, inflation, reserves, interest rates and foreign exchange pressure. But there is another cedi crisis hiding in plain sight: the physical abuse of the national currency by the very citizens who depend on it daily.
From cedi bouquets and money cakes to spraying cash at weddings, funerals and political events, from crumpled and dirty notes in market stalls to the casual rejection of coins by traders and transport operators, Ghana’s treatment of its currency has become more than a cultural habit. It is now an economic cost, a legal concern and a national discipline problem.
That is the central argument advanced by Dr Richmond Akwasi Atuahene, Banking and Corporate Governance Consultant, in a policy paper on the Bank of Ghana’s acceptance, protection and enforcement of Ghana’s currency. His warning is direct: the cedi is not ceremonial paper. It is legal tender, a public good and a symbol of national identity.
“Currency is a symbol of national pride and identity,” the paper notes, warning that the abuse of cedi notes remains a persistent problem in Ghana, from reckless spraying at social events to the poor handling of notes in everyday transactions.
The paper could not have come at a more relevant moment. The Bank of Ghana has recently intensified warnings against the misuse of cedi notes and the refusal to accept coins, making clear that such conduct is punishable under Ghanaian law. But Dr Atuahene’s analysis pushes the conversation beyond legality. It asks a deeper question: what does it say about a country when its citizens mistreat the very currency that represents its sovereignty?
In Ghana, money spraying has become a familiar feature of social life. At weddings, funerals, birthdays, Valentine’s Day celebrations and political rallies, banknotes are thrown, pasted, stepped on, stapled, folded, squeezed and sometimes turned into decorative gifts. These acts are often defended as expressions of affection, status or celebration. But the economic consequence is far less glamorous.
“It is common to see Ghanaians throw cedi notes in the air, step on them or paste them on other people while dancing at parties and other social events,” the paper observes. It adds that cedi abuse includes “spraying at parties, stapling, writing on, tearing, or molding the currency into creative, yet damaging, shapes like money bouquets and cakes.”
The cost of this behaviour is borne by the state. Damaged notes must be withdrawn, sorted, destroyed and replaced. That process is expensive, especially for a country that does not print its own banknotes locally and must rely on specialised foreign security printers for much of its currency production.
According to the paper, the Bank of Ghana spent GH¢986.88 million on printing currency in 2024, representing a 47.00% year-on-year increase from GH¢354.53 million in 2023. Earlier years also show the heavy cost of currency issuance, with expenditure rising as demand for cash increased and worn-out notes had to be replaced.
In 2020, the central bank spent GH¢337.50 million on printing currency notes, up from GH¢306.20 million in 2019, with total currency issuance expenses reaching GH¢347.80 million. The paper links part of the increase to the introduction of higher-value denominations and broader operational costs in currency management.
These are not small amounts. They represent public resources that could otherwise support other economic priorities. Every note destroyed prematurely because it was stapled, sprayed, soaked, torn or mishandled becomes part of a replacement cycle that the public ultimately finances.
The issue also affects the banking system. Mutilated notes can jam Automated Teller Machines, disrupt cash handling and reduce the quality of money circulating through markets and financial institutions. The paper warns that dirty or damaged notes also tarnish Ghana’s image and affect confidence in physical cash.
But perhaps the most troubling dimension is the normalisation of the abuse. What should be treated as illegal conduct has become social entertainment. What should be preserved as a national asset is converted into decoration. What should be accepted as legal tender is sometimes rejected when it comes in coin form.
The law is clear. The paper notes that Ghanaian law prohibits soiling, spraying, stamping, writing on, mutilating, piercing, squeezing, tearing or stapling currency. It also refers to the Currency Act, 1964, Act 242, as amended, which makes it illegal to reject valid coins, tamper with currency or transact below face value.
This means the refusal of 1 pesewa, 5 pesewa, 10 pesewa, 20 pesewa, 50 pesewa, GH¢1 and GH¢2 coins is not merely inconvenient. It is a challenge to the authority of the monetary system. If traders and consumers can arbitrarily decide which legal denominations to accept, then the state’s control over legal tender becomes weaker at the point where most citizens experience money: the market.
The paper argues that under Ghanaian law, all coins and notes issued by the Bank of Ghana remain valid for transactions. Refusing to accept them or discounting them can attract fines or imprisonment.
This point is important for financial inclusion. In the informal economy, where cash remains dominant, rejected coins and damaged notes create transaction friction. Market traders, transport operators, vendors and rural consumers often depend on small denominations for everyday exchange. When coins are rejected, low-value transactions become distorted and poorer consumers are disproportionately affected.
Dr Atuahene’s analysis therefore reframes the cedi debate. Protecting the currency is not just a central bank responsibility. It is a shared civic obligation involving citizens, businesses, churches, event organisers, transport unions, market associations, banks, fintechs, law enforcement and regulators.
His proposed response is deliberately tough. He argues that the Bank of Ghana must move beyond public notices and adopt stronger enforcement, including the prosecution of offenders under the Currency Act and the Bank of Ghana Act. He calls for collaboration with law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute individuals who spray, write on, staple or dance on cedi notes.
That recommendation will provoke debate. Some will argue that prosecuting people at weddings and funerals is excessive. Others will say Ghana has more urgent economic problems than cedi bouquets. But such objections miss the broader point. A country that tolerates small acts of public indiscipline often ends up paying large institutional costs.
The challenge, however, is that enforcement alone will not solve the problem. Dr Atuahene acknowledges that the law has struggled as a deterrent partly because long-standing cultural practices were criminalised without enough public engagement, advocacy and education.
That is why the Bank of Ghana must communicate the issue more effectively. The public must understand that the ban on money bouquets and spraying is not an attack on celebration. It is a defence of public money. Cash gifts can still be given, but in envelopes, through bank transfers, mobile money or other digital channels that do not physically damage banknotes.
The paper recommends a nationwide “Cedi Our Pride” campaign to educate citizens on treating the cedi as a national symbol. It also urges the Bank of Ghana to maintain a Clean Notes Policy and Banknote Fitness Guidelines to preserve the integrity and quality of banknotes in circulation.
The practical advice is simple but necessary: keep notes clean and flat, avoid folding and crumpling, do not write on notes, do not staple them, do not expose them to liquids, and do not spray them at events. The paper specifically recommends giving cash gifts in envelopes or through electronic channels.
Still, Ghana’s currency problem cannot be separated from its digital finance transition. If the state wants to reduce the cost of printing and replacing physical cash, it must accelerate safe, affordable and trusted digital payments.
Dr Atuahene argues that the Bank of Ghana must urgently advance the e-cedi and aggressively promote electronic transactions to reduce reliance on physical cash. He notes that digital channels can cut the cost of printing, storing, transporting and replacing banknotes.
This is a crucial policy link. Ghana cannot preach currency preservation while leaving cash as the only convenient option for many citizens. Mobile money, USSD, cards, internet banking and interoperable platforms must become cheaper, safer and more reliable if they are to reduce pressure on physical currency.
But digitalisation also has its own risks. Fraud, network failures, transaction charges and low digital literacy can push people back to cash. The Bank of Ghana’s currency protection agenda must therefore be aligned with consumer protection, cybersecurity, financial inclusion and the reduction of avoidable costs on electronic transactions.
The paper also supports greater use of coins, arguing that coins last longer than paper notes and reduce replacement frequency. It notes that replacing lower-denomination notes with coins can be more cost-effective over time.
But this will work only if the public accepts coins. A coin that traders reject is not an efficient payment instrument. It becomes a failed policy object. The Bank of Ghana must therefore ensure that banks, retailers, fuel stations, transport operators and market associations actively circulate and accept coins.
The paper also raises the issue of durability. Dr Atuahene recommends that the Bank of Ghana regularly upgrade banknotes with improved security features and more durable materials, including polymer. He notes that polymer notes are more resistant to dirt, moisture and tearing and can last two to four times longer than traditional notes.
This recommendation deserves serious policy consideration. If Ghana is spending hundreds of millions of cedis on currency production, then durability is not a design luxury. It is a cost-management strategy. Polymer may cost more initially, but if it lowers long-term replacement needs, it could reduce fiscal pressure on currency operations.
The broader message of the paper is that Ghana must stop treating currency management as a back-office function of the central bank. It is a public governance issue. It touches law, culture, education, cash logistics, digital payments, financial inclusion, monetary credibility and national pride.
In his conclusion, Dr Atuahene argues that respecting the cedi is a civic duty and that protecting the currency requires collaboration between government, the Bank of Ghana, financial institutions and the public.
That is the most important point. The cedi is not defended only through monetary policy. It is defended in markets, taxis, churches, funerals, weddings, shops, wallets and mobile money accounts. It is defended when traders accept coins. It is defended when event organisers stop spraying notes. It is defended when citizens reject the idea that mutilating money is a symbol of status.
Ghana’s dirty-money problem is therefore not just about dirty notes. It is about a national habit that has become economically wasteful and legally risky.
The Bank of Ghana can issue warnings. It can print new notes. It can mint coins. It can prosecute offenders. But unless citizens begin to treat the cedi as a shared national asset, the country will continue spending heavily to replace currency it should have preserved.
A currency carries a nation’s identity. When it is abused, the cost is not only paid in printing bills. It is paid in weakened discipline, poor public conduct and diminished respect for the symbols of statehood.
Dr Atuahene’s warning is clear: protecting the cedi is not a ceremonial duty. It is an economic necessity. Ghana must decide whether the cedi is money, or merely decoration.
