MIIF Under Scrutiny: Patrick Stephenson Questions Value, Governance, and Strategic Direction
Ghana’s Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF) is under mounting scrutiny, as Patrick Stephenson, Country Manager for Ghana at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), raises doubts about its ability to generate long-term national value, citing weaknesses in its design, governance and strategic focus.
Speaking during the NorvanReports and Economic Governance Platform (EGP) X Space discussion on Sunday, March 29, 2026, themed “Who Watches MIIF? Accountability, Investment Risk, and the Future of Ghana’s Mineral Wealth,” Mr Stephenson said the central issue is not simply whether MIIF resembles a sovereign wealth fund on paper, but whether it has been built on the institutional foundations required to perform like one in practice.
He argued that any serious assessment of the Fund must go beyond its formal structure and examine the political and economic context in which it was established. In his view, that broader context helps explain why the institution continues to attract questions over its purpose, effectiveness and long-term credibility.
“Policy analysis must go beyond solutions and focus on the context within which those solutions are implemented,” he said, noting that such an approach reveals deeper weaknesses in MIIF’s foundation.
Mr Stephenson pointed to MIIF’s early association with the controversial Agyapa Royalties transaction as a formative episode that may have influenced its original architecture. Although public debate around Agyapa has since cooled, he argued that its imprint on the Fund’s design cannot be dismissed.
That, he suggested, may have contributed to gaps in some of the core elements expected of a strong sovereign wealth-type institution, including governance systems, decision-making processes, investment guidelines and performance benchmarks.
Drawing comparisons with similar funds elsewhere on the continent, Mr Stephenson said MIIF may appear broadly similar to peer institutions at first glance, but the differences become more significant under closer scrutiny. Those distinctions, he noted, are not merely technical; they often determine whether such entities create durable national value or drift into weak oversight and underperformance.
“Once key opportunities at the design stage are missed, it becomes extremely difficult to reset and return to foundational principles,” he said.
On whether Ghanaians should be optimistic about MIIF’s long-term prospects, Mr Stephenson said the country already has a more structured reference point in the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, which provides a clearer and more disciplined framework for managing extractive revenues.
By contrast, he described MIIF’s current framework as lacking the clarity and institutional robustness needed to inspire strong public confidence. In his assessment, that weakness helps explain growing unease over some of the Fund’s investment decisions.
“In the absence of strong governance systems, questionable outcomes are not entirely surprising,” he said, warning that large pools of capital operating without sufficiently tight controls are often exposed to inefficiency, weak accountability and misallocation.
Mr Stephenson acknowledged that reform proposals are under discussion, including suggestions to channel mineral royalties into infrastructure and petroleum-related investments. But he questioned whether those measures sufficiently address the Fund’s deeper structural weaknesses.
Instead, he called for a more fundamental reassessment of MIIF’s mandate and strategic purpose, arguing that the national conversation should begin with a more basic question: what exactly the institution is meant to achieve.
“We must return to first, the principles and ask: What exactly do we want the institution to achieve?” he said.
He also cautioned against reading growth in MIIF’s assets under management as proof of success. In his view, rising AUM figures may reflect continued inflows from mineral royalties more than the quality of the Fund’s investment decisions or the strength of its returns.
What matters more, he argued, is whether the public has sufficient visibility into the Fund’s portfolio to assess how investments are made, how assets are performing and what value is being created over time.
According to Mr Stephenson, that level of transparency is essential if MIIF is to demonstrate real national value and justify its role as a strategic investment vehicle rather than merely a holding structure for mineral receipts.
For now, however, he said the evidence remains unpersuasive.
“Based on its current design and outcomes, the institution has not delivered sufficient value for money,” he said. “However, with stronger governance, clearer objectives, and enhanced transparency, there is still room for improvement.”
