Claims DDEP and IMF Bail-outs did the magic
As the Mahama administration steps up its campaign to frame Ghana’s economic stabilization as a divinely-blessed “miracle,” the parliamentary Minority has launched a forensic counter-offensive, arguing the recovery is a fragile construct built on IMF discipline, debt relief, and commodity windfalls not government competence.
The critique, delivered in a comprehensive media engagement by the Minority Caucus, systematically deconstructs the President’s narrative, warning that the celebrated macroeconomic figures mask deep structural rot, a collapse in public services, and a “chop-chop” budget approach that risks future stability.
Acknowledging the surface-level improvements inflation down from over 23% to 5.4%, cedi appreciation, and a primary surplus the Minority framed these as the direct results of the $3 billion IMF program initiated under the previous NPP government and subsequent debt restructuring deals worth $2.8 billion with official creditors.
“We hereby submit that the so-called gains were not born out of government’s competence in the management of our economy,” the caucus stated. “The IMF program, debt reliefs, rising commodity exports, and reduced expenditure are the major reasons for the upswing… not a re-engineering of the economy.”
The opposition charged that fiscal consolidation has been achieved through “sharply cut expenditures for critical sectors,” while currency gains are tied more to a weakening US dollar and a global gold rush than to durable policy. They warned this represents a “postponement of crisis,” not transformation.
Beyond the statistics, the Minority painted a picture of a government failing in basic state functions:
· Transport Meltdown: Accusing the administration of reducing the national bus fleet from over a thousand to barely a hundred, they described a crisis where “hundreds of Ghanaians are stranded for hours” at major terminals, with over 400 Metro Mass buses “rotting in garages.”
· Diplomatic Blunder: They highlighted the severe consequence of being placed on a U.S. immigrant visa ban list, threatening the $1.5-$2.5 billion annual remittance lifeline.
The Minority called for the dismissal of the Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the U.S., labeling the outcome “careless, performative diplomacy.”
· Policy Hypocrisy & Reversals: The caucus cited a pattern of abandoned promises, including going “quiet” on the anti-LGBTQ+ bill they previously championed and being forced to withdraw a controversial Lithium agreement after minority and civil society pressure a move they labeled a “serious mess” and “policy failure.”
The “Gold for Reserves” Quagmire and the 2026 “Chop-Chop” Budget
A significant portion of the critique targeted the Gold for Reserves program. While not opposing the policy’s intent, the Minority raised alarm over the Gold Board’s structure, which they argue encourages illegal mining (galamsey), and revealed a reported $240 million loss acknowledged by the IMF due to exchange rate mismanagement.
“What is happening amounts to a financial loss to the state,” they asserted, drawing parallels to legal precedents on causing financial loss. They noted that their scrutiny forced a recent joint board meeting to adjust pricing models, proving their oversight was “not merely blowing hot air.”
Looking ahead, the Minority issued a stark warning about the 2026 budget, which they preemptively labeled a “chop-chop budget.” They vowed relentless scrutiny, pledging to “follow every contract, every document that goes to PPA” and to end the majority’s practice of passing laws via a “rubber stamp” certificate of urgency without debate. “They should be ready to beat us in the chamber. We will resist with all the energy in us,” they declared.
The Minority’s exhaustive rebuttal sets the stage for a contentious political year. It challenges not just the efficacy of government policy but the very foundation of its economic storytelling.
By attributing success to external factors and cataloging domestic failures in transport, diplomacy, and resource management, they aim to redefine the “turnaround” as a narrowly statistical one that has yet to translate into better governance or tangible improvements in daily life for ordinary Ghanaians.
The battle over who owns the narrative of Ghana’s recovery is now fully joined, with the 2026 budget poised to be the next major frontline.