The Weight of Governance: Can Fewer Ministers Fix Ghana?

The government has announced plans to reduce the number of ministerial portfolios to a maximum of 60. Experts argue that this measure could alleviate the financial strain on the public purse caused by the high administrative costs of governance. Since the tenure of former President J.A. Kufuor, Ghana has grappled with determining the ideal number of ministers for effective administration. While accusations of poor performance and economic mismanagement have plagued successive governments, these criticisms often arise from ministers who fail to deliver or whose overlapping roles hinder productivity.

In the run-up to the 2024 elections, civil society organisations (CSOs) intensified pressure on the administration of President Nana Akufo-Addo, criticising the proliferation of ministerial roles and its burden on national resources. Comparisons between Ghana and more efficient nations frequently highlight the country's excessive ministerial appointments. However, despite the frequent calls for reform, Ghana has shown slight improvement in governance efficiency since 2000. Bowing to mounting pressure, the incoming administration pledged to reduce the number of ministers to 60, raising questions about whether fewer ministers will truly enhance governance efficiency.

The debate over ministerial appointments is not new. In 2003, then-President Kufuor openly admitted to a significant disconnect between policy intentions and their execution. Despite criticising many ministers during J.J. Rawlings’s tenure, Kufuor expanded the ministerial roster. For decades, the size of Ghana’s government has been a source of contention among citizens and CSOs, who argue that the country’s population does not justify the high number of ministers. Comparisons with more efficient countries often reveal glaring disparities, yet such parallels fail to consider Ghana’s unique political and economic context. The question remains: Is inefficiency in Ghana's governance a function of the number of ministers, or does it stem from deeper systemic issues?

A key issue is the entrenchment of party politics in Ghana’s governance framework. Winning political power often translates into satisfying the demands of party financiers and loyalists. The notorious “no contribution, no chop” mantra exemplifies the pressure to reward contributors with government positions, sometimes creating ministries where agencies would suffice. For instance, the separate Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries could be streamlined, with Fisheries functioning as an agency under Agriculture. Such duplications frequently serve as avenues to compensate party benefactors rather than reflecting genuine administrative needs.

Compounding the problem is the unchecked power of the executive branch. Successive administrations have exploited this authority, bypassing parliamentary oversight and consolidating control. Initiatives like the "One District, One Factory" (1D1F) policy managed directly from the presidency underscore this troubling trend. Similarly, the incoming National Democratic Congress (NDC) government’s proposed "24-hour economy" initiative will reportedly be housed within the presidency’s budget, bypassing conventional governance structures. This centralisation undermines ministerial autonomy, fosters inefficiency, and perpetuates a governance system where power is concentrated and poorly distributed.

Ultimately, Ghana's governance challenge extends beyond the number of ministers. It reflects more profound issues of political patronage, systemic inefficiencies, and unchecked executive dominance. Addressing these challenges requires trimming ministerial portfolios and reforming governance structures to prioritise efficiency, accountability, and the broader national interest.

Isaac Ofori
Social Activist and Human Rights Advocate

   Comments0