Minority NPP accuses government of claiming credit for NPP’s debt relief gains

The Minority in Parliament has lambasted the government for what it describes as a deliberate attempt to claim credit for debt relief outcomes that were secured under the previous Akufo-Addo administration.

In a sharply worded statement issued on Tuesday, July 29, the Minority accused Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson of misrepresenting facts regarding Ghana’s debt performance. They dismissed his assertion that the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen from 61.8% in December 2024 to 43.8% by June 2025 as both misleading and politically opportunistic.

“It is no secret the painstaking efforts the NPP government made to restructure our debts… led to outright debt cancellation of US$5 billion and debt service savings of US$4.7 billion. What then did the NDC government do to claim reduction in the public debt?” the Minority asked, challenging the basis for the Minister’s celebration of supposed fiscal prudence.

The group demanded clarity on how much actual debt had been repaid, arguing that the drop in the debt ratio had more to do with the New Patriotic Party’s extensive restructuring programme than any recent NDC initiative.

They also discredited the government’s claim of improved international credit ratings, pointing to a June 2025 Fitch report that explicitly credited Ghana’s creditworthiness upgrade to the Eurobond restructuring completed in October 2024.

“Was Dr Ato Forson the Finance Minister in October 2024?” they asked pointedly, underscoring their view that the current administration is benefiting from reforms it had previously criticised.

Describing the government’s narrative as “propaganda economics,” the Minority accused officials of lacking the integrity to acknowledge the work done by their predecessors.

“How do you criticise an exercise, and accept the product of the same exercise? We know that Ghanaians understand this kind of economics – propaganda economics,” the statement concluded, as the opposition pushed back strongly against what it sees as a politically motivated rewriting of economic history.