Sole Sourcing, Roads, and the Crisis of Consistency in Ghana’s Accountability Space

The Ministry of Roads and Highways has once again found itself at the centre of national scrutiny, following revelations surrounding the government’s “Big Push” programme and the award of multiple road contracts through non-competitive methods. The investigation by The Fourth Estate has triggered public debate, political tension, and renewed questions about procurement integrity in one of the most capital-intensive sectors of the Ghanaian economy. At stake is not just the legality of procurement decisions, but the broader issue of transparency, value for money, and public trust in how national infrastructure is delivered.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sole sourcing. In fact, under Ghana’s Public Procurement framework, it is a lawful and necessary procurement method when applied within strict limits. Emergencies, unique technical requirements, compatibility needs, or national security concerns may justify awarding contracts without competition. No serious policymaker disputes this.

But what the law permits as an exception, governance must never normalise as a routine.

The unfolding debate around the “Big Push” road programme, following the investigation by The Fourth Estate, has once again forced the country to confront an uncomfortable truth: when sole sourcing becomes dominant—especially in sectors like road construction where multiple capable contractors exist—it raises legitimate concerns about value for money, transparency, and accountability.

Road contracts, by their very nature, are among the most competitive and tenderable in any economy. They are standardised, measurable, and widely executed by both local and international firms. This makes them fundamentally unsuitable for frequent sole sourcing, except in genuine emergencies such as disaster recovery or urgent remedial works. Any attempt to normalise sole sourcing in this space must therefore meet an exceptionally high burden of justification—contract by contract, not programme by programme.

And this is where the discomfort lies.
Because beyond the technical arguments and legal thresholds, there is a deeper issue at play—one of consistency, credibility, and moral authority.

Civil society organisations and investigative bodies, including The Fourth Estate, are absolutely right to raise concerns today. Their work strengthens democracy. Their questions are valid. Their demand for transparency is justified.

But accountability must not be seasonal.

The current administration did not invent sole sourcing. If anything, the Deputy Minister of Roads has publicly suggested that they inherited a system where road contracts were almost entirely sole sourced under the previous government. If that claim holds even partially true, then it raises a troubling question: where were these same loud voices then?

Why did it take a change in government for the scale of scrutiny to intensify?

Silence in one era and outrage in another creates a perception problem—fair or unfair—that civil society’s vigilance may be influenced by political context rather than principle. And in a country like Ghana, where public trust is already fragile, perception can be just as damaging as reality.

This is not to discredit the current findings. Far from it. Two things can be true at once:

• That the present concerns about sole sourcing in road contracts are valid and deserve full scrutiny.

• And that the inconsistency of past silence weakens the perceived neutrality of those raising the alarm.

If civil society is to remain the conscience of the nation, it must speak with the same intensity regardless of who is in power. Selective activism—whether intentional or not—risks eroding the very credibility that gives such institutions their influence.

For government, the obligation is even clearer.

It cannot campaign against sole sourcing in opposition and appear comfortable with it in power. That is not governance—that is convenience. If indeed there was abuse in the past, then this administration’s duty is not to replicate it under different justification, but to correct it decisively.

Ghana does not need a rotation of excesses.

It needs a reset.
The way forward is not complicated, but it requires discipline:

Sole sourcing must return to what the law intended it to be—an exception, not a strategy. Every such contract must be backed by clear, publicly accessible justification. Independent oversight bodies must be empowered, not sidelined. And where competition is possible—as it overwhelmingly is in road construction—it must be the default.

Above all, accountability must be consistent.

Because in the end, the real issue is not whether sole sourcing is used.

It is whether it is used honestly, sparingly, and transparently—regardless of who is in power.

   Comments0