Beyond NPP and NDC: Has Corruption Become a Ghanaian Institution?

Ghana has changed governments. Ghana has changed presidents. Ghana has changed ministers, chief executives, political slogans, and campaign promises.

However, there are questions Ghana must confront honestly:

1. Why does corruption appear to survive every change of government?
2. Is corruption simply a political problem, or has it become embedded in our national culture and institutions?

For decades, Ghanaians have been told that corruption is a problem of the other party. When the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is in power, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) points to alleged corruption. When the NDC takes power, the NPP points to the next scandal. Supporters defend their party. Opponents condemn it. Parliament debates it. The media exposes it. Social media explodes over it. And then, eventually, another scandal arrives. At what point do we stop asking, “Which party is corrupt?” and begin asking the more uncomfortable question:

“What has happened to Ghanaian governance that corruption can survive the politicians who supposedly came to eliminate it?”

The Scandal Is Bigger Than the Party

The temptation is to reduce Ghana's corruption debate to NPP versus NDC.

That is politically convenient - but intellectually insufficient.

During the NPP administration, controversies over major public expenditures and projects, including the National Cathedral, generated intense public debate about procurement, financing, accountability, and value for money. Those controversies deserve scrutiny based on the available evidence, rather than being automatically described as proven embezzlement. The distinction matters. The Auditor-General's reports identify financial irregularities; an irregularity is not automatically proof that an individual stole money. However, the scale of the country's recurring financial irregularities remains deeply troubling. The Auditor-General's 2024 report on Ministries, Departments and Agencies, for example, identified total financial irregularities amounting to approximately GH¢2,055,094,878 across several categories (Ghana Audit Service).

That number should provoke more than partisan applause. It should provoke national reflection.

Because if public financial irregularities repeatedly occur under different administrations, perhaps the problem is not simply who occupies Jubilee House. Perhaps the system itself has become vulnerable.

And Now the Cocaine Question
Then comes the latest disturbing episode.

In September 2026, French authorities intercepted a container originating from Ghana at the port of Dunkirk. Ghana News Agency reported that approximately four tonnes of suspected cocaine, with an estimated street value of about US$260 million, were allegedly concealed in a container carrying plastic waste. Ghana has remanded four people in connection with the alleged shipment, while investigations continue. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty (Ghana News Agency).

The question that should concern every Ghanaian is not merely:

“Who is responsible?”

There is another question that may be even more important:

“How did it leave Ghana in the first place?”

That question is now central to public discussion. Reporting on the case indicates that investigators are examining the exporter, freight-forwarding arrangements and the Customs scanning process through which the container passed. Nearly four tonnes of cocaine allegedly concealed inside a commercial container is not a small administrative oversight.

It raises questions about border controls, scanning, customs procedures, intelligence sharing, port security, private-sector compliance, and institutional accountability.

Moreover, if the answer eventually reveals criminal collusion by individuals, those individuals should face the law. Nevertheless, if the investigation reveals weaknesses in the system, then the country must fix the system. Changing the names of the people occupying offices will not automatically change the weaknesses that allowed the problem to occur.

Is Corruption Political or Cultural?

This is where Ghana needs to have a difficult conversation.

Is corruption primarily a political problem?

Or has it become embedded in aspects of our national culture?

Perhaps the uncomfortable answer is both but in different ways.

Politics can create opportunities for corruption when public appointments become loyalty rewards, procurement processes are manipulated, political financing lacks sufficient transparency, or officials believe their political connections will protect them.

Nevertheless, politicians do not operate in a vacuum.

Some businessmen offer bribes.
Contractors who inflate invoices.
Professionals who manipulate records.
Officials who look the other way.
Citizens who ask for favours because they know someone.

People who condemn corruption when they are excluded from the benefits but defend it when their own political camp is involved.

This is where Ghana's problem goes deeper than partisan politics.

Corruption becomes institutionalised when society learns to tolerate it.

The Most Dangerous Corruption Is the Corruption We Normalise

The most dangerous form of corruption may not always be the dramatic suitcase of money.

Sometimes it is a small compromise.
The phone call asking an official to “help my person.”

The contract awarded because “he is our man.”

The job obtained because “I know someone.”

The public officer who bends a rule for a friend.

The procurement process that is manipulated because “everyone does it.”

The citizen who condemns corruption in government but expects preferential treatment when dealing with government.

Individually, these actions may appear insignificant.

Collectively, they create an environment in which institutions stop operating by rules and start operating by relationships.

That is how corruption moves from being an individual act to becoming a systemic habit.

The Political Party Is Not the Institution

Ghana has two dominant political traditions that have alternated in government for decades.

The NPP has governed.
The NDC has governed.
Both have campaigned on accountability.
Both have accused the other of corruption.

Both have promised reforms.
Nevertheless, Ghana continues to confront allegations and documented cases involving misuse or mismanagement of public resources.

The lesson should not be that both parties are identical.

They are not.
Their policies, philosophies, personnel, and governing approaches differ in important ways.

However, the recurring nature of corruption should force us to ask whether Ghana has relied too heavily on political promises to solve what are fundamentally institutional problems.

A new government can dismiss officials.
A new government can prosecute former officials.

A new government can establish committees.

A new government can announce anti-corruption initiatives.

However, unless the underlying institutions become stronger, another government can inherit the same vulnerabilities.

Moreover, the cycle begins again.
The Auditor General Cannot Be the Nation's Only Alarm Bell.

Ghana already has institutions designed to protect public resources and promote accountability.

The Auditor-General is constitutionally empowered to audit public accounts. Other institutions -including Parliament, the judiciary, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, law-enforcement agencies, the media, and civil society also have important roles.

The problem is not simply whether institutions exist.

The harder question is:
Do those institutions have enough independence, resources, authority, and political protection to act effectively?

Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index gives Ghana a score of 43 out of 100, ranking it 76th among 182 countries. The index measures perceptions of public-sector corruption rather than proving individual acts of corruption, so it should not be interpreted as a criminal verdict on Ghana or its officials. Nevertheless, the broader message is difficult to ignore. Transparency International argues that effective anti-corruption efforts require stronger independent institutions, meaningful checks and balances, transparency and enforcement of the rule of law (Transparency.org). In other words, the answer cannot simply be:

“Wait until the next election.”

Elections Alone Cannot Cure corruption.

Ghanaians sometimes behave as though voting one party out and bringing another party in automatically solves corruption.

It does not.
Elections can change who exercises political power.

They do not automatically change procurement systems.

They do not automatically strengthen customs controls.

They do not automatically digitise government processes.

They do not automatically protect whistleblowers.

They do not automatically make political financing transparent.

They do not automatically ensure that audit findings lead to consequences.

Moreover, they certainly do not change human behaviour overnight.

Democracy requires something more than changing governments.

It requires institutions that can restrain governments.

Perhaps We Have Asked the Wrong Question

For years, the Ghanaian corruption debate has revolved around:

“Which government is more corrupt?”

That question feeds partisan politics.
A more important question is:
“Why can corruption survive whichever government is in power?”

That question points toward institutions.

It points toward political financing.
It points toward procurement.
It points toward customs and border security.

It points toward conflicts of interest.
It points toward enforcement.
It points toward accountability.
It points toward the relationship between politicians, businesspeople and public officials.

Moreover, it points toward us - the citizens.

Because corruption does not become an institution merely because politicians are corrupt.

It becomes institutionalised when too many people learn how to live with it.

Ghana Must Break the Cycle
The solution is not another political slogan.

It is not another presidential speech.
It is not another parliamentary investigation that disappears from public memory.

It is also not selective prosecution designed to satisfy whichever political constituency is angry at the moment.

Ghana needs a system in which the rules remain substantially stronger than the individuals who temporarily control public office.

That means strengthening procurement transparency.

It means following audit findings to their logical conclusion.

It means protecting investigators, journalists and whistleblowers.

It means improving customs and port controls.

It means using technology to reduce opportunities for human manipulation.

It means making political financing more transparent.

It means enforcing conflict-of-interest rules.

It means recovering public funds where wrongdoing is established.

Moreover, perhaps most importantly, it means applying accountability regardless of political affiliation.

If an NPP official breaks the law, the law should apply.

If an NDC official breaks the law, the law should apply.

If a politically connected business person breaks the law, the law should apply.

If a public servant facilitates wrongdoing, the law should apply.

The principle should be brutally simple:

“The law must not ask, “Whose person are you?”

It must ask:
“What did you do?”

The Final Question
Ghana does not lack intelligent people. It does not lack laws, auditors, journalists, anti-corruption institutions, or citizens outraged by corruption. What Ghana appears to struggle with is something more fundamental: turning outrage into sustained institutional accountability. That is why the cocaine shipment should not become merely another political weapon. The National Cathedral controversy should not become merely another partisan talking point. Auditor-General reports should not become annual political ammunition. Every scandal should instead become an opportunity to ask: What failed? Who was responsible? What does the evidence show? What does the law require? What has been recovered? And what has been changed to prevent it from happening again?

Without those answers, Ghana risks continuing to change governments while preserving the vulnerabilities that allow corruption to flourish. Perhaps, then, the real battle is not NPP versus NDC. It is between a culture of accountability and a culture of impunity. Moreover, if we are honest enough to ask whether corruption has become a Ghanaian institution, we must confront the question that follows:

If we have created conditions that allow corruption to survive, are we prepared to change the institutions and the culture that sustain it?

That question takes us beyond party politics.

So, Has Corruption Become a Ghanaian Institution?

We should be careful about declaring corruption an inherent part of Ghanaian culture. Such a claim is too broad and risks turning a complex institutional problem into a judgment about an entire people. However, recurring financial irregularities, corruption allegations, and institutional failures across successive administrations provide enough reason to ask a harder question:

Have we allowed corruption and impunity to become institutionalised?

That question requires us to examine not only politicians, but also the systems they inherit and the society that sometimes tolerates such behaviour. Ghana does not need another endless argument over which party is more corrupt. It needs institutions capable of asking everyone the same questions:

Where did the money go?
Who was responsible?
What does the evidence show?
What has been done to ensure it cannot happen again?

Because if governments change while the vulnerabilities remain, the problem is no longer simply about who occupies power. The names may change. The scandals may change. But unless the system changes, the story remains the same.