By Alex Ababio | October 26, 2026
The Ministry of Finance says all Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA) allocations realised in 2026 have been reserved for the Accra–Kumasi Expressway. But a dispute with the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) over missing expenditure information has raised questions about transparency, public oversight and how the government will account for petroleum revenues committed to major infrastructure.
The dispute comes as the government advances plans for a 198.7-kilometre, six-lane expressway intended to reduce travel time between Ghana’s two largest cities. Although officials have announced substantial funds for the project, PIAC says it needs more information to assess how petroleum revenues allocated to the national budget are being used.
In a statement issued on October 23, 2026, the Ministry rejected suggestions that it had withheld information from the committee. It said petroleum receipts, distribution data and the arrangements governing ABFA utilisation had been explained during a virtual validation workshop and subsequent face-to-face meetings.
The Ministry also said the funds had been ring-fenced for the expressway and would be used for construction after the main contract was awarded. It cited paragraph 572 of the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review in support of its position. “Ministry of Finance statement” (https://www.mofep.gov.gh/news-and-events/2026-10-23/ministry-of-finance-rejects-claim-of-withholding-abfa-data-from-piac).
However, PIAC’s public position points to a central accountability question: can the committee independently assess petroleum-funded expenditure without receiving the information it says it needs?
PIAC says missing data limits scrutiny
At the launch of its 2026 Semi-Annual Report on October 21, PIAC Chairman Richard Ellimah said the committee had requested ABFA utilisation data from the Ministry of Finance but was still awaiting the information.
According to a report by the Ghana News Agency published by MyJoyOnline on October 25, Ellimah said the absence of the data limited PIAC’s ability to assess government expenditure under the programme.
“We are hoping very much that the Ministry of Finance will give us the data so we can understand what is going on,” he said.
Ellimah added that concentrating a significant proportion of ABFA resources on the government’s Big Push infrastructure programme could change how PIAC conducted its project inspections.
“It is something new for us because it is going to change the way we also do our project inspections,” he said. “GNA report published by MyJoyOnline” (https://www.myjoyonline.com/piac-seeks-details-of-petroleum-funds-allocated-to-big-push-projects/).
The Ministry’s response does not necessarily establish that PIAC received all the information it requested in a form that enabled the committee to complete its assessment. Equally, PIAC’s reported difficulty does not, by itself, prove that the Ministry deliberately concealed information.
The distinction matters. Explaining a funding arrangement is not necessarily the same as providing a complete, verifiable breakdown of expenditure, commitments and outstanding payments.
The public documents available for this report do not establish whether every item requested by PIAC was subsequently delivered. That question requires the Ministry’s submission records, PIAC’s original request and any follow-up correspondence.
Petroleum revenue law sets an accountability standard
PIAC was established under Section 51 of the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815), to promote transparency and accountability in the management and use of petroleum revenues.
Its oversight responsibilities include monitoring compliance with the law and providing independent information to the public to support informed debate and parliamentary scrutiny.
At the October 21 report launch, PIAC Executive Secretary Isaac Dwamena referred to Regulation 25 of the Petroleum Revenue Management Regulations, which requires institutions asked to provide information for PIAC’s annual and semi-annual reports to do so within 15 days of receiving the request.
Ellimah also said he was not aware of any prosecution for failure to comply with the Petroleum Revenue Management Act during PIAC’s 15 years of operation. He indicated that the committee intended to seek guidance from the Attorney-General on recurring compliance concerns because it could not independently initiate legal action to enforce its recommendations or compliance with the Act. “MyJoyOnline/GNA report” (https://www.myjoyonline.com/piac-seeks-details-of-petroleum-funds-allocated-to-big-push-projects/).
These statements raise questions beyond the current disagreement. If the statutory reporting process repeatedly encounters missing information, what mechanisms ensure that the oversight committee can obtain the records it needs?
The available reporting does not establish that a court has determined the Ministry breached the law in this specific dispute. Establishing non-compliance would require examination of the formal requests, the dates they were received, the responses supplied and the applicable legal requirements.
Nevertheless, timely access to expenditure information is essential if PIAC is to assess how public petroleum revenues are being used.
The expressway funding figures require clear reconciliation
The financial scale of the expressway makes that scrutiny particularly important.
On July 23, 2026, the Ghana News Agency reported that Finance Minister Dr Cassiel Ato Forson told Parliament that US$1.7 billion had been deposited in a dedicated Accra–Kumasi Expressway account at the Bank of Ghana as of July 22.
Forson said the funds had been ring-fenced and would be used only after the main construction contract was awarded. The government also expected feasibility studies and detailed engineering designs to be completed by the end of August, with procurement for the main construction contract scheduled to begin in September. “Ghana News Agency, July 23, 2026” (https://gna.org.gh/2026/07/government-secures-us1-7-billion-for-accra-kumasi-expressway/).
On September 14, President John Dramani Mahama announced that US$2 billion had been secured in a special account at the Bank of Ghana for the project.
The following day, the Information Services Department reported Forson’s assurance that the government would make the full amount required for construction available by December 31, 2026, without borrowing.
“For the avoidance of doubt, we will not borrow a pesewa for this construction,” Forson said. “Information Services Department” (https://www.isd.gov.gh/government-to-fully-fund-accra-kumasi-expressway-without-borrowing-finance-minister/).
The July and September announcements do not necessarily contradict each other: the amounts may reflect additional funds mobilised between the two dates. However, the public announcements cited here do not provide a complete reconciliation of the increase from US$1.7 billion to US$2 billion.
That leaves important questions for public disclosure. How much of the additional amount represents new deposits? What is the current account balance? How much has been committed to preparatory works, compensation or other project expenses? And how much remains available for the main construction contract?
These are questions for documentary verification, not evidence that money is missing or has been misused.
The Ministry’s latest statement says the 2026 ABFA resources have been reserved for the expressway. It does not, on its own, provide a detailed account reconciling the ABFA allocations with the separately announced expressway funding figures.
A major road project with national economic implications
The expressway is planned to run approximately 198.7 kilometres between Accra and Kumasi, compared with the existing highway’s reported length of about 270 kilometres.
On September 14, the government announced that the Ghana Armed Forces had completed clearance of 175.6 kilometres of the project’s right-of-way between Ablekuma in Greater Accra and Sewua in the Ashanti Region.
The work was completed in 19 weeks, one week ahead of the original 20-week deadline, according to the Information Services Department. The clearance represents an important preparatory milestone, but it is not the same as completing the main construction contract. “Information Services Department” (https://www.isd.gov.gh/ghana-armed-forces-hands-over-accra-kumasi-expressway-right-of-way-to-government/).
Government officials say the project is expected to reduce travel time and transport costs, improve road safety and support economic activity. These benefits could be significant for commuters, freight operators, traders and businesses moving goods between southern Ghana and the Ashanti Region.
However, the scale of the anticipated benefits makes transparent procurement, cost control and independent monitoring important. The relevant tests will include whether the contract is awarded competitively, whether the final project cost is publicly explained, whether construction milestones are independently verified and whether payments correspond to completed work.
The Finance Minister has said the Ministry’s Value for Money Office will scrutinise the project’s expenditure to ensure that costs are justified and public resources are used efficiently.
That commitment creates a clear opportunity for the government to publish the results of its value-for-money assessments and explain how the findings influence procurement and payment decisions.
District assemblies and the five per cent allocation
The Ministry has also addressed concerns about the five per cent share of ABFA allocated to the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF).
It said the amount was being paid from the Consolidated Fund rather than being drawn from the ABFA resources reserved for the expressway. The Ministry maintained that PIAC had been informed of this arrangement and that Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies had not been disadvantaged.
The explanation is important because local authorities depend on public funding to support development priorities within their jurisdictions.
However, confirming that an allocation is being paid from the Consolidated Fund is not, by itself, a complete public reconciliation of the amounts due and paid. Such verification would require records showing the relevant allocations, transfers, dates and receipts.
The Ministry’s statement does not establish that district assemblies have lost their entitlement. Nor does the information cited here independently verify the timing and completeness of every payment.
Publishing the relevant transfer records would help resolve the issue and strengthen confidence in the arrangement.
What the public needs to see next
The Ministry has pledged to continue publishing relevant information through the Annual Report on Petroleum Funds, Petroleum Reconciliation Reports, Budget Statements and other fiscal reports.
Those disclosures provide an opportunity to move the disagreement beyond competing statements and towards verifiable evidence.
PIAC needs sufficient information to assess petroleum revenue allocations and expenditure. The Ministry needs to demonstrate that its funding arrangements are documented, traceable and consistent with the law.
For the expressway, the essential records include ABFA amounts allocated and received in 2026, the current balance of the dedicated project account, the reconciliation of the US$1.7 billion and US$2 billion announcements, procurement documents, the awarded contract value and a schedule of payments against verified construction milestones.
The government should also clarify the status of the main construction contract and explain how petroleum-funded allocations relate to the project’s total financing plan.
The dispute does not establish that petroleum revenues have been stolen or that the expressway funds have been misused. It does show why assurances alone are insufficient when billions of dollars in public financing are involved.
The central test is whether the Ministry and PIAC can provide the records needed to establish what was allocated, what was received, what was committed and what was spent.
Until that information is publicly reconciled, Ghanaians will have to rely largely on official assurances rather than a complete, independently assessable account of how the money is being managed.