Fresh concerns have emerged over the consistency of figures contained in the 2026 Budget Statement and Economic Policy and the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review, with analysts identifying several unreconciled expenditure lines worth billions of cedis across key sectors of the economy.
A detailed review of the two fiscal documents indicates that while the government has reported progress on several flagship programmes, significant gaps remain between budget allocations, mid-year expenditure reports and appendix figures, making it difficult to independently verify spending in sectors including education, health, roads, agriculture and infrastructure.
The assessment notes that the discrepancies do not necessarily indicate financial mismanagement but argues that the inconsistencies require official clarification to improve fiscal transparency and public accountability.
The report identifies education as the sector with the largest unresolved expenditure gap.
While the 2026 Budget Statement announced an allocation of GH¢33.3 billion to the Ministry of Education for programmes and activities, the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review does not provide a corresponding ministry-wide expenditure update.
Instead, the review reports only individual programme expenditures, making it impossible to verify how much of the overall ministry allocation has been spent during the first half of the year.
According to the assessment, the absence of an appendix detailing ministry-level expenditures, similar to Appendix 4A in the original budget, limits public scrutiny of government spending.
Capital Projects Lack Matching Mid-Year Figures
The review also highlights several major capital projects whose budget allocations cannot be directly reconciled with figures reported in the Mid-Year Review.
Among them are:
- The Ghana Secondary Schools Improvement Programme (GSLIP).
- Basic school infrastructure projects.
- Hospital construction projects.
- The Ministry of Roads and Highways’ GH¢4.301 billion capital expenditure allocation.
- The Oil Palm Development Finance Facility.
- Agricultural enclave road projects.
According to the report, while some of these programmes reappear in the Mid-Year Review, they are presented as US dollar-funded facilities rather than the original cedi allocations approved in the Budget.
The review says government does not explain whether these represent the same projects, successor programmes or entirely new financing arrangements.
The report cites the Ghana Buffer Stock Company (formerly NAFCO) as one of the clearest examples of conflicting figures within the Budget itself.
While the Budget narrative promises GH¢200 million for the institution, Appendix 4A allocates only GH¢105 million, leaving an unexplained difference of GH¢95 million.
According to the analysts, this mirrors similar inconsistencies previously identified in education funding allocations.
The assessment also identifies discrepancies involving statutory funds.
It notes that while the Budget reports GH¢4.5 billion for the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Appendix 2C records a provisional transfer of only GH¢3.481 billion, creating an unexplained gap of approximately GH¢1.02 billion.
Similarly, the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) reflects a difference of about GH¢240 million between narrative figures and appendix data.
Although such differences may arise from varying accounting methods, the report argues that government should provide detailed reconciliations to avoid uncertainty.
The Mid-Year Review confirms that government did not seek a supplementary budget but instead undertook what it describes as a strategic realignment of expenditures within existing appropriations.
Among the disclosed reallocations are:
- GH¢350 million transferred from the Contingency Vote for flood relief.
- GH¢226 million reallocated for flood mitigation projects.
- GH¢400 million redirected to support Metro Mass Transit and STC through the acquisition of high-capacity buses.
- A GH¢3 billion reduction in foreign-financed capital expenditure linked to GH¢5 billion allocated to reserve accumulation under the Ghana National Reserve Accumulation Programme (GANRAP).
Together, the disclosed reallocations amount to at least GH¢3.976 billion.
However, the report argues that government has not published a comprehensive table showing which budget lines were reduced to finance these reallocations.
Questions have also been raised over the financing of two flagship agricultural initiatives.
The Budget allocated GH¢6.9 billion for the Oil Palm Development Finance Facility and GH¢828 million for constructing 1,000 kilometres of agricultural enclave roads.
However, the Mid-Year Review instead refers to a US$500 million Oil Palm Development Finance Facility and a separate US$523 million agricultural roads programme covering 1,050 kilometres.
The report says no explanation is provided linking these dollar-denominated projects to the original cedi allocations approved by Parliament.
The review further notes that a reported GH¢961 million payment to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) appears in the Mid-Year Review without any corresponding allocation under the Budget’s resource allocation section.
IERPP describes this as another example where expenditure has been reported without a clearly identifiable originating budget commitment.
To improve public accountability, the report urges the Ministry of Finance to provide detailed reconciliations for several outstanding issues, including:
- The actual first-half disbursement under the Big Push Infrastructure Programme.
- Spending against the Ministry of Roads and Highways’ GH¢4.301 billion capital allocation.
- Conflicting funding figures for the Ghana Buffer Stock Company.
- The relationship between the cedi-funded and dollar-funded agricultural projects.
- Actual disbursements for hospital construction projects.
- Differences between reported NHIS, GETFund and DACF allocations and appendix figures.
- A comprehensive schedule of all expenditure reallocations undertaken during the first half of 2026.
The report concludes that the government’s flagship capital expenditure programmes remain difficult to independently verify because several budget commitments either disappear from the Mid-Year Review or reappear under different financing arrangements without adequate explanation.
According to the assessment, while the absence of ministry-wide education expenditure remains the most significant example, similar inconsistencies are now evident across the education, health, agriculture, roads and infrastructure sectors.
