Minority Rejects Value for Money Bill, Says it Will ‘Fuel Corruption’

The Minority Caucus in Parliament has distanced itself from the processes leading to the passage of the Value for Money Office Bill, 2026, warning that the proposed law could rather worsen corruption in the country.

The Caucus argued that existing legal frameworks, including the Public Financial Management Act and the Public Procurement Act, already provide adequate mechanisms to ensure validation and value for money in public spending.

It maintained that the Majority’s insistence on pushing the bill through would create an additional layer of bureaucracy that could be politically controlled and less effective at curbing corruption.

It therefore called on the government to strengthen existing laws rather than create a new office.

“We the Minority will not rubber-stamp the bill and if the Majority would not listen these strong views and take same on board and rather bring amendments of existing laws and want to pursue the path of chop-chop, we the mighty few wash off our hands,” it said.

‘Carry Your Burden Alone’
Contributing to the motion for the House to debate the bill after its second reading, the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, said the Caucus would not be part of what he described as a flawed legislative process.

“We will not be part of this unholy act that will rather expose the state and make the state vulnerable. Carry your burden alone.

“What we are seeking to do is to open the Pandora box and this law, if it is enacted, will rather be the right channel for corruption,” he said.

Purpose of the Bill
The bill seeks to establish a Value for Money Office to regulate, monitor, coordinate and promote value-for-money assessments, to enhance efficiency, transparency and accountability in public expenditure and procurement.

It was presented to Parliament by the Minister of Finance, Cassiel Ato Forson, and subsequently referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report.

Concerns over Independence
Mr Afenyo-Markin said Minority members on the committee had opposed both the bill and the committee’s report.

He further claimed that the Ranking Member did not adequately review the final report before submission.

He rejected the government’s argument that the bill aligns with international best practices in countries such as the United States and Canada, insisting that institutions in those jurisdictions are not politically controlled.

He argued that the proposed office would have a governing board dominated by appointees nominated by the Finance Minister, raising concerns about its independence.

He, therefore, said the very corruption the Finance Minister aimed to cure would fester, saying “who does not know that before a minister makes an appointment, he will first look at loyalty to him”?

“That is why we are telling you that you have the Public Financial Management Act, the PPA Act itself, and the internal organisations that we have in public institutions, which allow for some level of value for audit.

“And where it is required that certain levels of procurement are to be undertaken, external bodies of institutions that are independent are relied on, and why do we not look at this and strengthen where there are loopholes?” he quizzed.

‘Walking Contradiction’
The Minority Leader described the push for the bill as contradictory and warned it would be perceived negatively by the public.

He said the creation of the office could be viewed as another avenue for mismanagement.

“As political leaders, we must be careful about the impression,” he said, urging the government to stop being “a walking contradiction”.

“You walking contradiction as you have so far not lived up to the promises that you made; we have a Deputy Chief of Staff who has a company and the GoldBod would award an 11 million cedi sole contract,” he said.

Government Defends Bill
The Deputy Minister of Finance, Thomas Nyarko Ampem, rejected claims that the proposed office would promote corruption.

He explained that the initiative was intended to strengthen oversight by ensuring that all contracts deliver value for money.

He said while the Public Procurement Authority ensures procedural compliance, it does not adequately address cost efficiency.

“It is going to ensure a life cycle costing, technical soundness and post contract verification.

He acknowledged concerns raised by the Minority, noting that single-source procurements had traditionally undergone value-for-money assessments, unlike many competitively tendered contracts.

He added that Ghana previously relied on external institutions such as Crown Agents, a UK-based firm, to conduct such assessments.

“In fact, we have a company called Crown Agents, UK-based company that was here and that company was the one that we always fell on to conduct value for money for this country.

“As we speak now, Crown Agents has left this country, and so there is no institution to provide this service, and so it is timely that we have our own Value for Money Office to conduct value for money for procurements that we do in this country,” he said.

Mr Ampem further argued that inflated costs were not limited to sole-source contracts.

“That is not true as we have seen competitive bidding contracts that have been overpriced and that is clear.

“In fact, we have seen cost build-ups in our contracts that show the purchasing of mobile phones and airtime for contractors. We have seen cost lines that indicate renting hotel accommodation for contractors.

“All these are competitive bid contracts, and so it is not true that only sole source or restricted tendering that have been overpriced,” he said.

Source: Graphic

Click to read more: https://opemsuo.com/author/hajara-fuseini/