Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has launched a sharp critique of the newly passed Value for Money Office Act, 2026, describing the legislation as ineffective and warning that it could become a politically controlled mechanism used to legitimise corruption in public procurement rather than fight it.
In a strongly worded statement following the passage of the law, Afenyo-Markin argued that despite government claims of strengthening transparency and accountability in public spending, the structure and operational framework of the new office raise serious concerns about independence, oversight, and political interference.
Concerns Over Independence Of The New Office
According to the Minority Leader, the core weakness of the law lies in the composition and control of the governing board of the Value for Money Office.
He contended that the board is heavily dominated by partisan political appointees and lacks the independence necessary for a credible anti-corruption and procurement oversight institution.
Afenyo-Markin noted that the office ultimately reports directly to the Finance Minister, creating what he believes is a dangerous conflict that undermines public confidence in the institution’s neutrality.
He warned that a regulatory body without operational independence cannot effectively monitor or prevent corruption in public procurement, arguing instead that such a structure risks becoming an institution that merely provides official cover and regulatory approval for questionable contracts and procurement decisions.
Minority’s Earlier Warnings
The Minority Leader revealed that these concerns were raised by the opposition during the Consideration Stage of the bill in Parliament.
According to him, the Minority cautioned that the legislation, rather than promoting accountability, risked introducing “a new layer of politically supervised corruption” into the procurement system.
However, he said the government dismissed those warnings and proceeded with the passage of the bill.
Afenyo-Markin now argues that current developments surrounding the law have vindicated the Minority’s position, insisting that what has been presented as a reform measure is instead another bureaucratic structure designed to advance political interests under the guise of transparency and accountability.
Comparison With International Standards
The Minority Leader further argued that countries with credible Value for Money institutions typically establish clear safeguards to guarantee independence in appointments, operational mandate, and oversight authority.
According to him, those protections are what give such institutions legitimacy and public trust in other jurisdictions.
He maintained that the new law falls significantly below those standards and risks weakening, rather than strengthening, public procurement oversight.
Existing Laws Already Sufficient
Afenyo-Markin also questioned the necessity of creating a new institution altogether, arguing that Ghana already possesses a robust legal and institutional framework capable of ensuring financial accountability if properly enforced.
He cited existing laws such as the Public Financial Management Act and the Public Procurement Act, as well as internal audit systems across public institutions.
According to him, the real problem facing Ghana is not the absence of laws or institutions, but rather the failure to enforce existing regulations and adequately resource oversight bodies.
He insisted that strengthening current accountability institutions and holding public officers responsible for their duties would be more effective than creating what he described as another politically influenced structure.
NDC Government Accused Of Political Control
The Minority Leader further accused the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) of prioritising political control over genuine anti-corruption reforms.
He argued that if the government were truly committed to fighting corruption, it would focus on empowering already existing accountability institutions instead of establishing new offices susceptible to political manipulation.
Afenyo-Markin warned that the Value for Money Office Act could ultimately become a protective shield for future procurement scandals, with questionable contracts potentially defended on the basis that they received approval from the new office.
Debate Over Procurement Reforms Expected To Continue
The passage of the Value for Money Office Act has already triggered debate within political and governance circles, with supporters arguing that the law is intended to improve efficiency and value in public expenditure, while critics fear it could centralise excessive political influence over procurement oversight.
About the Author
