The National Democratic Congress government’s much-touted 24-hour economy agenda is facing renewed scrutiny following revelations that the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs has committed hundreds of millions of Ghana cedis to the design and supervision of selected 24-hour economy markets, with the contracts awarded through the single-source procurement method.
According to procurement details provided by the Ministry, a total of GH¢486,780,000 has so far been spent on contracts relating to the design and supervision of the construction of selected 24-hour economy markets.
The figures have triggered questions over the procurement process, the value for money involved and the government’s decision to prioritise market infrastructure under a policy that was originally presented to Ghanaians as a broader economic programme aimed at creating jobs through round-the-clock production and services.
The controversy is particularly heightened by the fact that the contracts listed were awarded through single-source procurement, rather than competitive tendering.
Millions committed before markets become operational
The procurement records list several companies and consultants that have been engaged for the design and supervision of the proposed markets.
Among the listed contracts is a GH¢36.19 million contract awarded to MMG Consortium for the design and supervision of the construction of 24-hour economy markets.
Another contract, listed at US$4.81 million, was awarded to Devepro for similar design and supervision services.
The records further list GH¢25.55 million for Avangarde, GH¢28 million for Homeland and GH¢36.75 million for Fast Thinkers.
Additional contracts include GH¢68.32 million awarded to AESL, GH¢84 million to Eco Planner, GH¢59.78 million to Fedems and GH¢39.13 million to WD.Global.
The procurement information supplied does not, by itself, establish whether every amount represents money already physically disbursed or whether some figures represent contractual commitments.
The figures therefore require reconciliation with payment records and the Ministry’s certified expenditure before they can all properly be described as cash expenditure.
However, the aggregate figure supplied puts the financial commitment at GH¢486.78 million, making the project one of the more significant areas of spending associated with the government’s 24-hour economy initiative.
Single-source procurement raises questions
The most contentious aspect of the disclosure is not only the size of the contracts but the procurement method used.
The listed market-related contracts were awarded through single-source procurement, according to the information provided.
Single-source procurement can be used under the public procurement framework in circumstances permitted by law, but the use of the method for a programme attracting substantial public expenditure inevitably raises questions about the justification for selecting particular firms without open competition.
That issue is likely to attract greater public scrutiny because procurement practices have historically been a major point of political contention in Ghana.
Critics are therefore demanding explanations as to why the Ministry considered single-source procurement appropriate for the design and supervision components of the 24-hour economy markets, what circumstances justified the method and whether the relevant procurement approvals were obtained.
The procurement records alone, however, do not establish wrongdoing. Any allegation of procurement breaches would require examination of the tender documents, approvals, justifications, contracts, payment certificates and applicable procurement rules.
From 24-hour jobs to 24-hour markets
The controversy also touches on a broader question about what the government’s 24-hour economy policy has become.
The NDC’s 24-hour economy proposal was initially promoted as an economic transformation strategy intended to encourage businesses and productive sectors to operate around the clock, with workers potentially operating in shifts.
The broader concept was presented as a mechanism for increasing production, creating employment and expanding economic activity beyond conventional working hours.
The market component has consequently generated debate over whether the construction of physical markets adequately captures the original economic promise of the policy.
Critics argue that a market operating for longer hours is not necessarily the same thing as a productive economy operating in three shifts.
They are asking whether sufficient attention is being given to manufacturing, agriculture, logistics, transport, technology, services and other productive activities capable of generating sustainable employment under a genuine 24-hour economic model.
Demolitions deepen public anger
The controversy has also been fuelled by reports of demolitions at some locations earmarked for the proposed markets.
Existing structures and businesses have reportedly been affected as authorities prepare sites for the market projects.
The demolitions have created a difficult question for government: whether people whose businesses and livelihoods have been disrupted will receive adequate compensation, alternative locations or other forms of support.
For traders who have operated from existing markets for years, the issue is not simply about infrastructure development. It is about livelihoods, investment and the uncertainty surrounding where they will trade once the redevelopment projects are completed.
The situation becomes even more contentious when large sums are being committed to design, supervision and preparatory works while the new facilities themselves are yet to become fully operational.
Ground works versus public expectations
The expenditure has also raised questions about how much of the money being committed is producing tangible infrastructure on the ground.
Members of the public are increasingly asking whether the hundreds of millions of cedis committed to design and supervision can be justified at this stage, particularly where some affected traders have already lost access to their existing business locations.
The government, on the other hand, is expected to argue that design, engineering supervision and preparatory activities are necessary stages of major infrastructure projects and should not be viewed in isolation from the eventual cost of constructing and operating the markets.
That explanation, however, is unlikely to end the debate over whether the procurement arrangements provide taxpayers with the best possible value.
Earlier procurement records show different methods
Interestingly, the same procurement information supplied by the Ministry contains contracts awarded through competitive processes.
For example, contracts for the supply of waste bins, office equipment, laptops and motorbikes were listed under National Competitive Tendering.
The contrast between those procurements and the single-source contracts for the 24-hour economy markets is likely to fuel demands for greater transparency regarding the circumstances surrounding the market-related awards.
The key issue for the public is therefore not simply that single-source procurement was used, but why it was used, who approved it and whether the Ministry can demonstrate that the method produced value for money.
Government faces accountability test
The 24-hour economy markets have now become a test of the government’s ability to translate one of its flagship policy promises into visible economic benefits while maintaining public confidence in the management of state resources.
About the Author
