Ghana’s 2026 Mid-Year Budget Review contains conflicting expenditure figures, with a GHS 7.7 billion difference reported across various sections. The Centre for Policy Scrutiny (CPS), an independent policy institute, highlighted these inconsistencies, warning they could erode confidence in Ghana's economic management.
The CPS found that one section of the budget document reported total government expenditure at GHS 129.20 billion against a target of GHS 158.60 billion. Another section, however, stated actual spending at GHS 136.90 billion against a target of GHS 172.50 billion. This GHS 7.7 billion difference in reported actual expenditure, alongside a GHS 13.90 billion difference in targets, raises serious questions about data accuracy. Similar issues were noted in capital expenditure, where a GHS 500 million discrepancy was identified.
These findings emerge as Ghana strives to demonstrate fiscal discipline and economic recovery, particularly after entering an International Monetary Fund (IMF) supported program in 2023. The government has recently cited stronger economic growth, lower inflation, and improved fiscal management as signs of progress. However, inconsistent budget reporting could undermine the credibility of these achievements and complicate Ghana's transition to a non-financing Policy Coordination Instrument with the IMF.
Dr. Adu Owusu Sarkodie, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Scrutiny, stated, “The mid-year budget presentation was characterised by data inconsistencies.” He emphasized that the absence of explanatory notes makes it difficult for Parliament, investors, and independent analysts to determine the government’s definitive fiscal position. This lack of clarity can hinder accurate assessments of whether spending targets are met or if fiscal consolidation is progressing as reported.
The implications of inconsistent fiscal reporting are substantial. Financial markets, development partners, and rating agencies rely on budget documents to assess government borrowing needs, expenditure control, and debt sustainability. When figures within the same document do not reconcile, analysts struggle to establish the true state of public finances. This issue is particularly critical as Ghana moves to a Policy Coordination Instrument, which demands sustained reform credibility without regular bailout disbursements. Transparent and internally consistent fiscal data will be even more important for maintaining market confidence.
Furthermore, the CPS’s assessment suggests that Ghana’s stronger fiscal position is largely due to expenditure restraint rather than improved domestic revenue mobilization. While lower spending can reduce the fiscal deficit in the short term, it may also delay crucial infrastructure, social programs, and other public investments. The think tank urged the government to clarify whether reduced expenditure reflects genuine efficiency gains, delayed project implementation, unpaid commitments, or postponed programs. Without such detail, an improved headline fiscal balance could mask underlying pressures in the public accounts.
Capital expenditure, which funds essential projects like roads, schools, and hospitals, is vital for long-term economic capacity. A GHS 500 million discrepancy, while seemingly modest, raises concerns about how project spending is classified and monitored. The CPS advocates for fiscal transparency beyond aggregate figures, recommending program-level reporting for ministries, departments, and agencies. This would allow Parliament and the public to compare approved allocations with actual releases, ensuring accountability and clarity on project progress. The Ministry of Finance must ensure all future budget documents use consistent definitions and reporting periods to avoid such discrepancies.