Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has raised significant concerns regarding the newly passed Value for Money Office Act, 2026, asserting that its structural composition compromises its ability to deliver genuine accountability in public procurement. The criticism, voiced via a Facebook post on Wednesday, May 13, suggests that the law, intended to usher in transparency, may instead be susceptible to political influence.
Doubts Cast on Independent Oversight
Afenyo-Markin, who represents the Effutu constituency, stated that the board established under the Act is “dominated by partisan political appointees.” He argues this composition undermines the principle of independent oversight, a crucial element for effectively combating corruption in the procurement sector.
During the Bill’s Consideration Stage in Parliament, Afenyo-Markin indicated he had previously warned of the potential for “politically supervised corruption.” He maintained that these concerns were disregarded by the government during the legislative process.
Existing Frameworks and Enforcement Challenges
The Minority Leader further contended that Ghana already possesses adequate legal and institutional frameworks to tackle procurement-related corruption. He cited the Public Financial Management Act, the Public Procurement Act, and internal audit systems as existing mechanisms.
According to Afenyo-Markin, the primary challenge lies not in a lack of legislation, but in the weak enforcement of these existing laws. He suggested that strengthening these current accountability institutions should be the government’s priority.
Calls for Strengthening Existing Structures
Instead of creating new structures that could be manipulated, Afenyo-Markin urged the government to focus on reinforcing the effectiveness of current accountability bodies. He expressed apprehension that the new office, as structured, could be utilized to legitimize questionable procurement decisions under political direction.
The Value for Money Office Act was promoted by the government as a significant step towards enhancing transparency and accountability in public spending. However, these criticisms from a prominent opposition figure highlight potential challenges in its implementation and perceived impartiality.
Implications for Public Procurement
The debate surrounding the Act’s independence raises questions about its future effectiveness. If the office is perceived as politically influenced, its findings and recommendations may lack the credibility needed to drive meaningful change in public procurement practices.
Stakeholders will be watching closely to see how the board is constituted and how it operates in practice. The success of the Value for Money Office will depend on its ability to demonstrate impartiality and robust oversight, regardless of political pressures. The coming months will reveal whether the Act can truly foster accountability or become another tool susceptible to partisan agendas.
Leave a Reply