The decision by Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson not to borrow to finance the Kumasi-Accra Expressway is being celebrated as a demonstration of fiscal discipline.
However, there is an important lingering question Ghana must ask: is there really any pride in refusing to borrow when smart borrowing could get a critical economic project completed faster and ultimately pay for itself?
For a country such as Ghana, with limited fiscal resources and a long list of competing obligations, the answer should not automatically be “never borrow.” The more important question is what Ghana is borrowing for, how much it costs, how quickly it delivers economic returns, and how the debt will be repaid.
There is a world of difference between borrowing to finance consumption and borrowing to build productive infrastructure. The Accra-Kumasi Expressway falls into the latter category. It is not just another government expenditure.
A properly completed expressway could reduce travel time, lower transport and logistics costs, improve connectivity between two of Ghana’s most economically important centres and stimulate commercial activity along the corridor.
The Funding Arrangement So Far
Based on the commitment to fully depend on government funding to finance the project, the government has dedicated a portion of the country’s petroleum revenues to fund the project. As of July 2026, the government confirmed that a total of $1.7 billion from the petroleum revenues has been deposited in the project’s account with the Bank of Ghana.
With the total estimated cost of the project around $4 billion, including physical construction and compensation, it is clear that the ring-fenced amount is woefully inadequate. This means that more government revenues must be committed to meet the project cost.
The History of GoG-Funded Projects
There is also the danger of relying exclusively on government funding. Ghana has seen what happens when major infrastructure projects depend heavily on the government’s ability to release funds year after year. The Sofoline Interchange in Kumasi offers an important lesson.
Delays in releasing government funds contributed to the project dragging on for years, with the prolonged construction period ultimately contributing to increased project costs. The same risk cannot be dismissed for the Accra-Kumasi Expressway.
If government revenue becomes constrained, as it inevitably will when there are salaries to pay, debt obligations to meet, schools and hospitals to fund, social interventions to finance and other infrastructure projects competing for the same limited resources, the expressway could face interruptions.
The Cost of Delayed Projects
A project that should take a few years could consequently stretch much longer. Contractors could face rising input costs, financing charges, and variations, while inflation and currency movements could push the final bill significantly higher.
In other words, refusing to borrow today does not necessarily mean Ghana will spend less tomorrow. It could mean paying more because the project takes longer to complete.
Moderate Debt-to-GDP Offers a Leeway
Ghana’s debt-to-GDP ratio, now around 45%, also changes the conversation. This does not mean the country has a licence to borrow recklessly. Ghana’s recent debt crisis should make policymakers extremely cautious.
But fiscal prudence should not be confused with an opposition to borrowing. If Ghana can secure reasonably priced, long-term financing for a commercially viable infrastructure project, structure the financing transparently and establish a credible repayment mechanism, smart borrowing can make economic sense.
One option would be to complete the expressway within a defined period and introduce an appropriate tolling or user-charge mechanism, where feasible, to generate revenue dedicated to servicing the financing.
This would turn the road into more than an expenditure. It could become a revenue-generating public asset.
The Opportunity Cost
There is also an opportunity-cost argument that cannot be ignored. If government insists on financing every major infrastructure project from current revenue, every cedi committed to roads is a cedi that cannot be used elsewhere.
Ghana then faces a difficult choice between building infrastructure and financing social programmes, healthcare, education, agriculture, employment initiatives and other interventions. Smart borrowing can spread the cost of a long-lived asset over the period in which citizens and businesses benefit from it.
A household would understand this principle. A family does not necessarily wait until it has accumulated the full cash price before buying a house if it can obtain affordable long-term financing and comfortably service the mortgage. The critical issue is whether the asset is valuable and whether the repayment is sustainable.
Government borrowing should work the same way, not borrowing because money is available, but borrowing because the investment makes economic sense.
The Political Side of the Equation
There is, however, a political danger in turning “no borrowing” into a badge of honour. If the government consistently presents borrowing for infrastructure as inherently irresponsible, it could eventually trap itself politically.
Circumstances may change. A future infrastructure project may genuinely require external financing, and the government may have a compelling economic reason to borrow. But by then, the opposition could simply point to the government’s own rhetoric: You told Ghanaians that you would not borrow.
This is why Ghana needs a more sophisticated public conversation about debt. The country should celebrate responsible borrowing, not merely zero borrowing.
The real measure of fiscal discipline should be whether government borrows at the right price, for the right project, under the right conditions, with a credible repayment plan and measurable economic returns.
For the Accra-Kumasi Expressway, the debate therefore should not be whether Dr. Ato Forson has demonstrated courage by refusing to borrow. It should be whether Ghana can afford the economic and fiscal consequences of taking too long to build one of its most important transport corridors.
There is no pride in borrowing recklessly. But there is equally no pride in refusing smart debt when it can deliver a productive asset faster, generate economic returns and preserve scarce government revenue for the many other obligations competing for it.
