A fierce public debate is raging over how Ghana’s National Lottery Authority (NLA) uses its “Good Causes” fund, exposing a grey zone between corporate sponsorship and charity that has long blurred accountability in both the public and private sectors.
The row began when investigative outlet, The Fourth Estate, published an exposé alleging that millions of cedis intended for the vulnerable were instead routed into flashy awards ceremonies and high-profile sponsorships. In their report, they indicated that money earmarked for schools, health projects, and social interventions had gone to fund events that seemed far removed from the fund’s statutory mission.
Former NLA boss Sammi Awuku quickly pushed back. To him, The Fourth Estate misunderstood the distinction between the NLA’s charity spending and its marketing activities. Some of the contested payments, he argued, were sponsorships tied to the Caritas Lottery platform, a marketing investment designed to grow revenue, which in turn would increase the pool of money available for Good Causes.
He maintained that not everything is CSR, and some of these were legitimate marketing deals that brought in visibility and helped sustain the revenue flow, insisting that this is different from charity.
But The Fourth Estate disagrees, pointing to the intent of the law governing the Good Causes fund, which is to support the vulnerable. When such funds are used to underwrite elite events with little connection to poor communities, the outlet argues, the spending looks misaligned at best, and abused at worst.
Why the Distinction Matters
The fight isn’t just about semantics. Experts in corporate governance and marketing say this case highlights a much bigger question of how citizens and auditors can tell the difference between a genuine sponsorship deal and a misuse of charity funds.
Corporate sponsorship, according to marketing academics, is essentially a business tool. Companies pay to have their names associated with events or initiatives, seeking visibility, brand equity, or access to customers. Think of a beverage company sponsoring a music festival to boost sales.
CSR, on the other hand, is broader and more mission-driven. It’s when companies voluntarily invest in communities, education, health, or environmental projects without expecting a direct commercial return.
The danger comes when the two are blurred. But analysts say if money ringfenced by law for charity is instead used as marketing spend, especially on elite events, then you have a misapplication.
Red Flags to Detect Abuse of Corporate Sponsorship
Industry experts outline three major warning signs that sponsorship or CSR spending is being abused:
Purpose Misalignment: Funds meant for vulnerable groups are diverted to activities that primarily benefit elites or corporate image. This is the core of The Fourth Estate’s claim.
Opacity and Lack of Proportionality: Large sums are spent on sponsorships with little measurable impact, and without transparent reporting.
Conflicts of Interest: Sponsorship deals that benefit insiders, political associates, or preferred suppliers often signal governance failure.
How to Tell a Genuine Sponsorship from a Bad One
Marketing professionals insist there are practical tests. A credible sponsorship should have clear objectives, such as awareness and fundraising targets set in advance. It must also deliver attributable outcomes. Did it actually raise money or expand reach for the mission?
Moreover, it must show value-for-money and audience fit. Did the event connect with the right communities or potential funders? Industry experts agree that companies can sponsor elite events if they can find their target market at such events for purposes of brand equity.
In addition, every corporate sponsorship must be subject to transparent reporting, with contracts, budgets, and evaluations published. If these tests aren’t met, experts warn, the sponsorship is more likely window-dressing.
The Governance Gap
The NLA dispute reflects a broader problem of weak governance frameworks around public sponsorships and CSR spending in Ghana. Unlike private firms, which answer to shareholders, state agencies manage funds intended for the wider public good.
Oversight experts are calling for reforms, including explicit legal definitions separating marketing/sponsorship from statutory charity obligations.
Also, there should be pre-approval processes and strict procurement rules for sponsorships. And KPIs and ROI frameworks to measure whether sponsorships generated returns or social impact.
Moreover, independent audits that verify whether funds reached intended beneficiaries and public disclosure dashboards for transparency.
The Bigger Picture
The tussle between Awuku and The Fourth Estate is more than a clash of interpretations. It’s a stress test of Ghana’s public accountability system.
For citizens, the question is simple. When money is taken from a lottery to help the poor, is it acceptable for some of that cash to go toward elite awards events, even if the NLA insists it helps marketing?
On the side of policymakers, the challenge is to draw clearer lines between sponsorship and charity and to enforce them with transparency and audits.
In a nutshell, sponsorship can be legitimate marketing. CSR is a social mission. But when public money is involved, agencies must prove every cedi spent served the poor, not the powerful.
