There is a new political and fiscal debate unfolding over the government’s claim of a leaner government since the number of ministers has been drastically reduced compared to the previous administration.
But Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, believes that the touted lean government might just be a hoax. He believes the government may be masking the rising cost of its appointees’
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah is arguing that recent diplomatic appointments are offsetting savings made at the ministerial level. For months, the government has maintained that it has reduced the size, and by implication, the cost, of central government, pointing in particular to a smaller ministerial list since January 2025.
That narrative, however, is now being challenged on a different front: Ghana’s diplomatic missions. According to figures disclosed through a Right to Information (RTI) request filed by Oppong Nkrumah, a new layer of expenditure has emerged through the appointment of 18 Deputy Ambassadors and Deputy High Commissioners across various foreign missions.
While these roles are not typically highlighted in domestic cost debates, the MP argues they represent a significant and recurring financial commitment that effectively shifts, rather than reduces, public spending.
The Cost Structure Behind Each Appointment
The data provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to the RTI request indicates that each deputy head of mission receives a standardized monthly package in US dollars, including a basic salary and clothing allowance.
On an annual basis, this core pay package alone amounts to roughly US$45,000 per officer. Beyond salary, additional monthly allowances, covering dependents, education support, and climate-related clothing provisions, further increase total cash compensation.
These payments, according to the disclosure, vary depending on family size but are universally applicable across postings.
The state also provides officials with fully furnished residences abroad, chauffeured vehicles with fuel and maintenance, medical coverage for families, domestic staff, and foreign service allowances that differ by country. Relocation and installation costs are also borne by the state.
The Broader Fiscal Argument
Based on his calculations, Oppong Nkrumah estimates that the 18 new diplomatic appointments create an annual fiscal commitment ranging from approximately GH₵9.7 million at the lowest end, covering only basic salaries and fixed allowances, to as high as GH₵25.6 million when non-cash benefits are conservatively valued.
His central argument is not only about the size of the bill, but its fiscal optics. While government has emphasized a reduction in ministerial appointments as evidence of cost-cutting, similar or even higher expenditures appear to have been absorbed into foreign mission budgets.
‘If the people are largely the same, and the cost is higher than that of a minister, can we honestly say the cost of government has come down? Or has it simply been moved from the Cabinet table to our missions abroad?” he quizzed.
A Shift in Spending, Not Necessarily a Reduction
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah argues that the broader question is about how government spending is being categorized.
He maintains that reducing ministerial positions without parallel cuts in political or diplomatic appointments may simply relocate expenditure across different budget lines rather than reduce it outright.
This disclosure, through the RTI request, is likely to fuel renewed scrutiny of public sector compensation structures, particularly in the diplomatic service where cost components are often dispersed across multiple allowances and in-kind benefits rather than consolidated salary figures.
