It is emerging that Ghanaians are effectively paying for streetlights through three different funding channels, yet many streets remain dark.
This was revealed by policy analyst Sitsofe Mensah of IMANI Africa, who has raised concerns about procurement practices, public spending and accountability in the country’s public lighting system.
In a comment on Ghana’s street lighting situation, Sitsofe Mensah identified three channels through which citizens contribute to public lighting: electricity bills, government expenditure and borrowing, and deductions from the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF).
His argument centres on whether these multiple funding streams are delivering value for money, particularly when significant amounts are committed to streetlight projects without adequate systems to track deliveries and installations.
Three Channels, One Public Lighting System
First, Sitsofe Mensah cited the 3% Public Lighting Levy under the Energy Sector Levies Act (ESLA), which he said generated GH¢575.3 million in 2025 through electricity bills paid by consumers.
Second, he pointed to approximately GH¢8 billion in contracts awarded by the Ministry of Energy between 2023 and 2025, including 78 contracts worth GH¢7.5 billion in 2024 alone. He also cited $33 million in foreign loans and grants associated with public lighting.
Third, he said the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund deducts funds at source from allocations due to Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) to finance centrally procured streetlights.
This arrangement, he argued, means citizens contribute through electricity bills, public expenditure and borrowing, and deductions from funds intended for local development. The concern is whether the different streams are properly coordinated and transparently accounted for.
Procurement Loopholes Raise Accountability Concerns
The analyst cited recurring concerns in Auditor-General reports, including sole-source contracts, contract variations, missing Store Receipt Vouchers (SRVs), unverified deliveries and the absence of GPS-tagged asset tracking.
These weaknesses can make it difficult to establish whether equipment paid for has been delivered, where streetlights have been installed and whether they are operational.
Without a reliable asset register, authorities may struggle to reconcile contract payments with actual deliveries and functioning streetlights, increasing the risk of waste, poor oversight and possible procurement abuse.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
The concerns raise questions about how public lighting funds are managed and why substantial expenditure does not always translate into visible results for communities.
The analyst criticised elected officials and their appointees for what he sees as a lack of appetite to address the problem. Resolving the concerns requires a consolidated account of public lighting funds, transparent contract disclosures, independently verified deliveries and a GPS-based register showing the location and operational status of installed streetlights.
The challenge is not how much it spends on streetlights, but whether every cedi collected or borrowed can be traced to a functioning public asset.
Until that accountability gap is addressed, electricity consumers and taxpayers will continue to question why they are paying for public lighting while many streets remain dark.
