The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has questioned the financial management of the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC) after the agency spent almost all of its GH¢180.95 million income, leaving a negligible surplus despite concerns about inadequate funding for its operations.
The scrutiny raises questions about the Commission’s ability to balance personnel costs with the operational and capital expenditure needed to combat narcotics-related activities across the country.
The Committee’s Chairperson, Ms Abena Osei-Asare, questioned the Commission’s revenue-generation capacity and the proportion of its income absorbed by compensation.
Figures presented to the Committee showed that NACOC received GH¢179 million in government subvention, GH¢598,000 from internally generated funds (IGF) and approximately GH¢1.1 million from other income.
The figures indicate that government funding remains the Commission’s dominant source of income, while internally generated revenue contributes only a small share of its overall resources.
“What exactly do you do? How do you raise your IGF and other incomes, and how come your compensation takes almost everything that you earn?” Ms Osei-Asare asked.
She also expressed concern that expenditure had nearly matched total income, leaving the Commission with virtually no financial surplus.
Responding, the Minister for the Interior, Mr Muntaka Mohammed-Mubarak, said NACOC had struggled for years with inadequate funding, particularly for capital expenditure.
He explained that compensation costs placed considerable pressure on the Commission’s finances, limiting the resources available for other operational needs.
“The main thing goes all into compensation, and all that is a struggle,” he said.
The Minister disclosed that NACOC had approximately 1,300 personnel when he assumed office, with about 1,200 additional personnel undergoing training.
He said the Commission’s resources remained inadequate relative to the number of districts it was expected to serve, highlighting the challenge of financing its workforce while meeting its nationwide operational responsibilities.
On revenue generation, Mr Muntaka cited fees and charges associated with the Commission’s activities, including those involving precursor chemicals, as well as licences for industrial cannabis cultivation.
However, he said the cannabis licensing programme had generated limited returns because of stringent licensing requirements.
“So far, I think we’ve granted only five licences also out of a lot of the applicants,” he said.
The hearing highlighted the financial pressures facing NACOC as it seeks to meet its mandate with limited internally generated revenue and substantial personnel costs.
The Commission’s financial position raises broader questions about the sustainability of its funding model, particularly the balance between recurrent expenditure and the resources available for enforcement, equipment and other operational requirements.
The extent to which additional revenue generation or changes in expenditure allocation could ease these pressures remains a key issue in assessing NACOC’s capacity to deliver on its mandate.
