There is a growing debate over the National Identification Authority’s (NIA) push for mandatory biometric verification across all transactions.
Amid the NIA’s push for a blanket verification for all transactions, analyst Alfred Appiah warns that a blanket approach could create unnecessary friction for ordinary citizens while adding little real security value.
In his analysis seen by The High Street Journal, Alfred Appiah illustrates his concern with a simple, everyday experience that many Ghanaians can relate to, which is withdrawing GHS500 from a mobile money vendor.
In such a transaction, the user already enters a PIN and approves the withdrawal, with the MoMo account linked to the Ghana Card. Requiring an additional live biometric check, such as fingerprint scanning or facial recognition, he argues, would be excessive.
“To withdraw just 500 cedis, I would have to place my fingers on a scanner or have my face verified through software. That would be absurd. In my view, live biometric verification adds no real value to this type of transaction,” he recounted.
At the heart of his argument is the idea that identity verification should be risk-based, not one-size-fits-all. According to him, low-value, low-risk transactions are already protected by PINs and existing safeguards. Such low-risk and low-value transactions, he says, do not justify the cost and inconvenience of live biometric verification.
However, for high-value transactions, such as withdrawing GHS25,000, additional checks could be reasonable and even necessary.
Alfred Appiah adds a different dimension to his argument that when policy directives lack nuance and become blanket “must-do” requirements, the motivation may shift away from security toward revenue generation.
He emphasizes that live biometric verification is not free. User agencies, fintech companies, and service providers must pay to access NIA verification services. The more verification steps required, the more revenue is generated, regardless of whether those checks add meaningful protection.
“When policy directives are not nuanced and become blanket “must-do” requirements, one angle to consider is revenue generation. Live verification is not free for user agencies or service providers. More verification equals more revenue generated, even if it adds no value to the majority of cash withdrawal transactions,” he indicated.
This means that ordinary users, whom Appiah describes as “Papa Kwasi and Auntie Akosua,” will bear the burden of delays, inconvenience, and potentially higher service costs.
However, he argues, sophisticated fraudsters and large-scale looters often find ways to bypass such systems entirely.
The case of the analyst is not an outright rejection of biometric verification. Instead, he calls for what can be described as a smart regulation, where security measures are matched to the level of risk involved.
A rigid system that treats every transaction as equally dangerous, he suggests, risks undermining efficiency, financial inclusion, and public trust.
