After Parliament passed the $360 million World Bank facility early this month, public policy think tank IMANI Africa is raising alarm over what it describes as a growing trend of unclear government communication.
The facility, which forms part of the Second Resilient Recovery Development Policy Financing programme, was described by the government as “budgetary support” meant to clear arrears owed to road contractors.
In addition, IMANI further raises questions about the objective of the facility as communicated to the cabinet and parliament, pointing out discrepancies in the communication.
The Minority in Parliament had also earlier raised eyebrows over inconsistencies in the loan’s purpose. While the Cabinet reportedly approved the funds solely for clearing arrears to contractors, the version presented to Parliament included other government payments.
This discrepancy, coupled with the government’s refusal to label the transaction a loan until pressed, is what IMANI says feeds the perception of backdoor liabilities and debt reclassifications.
For IMANI, the real issue here isn’t about the loan itself but about the classification and the purpose, which all center around the language and communication.
In a commentary about the development, the public policy think tank criticizes the government’s failure to explicitly call the facility what it is, a loan, berating the government officials for using strategic ambiguity that could erode public trust in fiscal governance.
“The Real Issue is public accountability, not the loan itself. This isn’t about the loan’s terms or even the economic wisdom of using it for arrears. This is about political framing and transparency in communication. The core concerns are language matters. Referring to a concessional loan as simply “financing” or “budget support”, without openly stating that it adds to public debt, invites suspicion,” the think tank argued.
Although the Ministry of Finance later clarified that the facility is indeed a loan and will be used to pay contractor arrears, IMANI insists that such missteps are not trivial.
“Transparency isn’t just about publishing numbers; it’s also about honest, unambiguous framing,” the think tank stressed.
In its view, Ghana cannot afford a repeat of the hidden debts and off-budget liabilities that once shook its credibility with investors and citizens alike.
“The backlash over the $360 million facility was avoidable,” IMANI noted, adding that “It’s a case of how unclear communication and language can erode trust, even when the economic decision is defensible.”
For IMANI, as the country battles to restore confidence in its public finance system, it is cautioning the government that fiscal credibility isn’t just about what governments borrow, it’s also about how they say it.
