The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Damongo, Samuel Abu Jinapor, has sharply criticised the Mahama administration over what he desc
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for Damongo, Samuel Abu Jinapor, has sharply criticised the Mahama administration over what he describes as the failure to translate its flagship 24-hour economy policy into tangible job creation nearly one year after assuming office, arguing that the policy exists more in theory than in practice.
Speaking on the floor of Parliament during debates on the 24-Hour Economy Authority Bill, 2025, Abu Jinapor contended that despite extensive campaign messaging around a three-shift, eight-hour work system, there is little evidence that state institutions have adopted round-the-clock operations.
According to him, the Office of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, is the only public institution operating a form of shift system, and even that arrangement, he argued, falls short of a full 24-hour work cycle.
“I want to submit forcefully that the only job that has people working three shifts is the Office of the Speaker. Even that is not 24 hours, not an eight-hour shift,” Abu Jinapor told the House, describing the situation as a stark contrast to the bold promises made during the 2024 election campaign.
Campaign Promise Versus Reality
The 24-hour economy was a centrepiece of President John Dramani Mahama’s campaign, built around a ‘1-3-3’ model—one job, three workers, and three shifts—to expand employment opportunities, particularly for unemployed youth.
The policy was marketed as a transformative strategy that would ensure continuous economic activity across both public and private sectors.
However, 14 months into the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration, Abu Jinapor argued that the promised shift system has not been implemented across ministries, departments, and agencies.
He said the absence of visible, functioning 24-hour operations undermines government claims that the policy is already delivering jobs.
“Fourteen months into this administration, the flagship programme of a 24-hour economy has not materialised. The unemployed youth were promised three-shift jobs, yet today there is nothing to show for it,” he stated.
Opposition To New Authority
The Damongo MP also rejected the rationale behind establishing a new 24-Hour Economy Authority, warning that it would duplicate the work of existing institutions and divert attention from direct job creation.
He pointed specifically to the Ghana Export Promotion Authority (GEPA), which he said already has a clear mandate to promote exports and support economic expansion.
“You do not need another authority to promote exports and create a 24-hour economy. We already have GEPA, fully established and mandated to do exactly that,” he argued.
Abu Jinapor further suggested that the proposed authority risks becoming an administrative structure that benefits a few political appointees rather than the wider population of unemployed youth.
Accusations Of Deception
In strong language, the MP accused the government of using the Bill as a tactic to delay accountability and manage public expectations rather than deliver substantive results.
“Mr. Speaker, this is another gimmick. Another deception. It is meant to buy time and give false hope to the unemployed youth,” he said, adding that the authority would merely create positions for a Chief Executive, deputies, and managers without addressing widespread unemployment.
According to him, the frustrations of jobless young Ghanaians—from Bolgatanga to Keta, Bosome Freho, and across the country—are deepening as promises continue without concrete outcomes.
“Ghanaians are tired of hope; they want action. Young men and women cannot find jobs. One year down the line, instead of implementing the 24-hour economy, we are being asked to create another bureaucracy,” he added.
Broader Parliamentary Debate
Abu Jinapor’s comments form part of a wider and often heated parliamentary debate on the 24-Hour Economy Authority Bill, with the Minority questioning its feasibility, cost implications, and relevance, while the Majority maintains that the Bill provides the necessary legal framework to operationalise the policy.
COMMENTS