The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has identified the politicisation of board and chief executive appointments as a major weakness in the governanc
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has identified the politicisation of board and chief executive appointments as a major weakness in the governance of Ghana’s State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
In its latest Technical Assistance Report on Ghana’s SOEs, the Fund said that although the country has a framework for structured and merit-based appointments, “in practice appointments remain highly political and centralised in the Presidency.”
The IMF said boards of major SOEs are often dominated by political appointees, with ministers, Members of Parliament and senior party officials frequently occupying board leadership positions.
It specifically cited the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) and Volta River Authority (VRA).
It also raised concerns about the appointment of chief executives, noting that boards have limited influence over the process because CEOs are generally appointed by the President, often in consultation with the relevant minister.
According to the Fund, this arrangement can weaken the independence of boards, accountability and effective oversight of management.
The IMF further identified political influence at the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), describing its committee structure as a “politicised committee ecosystem.”
The governance concerns come amid significant financial risks in the SOE sector.
The Fund said aggregate SOE liabilities stood at about GH¢282 billion in 2024, equivalent to roughly 25% of Ghana’s GDP, with ECG, VRA and COCOBOD among the entities posing significant fiscal risks.
The IMF has recommended that Ghana operationalise a transparent, merit-based system for appointing SOE boards and chief executives, progressively reduce the number of active politicians on boards and increase the participation of independent professionals and sector experts.
The Fund also called for stronger board training, improved financial transparency and better oversight to reduce fiscal risks and improve the performance of state-owned enterprises.
COMMENTS