The controversy surrounding the funding of the Agenda 111 hospital projects has sparked a heated debate between the current administration and key figures involved in its planning.

Dr. Anthony Nsiah Asare, the Former Presidential Advisor on Health, has refuted claims that the project lacks a dedicated funding source.

In a recent statement, Dr. Nsiah Asare provided a detailed breakdown of the funding mechanisms, emphasizing that either the Health Minister has not reviewed the documents or the government is deliberately attempting to discredit the project.

“Myself plus the consultants, we met the transition committee on the presidency. Honorable Kyei Mensah Bonsu and Honorable, Dr. Omane Boamah were the co-chairs. Honorable Agboddza was also there [when] we met them.”
Dr. Anthony Nsiah Asare Former Presidential Advisor on Health

He explained that during these meetings, the team provided reports and clarifications upon request. The government then decided that the hospitals, including the two zonal psychiatric hospitals, would be funded through the country’s revenue sources.

Funding Sources for Agenda 111

According to Dr. Nsiah Asare, the project had well-defined funding sources, contrary to claims made by the Mahama government. He outlined these sources, particularly highlighting the role of the Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA).

“The major source of revenue, which His Excellency the President, said he doesn’t know is in the handing-over notes.”
Dr. Anthony Nsiah Asare Former Presidential Advisor on Health

He further elaborated that 20% of the 70% oil revenue allocated to the government was meant to fund Agenda 111.

This means that as long as oil revenue was generated, a portion was earmarked for the Agenda 111 projects. Dr. Nsiah Asare expressed frustration that this information was clearly stated in the transition documents but seemed to be ignored by the current administration.

Fact-Checking the Funding Claims

Dr. Nsiah Asare questioned whether the government had overlooked or deliberately ignored these funding sources.

He recalled that even before the State of the Nation Address, the President had met with religious leaders and gave out an inaccurate figure. He said;

“His Excellency the President [Mahama], when he met the clergy before the State of the Nation Address, said that we need GHS 1.7 bilion to complete Agenda 111. And I was asking myself, where from this figure?”
“When we were writing the handover notes, we started preparing it in October 2024. It was GHS 1.407 billion. As at the end of 31st December 2024, we had made some payments. So, it’s GHS 1.377 billion and not GHS 1.7 billion.’’
Dr. Anthony Nsiah Asare Former Presidential Advisor on Health

Following these conflicting claims, independent fact-checking efforts have been conducted to verify whether Agenda 111 had a dedicated funding source.

Based on the checks, a research journalist Isaac Kofi Ageyi remarked that the President’s statement was misleading because multiple budget documents confirmed the existence of funding allocations for Agenda 111.

The controversy surrounding the funding of Agenda 111 is not just a matter of conflicting narratives—it is a test of accountability, transparency, and the integrity of governance.

Dr. Nsiah Asare’s revelations expose a glaring contradiction in the government’s claims, raising serious questions about whether the project is being deliberately discredited for political reasons or whether due diligence has simply been neglected.

The existence of well-documented funding sources, as confirmed by independent fact-checkers, underscores the need for policymakers to engage with facts rather than political rhetoric.

At stake is not just a healthcare infrastructure project, but the trust of the Ghanaian people. If government leaders cannot acknowledge verifiable financial allocations in official documents, what does this say about commitment to national development? The debate over Agenda 111 is more than just a disagreement over numbers—it is a battle for credibility. And in that battle, the truth must always prevail.