Ghana’s Ministry of Finance has rejected claims by the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) that it withheld information on the utilisation of the Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA), insisting that it provided the committee with petroleum revenue receipts, distribution data and explanations of the funding arrangements.

The Ministry maintained that the exclusion of ABFA utilisation data from PIAC’s 2026 Semi-Annual Report should not be interpreted as evidence of withheld information.

It also clarified that funds allocated to the Accra-Kumasi Expressway had been ring-fenced for the project.

“The Ministry rejects this claim. It provided PIAC with petroleum receipts and distribution data and explained the arrangements governing the utilisation of ABFA resources, including the ring-fencing of funds for the Accra-Kumasi Expressway.”
Ministry of Finance, Ghana

The response follows a statement issued by PIAC on October 21, 2026, concerning the committee’s 2026 Semi-Annual Report, which suggested that the Ministry had withheld information about how ABFA resources were being used.

Ministry Explains Engagements with PIAC

The Ministry stated that it participated in PIAC’s virtual validation workshop and held in-person meetings with the committee to discuss petroleum revenue management.

It maintained that officials provided information on petroleum revenue receipts, distribution and the arrangements governing ABFA utilisation. The Ministry argued that the omission of utilisation data from PIAC’s report should not be interpreted as evidence that the information had been withheld.

The statement did not clarify why the utilisation data was absent from the report or indicate whether additional information would be submitted to address the issue.

ABFA Funds Ring-Fenced for Accra-Kumasi Expressway

The Ministry defended its decision to concentrate ABFA resources on the Accra-Kumasi Expressway rather than spread petroleum revenues across numerous projects with limited economic impact.

According to the release, the decision followed PIAC’s recommendation to focus petroleum revenue spending on projects capable of delivering substantial economic benefits and value for money.

The Ministry referenced paragraph 572 of the 2026 Mid-Year Fiscal Policy Review, which stated that all funds allocated to the expressway had been ring-fenced.

It further disclosed that the total ABFA realised in 2026 had been ring-fenced for the project and would be used for construction when the contract was awarded.

The statement did not specify the total amount of ABFA revenue realised in 2026 or provide a timeline for awarding the construction contract.

District Assemblies’ Five Per Cent Share Maintained

The Ministry also addressed concerns about the effect of the funding arrangement on Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies.

It explained that the five per cent share of ABFA due to the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) was being paid from the Consolidated Fund.

The Ministry maintained that this arrangement meant the assemblies had not been disadvantaged by the decision to ring-fence ABFA resources for the expressway.

However, the responds did not state the total amount paid to the DACF under this arrangement.

Ministry Pledges Continued Disclosure

The Ministry reaffirmed its commitment to providing PIAC with information required to fulfil its oversight mandate and support public accountability in the management of petroleum revenues.

It stated that relevant details would continue to be published through the Annual Report on Petroleum Funds, Petroleum Reconciliation Reports, Budget Statements and other fiscal reports.

The statement did not outline any additional disclosure measures specifically intended to address PIAC’s concerns.

The disagreement centres on the presentation of ABFA utilisation information in PIAC’s 2026 Semi-Annual Report and the Ministry’s assertion that it supplied the committee with relevant data and explanations.

While the Ministry has defended the expressway funding arrangement and maintained that district assemblies continue to receive their designated share, the details of the omitted utilisation data remain unclear from its response