NPP supporter Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong, popularly known as P.K. Sarpong, has sharply criticized Finance Minister Cassiel Ato Forson’s recent visit to Makola Market, calling it a superficial attempt to engage traders ahead of the national budget presentation.

According to Sarpong, the tour was merely for show, as the budget had already been completed and finalized, rendering the visit ineffective in influencing policy decisions.

“In an ideal situation, such a tour would have been welcoming since it would afford the Minister the opportunity to know the concerns of the market women to inform the minister what to incorporate in the budget.”
Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong

However, he argued that the timing of the visit made it redundant since the budget was set to be presented in just a few days.

Sarpong pointed out that if the government had genuinely intended to incorporate traders’ concerns into the budget, the tour should have been conducted much earlier.

Since the budget had already gone through the drafting, editing, and finalization process, any contributions from the market women would ultimately have no impact on its content.

Their concerns and suggestions, regardless of their relevance, would not be reflected in the final document.

He went on to argue that the visit was nothing more than a symbolic gesture intended to create the illusion of government inclusivity.

Rather than a genuine effort to engage stakeholders in the budgeting process, he viewed it as a carefully orchestrated public relations exercise aimed at shaping public perception.

The timing and nature of the engagement, he suggested, pointed to political posturing rather than meaningful consultation, raising questions about the government’s true commitment to grassroots participation in decision-making. “The cart has been placed before the horse, making a mockery of the concerns these market people would express.”

Drawing comparisons to previous administrations, Sarpong pointed to the approach taken by former Finance Minister Kwadwo Baah Wiredu, emphasizing that his engagements with market traders were more meaningful and well-timed.

Unlike the current situation, Wiredu’s visits to the markets occurred well in advance of the budget drafting process, allowing traders’ concerns to be genuinely considered and incorporated into financial planning.

He highlighted that Wiredu’s approach was not merely symbolic but a crucial step in shaping policy direction. By engaging stakeholders early, he ensured that their voices influenced key economic decisions.

In contrast, he argued that Forson’s visit, coming only after the budget had already been drafted and finalized, served little practical purpose.

Rather than being a genuine consultative effort, the timing of the engagement rendered it largely ceremonial, with no real impact on policy formulation.

Critics Slam the Move as Unproductive

Sarpong’s comments reflect broader concerns about the government’s handling of economic policymaking. Opposition figures and economic analysts have frequently accused the current administration of prioritizing optics over substance, engaging in high-profile but ultimately meaningless engagements with stakeholders.

While the Finance Minister’s visit was officially portrayed as a listening tour, many believe such consultations should be undertaken with genuine intent and proper timing rather than as last-minute media spectacles.

With economic hardship continuing to impact businesses and individuals alike, critics argue that Ghana needs concrete, well-planned policy interventions rather than mere political theatrics.

As the nation eagerly awaits the forthcoming budget presentation, all eyes will be on whether the proposed policies effectively tackle the economic hardships faced by traders and the broader population.

The budget’s ability to provide meaningful relief and stimulate growth in key sectors will be a critical measure of the government’s commitment to addressing prevailing financial struggles.

However, for critics like Sarpong, the recent visit to Makola Market appears to be more of a public relations maneuver than a genuine effort to engage stakeholders in the budgeting process.

To them, the timing of the visit raises concerns about whether the input of traders will have any real influence on fiscal planning or if it was simply a strategic move to create an impression of inclusivity.

Ultimately, the true test lies in the content of the budget itself. Only time will reveal whether the concerns of ordinary Ghanaians, particularly those in the informal sector, will be meaningfully reflected in the government’s economic policies or if their voices were merely acknowledged without real impact.