BY Daniel Bampoe
A growing body of analysis suggests that the National Democratic Congress government’s flagship infrastructure programme—the “Big Push”—may be serving not only as a development agenda but also as a calculated political strategy aimed at consolidating influence ahead of future elections.
At the centre of this debate is the heavy prioritisation of road infrastructure under President John Dramani Mahama’s administration, with billions of cedis committed to projects under the Ministry of Roads and Highways led by Kwame Governs Agbodza.
Critics and political observers argue that this concentrated investment, while may be delivering visible infrastructure, raises questions about broader national priorities and the motivations behind resource allocation.
A Concentrated Focus On Roads
The “Big Push” programme has rapidly emerged as one of the government’s most visible policy initiatives, with road construction and rehabilitation projects dominating public spending in recent months.
Investigations by The Fourth Estate indicate that over 100 road contracts—valued at close to GH₵100 billion—have been awarded within a short timeframe, with a significant portion executed through sole sourcing and restricted tendering.
While government officials maintain that this reflects urgency in addressing the deteriorating road network, critics argue that the scale and speed of execution point to a deliberate prioritisation of projects capable of delivering immediate and visible political impact.
Uneven Resource Allocation?
Analysts say the speed at which the Roads Ministry secures financial approvals stands in contrast to the experience of other sectors.
According to multiple accounts, the Ministry receives Commitment Authorisations from the Finance Ministry—headed by Cassiel Ato Forson—within unusually short timeframes, sometimes within 24 hours.
By comparison, other ministries reportedly face delays stretching into weeks or months before receiving similar approvals, raising concerns about whether public resources are being equitably distributed across sectors such as health, education, and social services.
The Politics Behind Infrastructure
Political observers have linked the government’s aggressive road infrastructure drive to broader electoral strategy.
Polling trends and political modelling, often associated with analysts like Mussa Dankwa, have consistently highlighted infrastructure delivery—particularly roads—as a key determinant of voter behaviour in Ghana.
This has led to speculation that the Big Push programme is not merely an infrastructure initiative but a targeted political investment designed to yield electoral dividends in the medium term.
Under this interpretation, roads are not only being built to address developmental needs but also to shape voter perception, reinforce party strongholds, and create tangible evidence of government performance ahead of future contests.
Contractors, Contracts And Controversy
The debate over strategy has been intensified by concerns surrounding procurement practices and contractor selection.
The Fourth Estate’s findings reveal that a large share of contracts under the Big Push programme were awarded without competitive tendering, raising questions about value for money and transparency.
Additional concerns have emerged about the structure of some contracts, with suggestions that they may include logistical provisions such as vehicles and equipment. Critics argue that such inclusions, if not properly justified, could blur the line between project execution and ancillary benefits tied to political operations.
Although these claims remain the subject of ongoing scrutiny, they have contributed to a perception that the programme’s financial architecture may extend beyond straightforward infrastructure delivery.
Government Justification: Urgency And Impact
Government officials have consistently defended the Big Push approach, arguing that the road infrastructure deficit requires urgent and decisive action.
They maintain that delays associated with competitive procurement processes would significantly slow down project delivery, undermining the programme’s effectiveness.
Officials also insist that all contracts were awarded within the legal framework, with approvals from the Public Procurement Authority and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure value for money.
Strategic Investment or Selective Spending?
Despite these assurances, critics argue that the concentration of resources in one sector—particularly one with high political visibility—raises important questions about governance priorities.
They point out that while roads are essential, other sectors critical to long-term development may be receiving comparatively less attention, potentially creating imbalances in national development outcomes.
The broader concern, analysts say, is whether public spending decisions are being guided primarily by national development needs or by political calculations aimed at future electoral advantage.
Looking Ahead To 2028
As the political landscape gradually shifts towards the next electoral cycle, the Big Push programme is increasingly being viewed through a strategic lens.
Some observers suggest that the collaboration between key figures within the administration could shape internal party dynamics ahead of the 2028 elections, particularly within the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC).
While such claims remain speculative, they underscore the intersection between governance and politics—where infrastructure, funding decisions, and electoral strategy often converge.
A Balancing Act Between Development And Trust
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Big Push programme highlights a fundamental tension in governance: the need to deliver visible development outcomes while maintaining transparency, accountability, and public trust.
For many Ghanaians, the issue is not whether roads should be built—but how they are funded, who benefits from the contracts, and whether the process reflects fairness and value for money.
