The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has exposed the National Democratic Congress government’s decision to maintain its GH¢2-per-litre diesel price intervention, warning that what is being presented to motorists as relief could instead be laying the foundation for another costly energy-sector debt crisis.
In a statement issued on September 11, 2026, the NPP Policy Committee on Energy accused the government of creating what it described as a “GH¢600 million monthly blackhole” by suspending statutory margins owed to key institutions and operators in the downstream petroleum sector while continuing to collect taxes and levies on petroleum products.
The Committee argued that the intervention has not actually been financed through government revenue or a conventional subsidy. Rather, it claims, the government has suspended portions of the margins that ordinarily fund operations within the petroleum downstream sector, effectively shifting the financial burden from the state’s immediate budget to institutions that provide critical petroleum infrastructure and services.
According to the NPP, the suspended margins amount to more than GH¢500 million every month and approach GH¢683 million when the implied support to the Unified Petroleum Price Fund (UPPF) is included.
The party estimates that GH¢2.076 billion had already been withheld from the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company (BOST), distributors, fuel markers and the UPPF during April, May, August and September 2026. It contends that the money has not been replaced and could ultimately manifest as supplier arrears, deferred maintenance, institutional borrowing and, eventually, additional public debt.
‘Relief Today, Debt tomorrow’
At the heart of the NPP’s criticism is the argument that the government may be giving consumers temporary relief at the expense of the financial health of the petroleum industry.
The party says suspending the BOST margin does not eliminate BOST’s financial obligations. Storage facilities, pipelines, depots and other strategic infrastructure still have to be maintained and operated. Similarly, distributors and fuel-marking companies continue to perform their functions, while the UPPF remains necessary to maintain uniform petroleum prices across the country.
The Committee therefore argues that removing the revenue without removing the obligations merely pushes the financial pressure elsewhere.
“A margin suspended today becomes arrears tomorrow and public debt the day after,” the statement warned, while claiming that indebtedness is already building at the National Petroleum Authority as a result of the approach.
How The GH¢2 intervention Is Being Financed
The NPP provided a breakdown of the components it says are being suspended to achieve the GH¢2-per-litre diesel reduction.
It estimates that GH¢0.12 per litre represents the BOST margin, GH¢0.26 the Primary Distribution Margin, GH¢0.09 the fuel-marking margin and GH¢1.53 the UPPF-related component.
Together, these components amount to GH¢2 per litre and, based on estimated monthly diesel consumption of approximately 259.56 million litres, translate into an estimated GH¢519.12 million monthly cost.
When the UPPF-related implications are taken into account, the Committee puts the broader monthly burden at approximately GH¢683 million.
The NPP insists that these amounts should not be dismissed simply because they do not appear as conventional expenditure from the Consolidated Fund.
Fuel Prices Could Still Breach GH¢18
The opposition party is also questioning whether the intervention is delivering sufficient value to consumers given the continuing deterioration in international oil-market conditions.
It says diesel prices were already in the GH¢17-plus range at major oil marketing companies and argues that, after accounting for a 4.85 percent increase in international diesel prices and a 0.88 percent depreciation of the cedi in the relevant pricing window, diesel could rise above GH¢18 per litre even with the GH¢2 intervention maintained.
Without the intervention, the underlying pump price could, according to the Committee’s calculation, move beyond GH¢20 per litre.
This, the NPP argues, creates a difficult policy dilemma for the government. Maintaining the intervention would continue accumulating liabilities within the downstream petroleum sector, while withdrawing it would expose consumers to both international price increases and the restoration of the suspended GH¢2 margin.
The Committee describes this as an emerging “fuel subsidy trap”.
Its mechanical illustration estimates that one month of the GH¢2 intervention represents GH¢519 million in suspended margins, rising to GH¢1.04 billion after two months, GH¢1.56 billion after three months, GH¢3.11 billion after six months and GH¢6.23 billion after a year. When the wider UPPF-related burden is included, the corresponding figures rise to GH¢683 million, GH¢1.37 billion, GH¢2.05 billion, GH¢4.10 billion and GH¢8.19 billion respectively.
The party stressed, however, that the six- and 12-month figures are mechanical illustrations rather than forecasts.
NPP Says Ghana Has Seen This Movie Before
The opposition has framed its criticism against the backdrop of the previous petroleum-sector interventions and the country’s history of accumulating energy-related liabilities.
The Committee says a previous diesel intervention was estimated at approximately GH¢800 million over two months, while a petrol intervention cost about GH¢99.4 million for one month at GH¢0.36 per litre.
Those interventions eventually expired, but the government later returned to another GH¢2 diesel intervention.
The NPP argues that if the current programme extends into a third month, the cumulative value of successive petroleum price interventions could approach GH¢2.5 billion. It is therefore demanding that government disclose the full aggregate cost rather than presenting the policy simply as GH¢2-per-litre relief.
Opposition Proposes Taxes Instead Of Margins
Rather than suspending industry margins, the NPP wants the government to temporarily reduce or suspend taxes and levies imposed on petroleum products during the current international oil-market crisis.
The Committee points specifically to the Energy Sector Shortfall and Debt Repayment Levy, which it says currently contributes GH¢1.93 to every litre of diesel following a GH¢1-per-litre increase imposed in 2025.
According to the NPP, the levy is almost equivalent to the GH¢2 that government is currently achieving through suspended margins.
The party argues that suspending taxes would make the cost of the relief a direct government fiscal decision rather than an obligation that is effectively hidden within state institutions and downstream operators.
It says such an approach would also allow BOST, distributors, fuel-marking companies, Primary Distribution Margin operators and the UPPF to continue receiving the revenue required to perform their respective functions.
NPP Points To An Oil-revenue Windfall
The opposition has further challenged the government’s justification for maintaining petroleum taxes by pointing to increased crude oil prices and higher-than-projected oil production.
The 2026 Budget, according to the Committee, was based on a crude oil benchmark price of US$76.22 per barrel and projected production of 37.95 million barrels, equivalent to approximately 103,959.73 barrels per day.
The NPP says the Middle East crisis subsequently pushed crude as high as US$110 per barrel, with the average for the year around US$89, while production has also outperformed the budget projection.
Based on these developments, the Committee estimates that government has generated an additional GH¢8 billion to GH¢9 billion in petroleum revenue—an amount it says is roughly six times the debt it claims has been imposed on the petroleum downstream sector.
The party consequently argues that government has sufficient fiscal space to sacrifice part of its tax revenue temporarily without significantly undermining the public finances.
‘Government Cannot Subsidise A War It Does Not Control’
The NPP’s broader argument is that Ghana cannot indefinitely insulate domestic fuel consumers from an international geopolitical crisis over which the country has no control.
The Committee noted that Ghana did not start the conflict in the Middle East and cannot determine when it will end. Neither can the government reopen the Strait of Hormuz, control international Brent crude prices or determine global refinery margins.
It therefore questioned how long the government intends to maintain the current intervention if the crisis persists.
“If the crisis lasts another month,” the Committee asks, “does Government extend the GH¢2? If it lasts three months, or six?”
It also raises the possibility of even larger interventions should crude prices rise substantially above US$100 per barrel.
A Warning Over Qnother Energy-Sector Debt Crisis
The NPP’s latest intervention ultimately goes beyond the immediate price of diesel.
Its central warning is that Ghana could once again end up dealing with accumulated energy-sector liabilities if government continues financing consumer relief by withholding revenues that downstream institutions need to operate.
The party is therefore demanding that the government restore the suspended statutory margins, publish the full cost of the intervention and suspend selected taxes and levies on petroleum products for the duration of the international crisis.
The statement was signed by Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, MP and Chairman of the NPP Policy Co-ordination Committee. The listed members and spokespersons include George Kwame Aboagye, Kwadwo Nsafoah Poku, Andrew Agyepa Mercer and Collins Adomako Mensah.
