By Daniel Bampoe
The Mahama administration left nearly GH¢24 billion of its first-quarter 2026 budget unspent while simultaneously missing its revenue target by GH¢2.7 billion, according to official fiscal data from the Ministry of Finance, raising fresh questions about government spending priorities, budget execution and the management of key development programmes.
An analysis of the January-to-March 2026 central government fiscal operations reveals that despite securing parliamentary approval to spend GH¢89.97 billion during the first quarter, the government utilised only GH¢65.97 billion, representing 73.3 percent of the approved budget envelope.
The remaining GH¢24 billion, equivalent to approximately 27 percent of planned expenditure, was left untouched.
The revelation comes at a politically sensitive time, as a public feud continues between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture over claims regarding the release of funds for critical agricultural interventions and food security programmes.
The figures also emerge against the backdrop of repeated assurances by Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson that the government’s fiscal consolidation agenda would be implemented without compromising growth-enhancing investments and social intervention programmes.
While expenditure lagged behind budgeted levels, revenue mobilisation also underperformed. Total revenue and grants amounted to GH¢57.5 billion compared to a projected GH¢60.3 billion, creating a shortfall of GH¢2.7 billion or 4.5 percent below target.
The most significant spending cuts occurred in capital expenditure, the category responsible for financing infrastructure projects and long-term development investments.
Government had programmed GH¢12.6 billion for capital projects during the quarter but spent only GH¢7.3 billion, leaving a gap of GH¢5.3 billion and recording a shortfall of 41.9 percent.
A substantial portion of this underperformance was linked to the government’s flagship “Big Push” infrastructure programme, which fell short of its expenditure target by more than GH¢1 billion.
The largest gap occurred within foreign-financed projects, where only GH¢600 million was spent out of a planned GH¢5.3 billion. This represented an alarming 88.3 percent shortfall and reflected a significant slowdown in project loans and donor-supported financing.
Domestically funded projects performed relatively better, with expenditure reaching GH¢6.7 billion, only 8.4 percent below target.
The government’s statutory funds also experienced substantial funding shortfalls during the quarter. Transfers to other government units, which finance constitutionally mandated funds and agencies, reached GH¢12.3 billion against a programmed GH¢15.2 billion, representing a shortfall of 19.1 percent.
The National Health Insurance Fund received GH¢1.6 billion instead of the GH¢2.7 billion originally budgeted, creating a funding gap of nearly 40 percent.
Similarly, the Ghana Education Trust Fund received GH¢1.6 billion compared to the planned GH¢2.3 billion, representing a shortfall of almost 30 percent.
The Road Fund was also affected, receiving GH¢160.75 million less than expected, while the District Assemblies Common Fund recorded a funding gap of approximately GH¢21.16 million.
Operational spending across ministries and government agencies was similarly constrained. Expenditure on goods and services, which supports the day-to-day running of public institutions, fell sharply by 35.3 percent from a programmed GH¢2 billion to GH¢1.3 billion.
Even employee compensation, traditionally one of the least flexible components of government expenditure, fell below target. Government spent GH¢21.1 billion on compensation against a budgeted GH¢22.7 billion, reflecting a shortfall of 6.8 percent.
Perhaps most striking was the complete absence of spending on social benefits during the first quarter. Although GH¢500 million had been allocated for social benefit payments, none of the funds were disbursed during the period under review.
Government’s debt servicing obligations also fell significantly below target. Loan principal repayments, known as amortisation, amounted to GH¢3 billion against scheduled repayments of GH¢8.8 billion, leaving approximately two-thirds of planned repayments outstanding.
Interest payments similarly underperformed. Government paid GH¢17.2 billion in interest obligations compared to a programmed GH¢21.7 billion, creating a shortfall of 20.4 percent.
The largest discrepancy occurred within external debt servicing. Out of a planned external interest payment obligation of GH¢3 billion, government paid only GH¢300 million, leaving more than 91 percent unpaid during the quarter.
Domestic interest payments, however, remained largely on track at GH¢17 billion.\
Analysts remain uncertain whether the significant gap in debt servicing reflects exchange rate gains, restructuring arrangements, delayed payments or deliberate fiscal management decisions. However, available data from the Bank of Ghana indicate that the cedi remained relatively stable during the period, suggesting exchange rate movements may not fully explain the shortfall.
On the revenue side, domestic taxes on goods and services accounted for the largest underperformance. Collections fell GH¢2.6 billion below target, representing a 13.1 percent shortfall. Value Added Tax alone contributed approximately GH¢800 million to the revenue gap.
Taxes on international trade also disappointed, generating GH¢6.2 billion against an expected GH¢7.2 billion, a decline attributed largely to weaker import receipts and reduced trade activity.
Non-tax revenue, including government fees, dividends and internally generated funds, also missed expectations. Collections reached GH¢6.2 billion compared to a target of GH¢7.5 billion, representing a 17.7 percent shortfall.
Oil revenues emerged as the weakest-performing category. Government realised only GH¢2.8 billion from the petroleum sector against a programmed GH¢4.5 billion, creating a gap of 37.6 percent.
Compounding the challenges, none of the projected GH¢600 million in grants materialised during the quarter.
Not all revenue indicators were negative, however. Taxes on income and property exceeded expectations, generating GH¢24.9 billion compared to the target of GH¢24.4 billion. Corporate income taxes were particularly strong, outperforming projections by 7 percent and helping to offset some of the revenue losses recorded elsewhere.
The fiscal data have intensified an ongoing public dispute between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture over the actual release of budgetary resources.
The Finance Ministry insists that it has released more than GH¢1.67 billion to the agriculture sector, representing approximately 85 percent of the ministry’s allocation for goods, services and capital expenditure. It argues that budget execution rates remain strong and that all requests, except those involving the National Food Buffer Stock Company, were initiated and processed through the government’s financial management system under standard procedures.
However, the Agriculture Ministry has publicly rejected those claims, accusing the Finance Ministry of manipulating figures and misleading the public about the actual level of support provided to critical food production programmes.
According to the Agriculture Ministry, official budget allotment documents issued in February capped first-half spending at GH¢910 million, with actual authorised spending between January and June limited to approximately GH¢453 million.
The ministry further detailed allocations approved for flagship programmes, including GH¢172.5 million for Farmer Service Centres, GH¢77.3 million for fertiliser and certified seed programmes, GH¢36.75 million for the Nkoko Nkitinkiti initiative, GH¢30 million for the National Food Buffer Stock Company, GH¢26.25 million for irrigation infrastructure and GH¢4.5 million for the Feed Ghana Programme.
Officials insist they have received no revised allotment or supplementary authorisation that would justify the Finance Ministry’s claim that over GH¢1.6 billion has been released.
The dispute has exposed deeper concerns about budget transparency, expenditure tracking and the actual pace of government programme implementation.
