By Issah Olegor
A major procurement controversy is engulfing the government of President John Mahama following explosive revelations that billions of cedis in road contracts under the flagship “Big Push” programme were awarded without competitive tendering, raising serious questions about transparency, contractor selection, and adherence to procurement laws.
At the centre of the storm is an investigation by The Fourth Estate, a project of the Media Foundation for West Africa, which uncovered that 107 road contracts valued at close to GH₵100 billion—approximately $7 billion—were awarded between August 2025 and February 2026.
Out of these, 81 contracts—representing about 76 percent—were awarded through sole sourcing, while the remaining 26 were procured through restricted tendering, ruling out competitive tendering.
Crucially, not a single contract was subjected to open competitive tendering, a key requirement for ensuring fairness and value for money in public procurement.
Contracts, Contractors And Questions
The findings, drawn directly from the Ministry of Roads and Highways’ own Big Push Master Project Register, have triggered intense scrutiny not only of the procurement process but also of the contractors who benefited from the deals.
Concerns have been raised that several of the contracts may have gone to politically connected individuals, party executives, and financiers, although full ownership details of all beneficiary firms remain under public scrutiny.
The absence of competitive bidding has made it difficult to independently verify whether contracts were awarded based on merit or connections.
Even more troubling are revelations about the capacity of some of the firms involved.
According to Executive Director of the Media Foundation for West Africa, Sulemana Braimah, some companies awarded sole-sourced contracts under the programme have extremely limited staff strength.
“One of the companies has four workers; another has just one,” he disclosed, citing official records from the Ministry.
In another instance, a company awarded a contract was reportedly incorporated only in January 2025—just months before receiving a major government deal—raising further concerns about due diligence and contractor competence.
The “Big Push” Data And What It Shows
The controversy deepened after The Fourth Estate detailed how it obtained the data.
According to the investigators, the information was not fabricated but extracted directly from government records after an initial refusal under the Right to Information Act, which they successfully challenged.
The dataset showed that:115 projects were listed in the master register, 8 were ongoing and excluded from analysis, 107 contracts had been signed, 81 were sole-source, 26 were awarded through restricted tendering and 0 were awarded through competitive tendering.
The award dates of these contracts span from August 2025 to February 2026, firmly placing them within the tenure of the current administration.
Sunday Contracts And Data Inconsistencies
One of the most controversial aspects of the revelations is the discovery of contract award dates that raise procedural questions.
Investigators pointed out that some projects classified by the government as “inherited” were, in fact, awarded in 2025. In one striking example, a contract listed as inherited carried an award date of 12 October 2025—a Sunday.
While technically not illegal, critics argue that such irregularities raise questions about internal controls and documentation accuracy, particularly when tied to large-scale public spending.
Government Response And Counterclaims
The Ministry of Roads and Highways has strongly disputed the interpretation of the findings. The Minister Kwame Governs Agbodza dismissed suggestions that contractors lacked capacity, stating that claims about firms having minimal staff based on SSNIT records were misleading, as many workers are engaged on project sites beyond formal payroll documentation.
He also rejected the scale of sole sourcing reported, insisting that only about 44 percent of major contracts under the Big Push programme were sole-sourced, contrary to the figures presented by The Fourth Estate.
Additionally, the Ministry attempted to distinguish between “new” projects and those inherited from previous administrations, arguing that some contracts counted in the report should not be attributed to the current government.
However, these explanations have been challenged by investigators, who insist that the data provided by the Ministry itself contradicts those claims.
“Hollow” Response And Escalating Criticism
Sulemana Braimah described the Ministry’s response as “hollow,” arguing that it failed to address the substance of the findings.
“We basically put out what the Roads Ministry itself gave us,” he said, emphasizing that the report was grounded in official data and further verified through other agencies, including the Ghana Highways Authority.
According to him, attempts by the Ministry to downplay the issue, including publishing alternative figures, only exposed inconsistencies in its own records.
Political Promises vs Governing Reality
The controversy has taken on added significance because of the NDC’s long-standing position on sole sourcing.
While in opposition, party figures—including Sammy Gyamfi—had strongly criticised the practice, describing it as a major avenue for corruption and inflated contracts.
The party’s 2024 manifesto and campaign messaging emphasized the need to end the abuse of sole sourcing and enforce strict compliance with procurement laws.
Deputy Roads Minister Alhassan Suhuyini reaffirmed this position during the Newsfile discussion, stating that the NDC remains committed to ending the abuse of sole sourcing and improving transparency in public procurement.
However, critics argue that the current situation represents a stark contradiction between those promises and actual practice in government.
Urgency vs Transparency Debate
Government officials have justified the procurement approach on grounds of urgency, citing the poor state of roads as a national concern that requires immediate intervention.
They argue that competitive tendering processes can take months or even years, potentially delaying critical infrastructure projects. Sole sourcing, they maintain, was used within the legal framework and approved by the Public Procurement Authority.
Yet, governance experts insist that urgency must not come at the expense of accountability, warning that bypassing competitive tendering on such a large scale risks inflating costs and undermining public trust.
A Growing Credibility Crisis
With contracts worth billions of cedis awarded in a short period, and with questions surrounding contractor capacity, procurement methods, and data inconsistencies, the Big Push programme is now at the centre of a growing credibility crisis.
For many Ghanaians, the issue is no longer just about roads—it is about trust, governance, and whether public resources are being managed in the national interest.
