Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has criticised the newly passed Value for Money Office Act, 2026, describing the legislation as ineffective and lacking the independence needed to fight corruption in public procurement.

In a statement, the Effutu Member of Parliament argued that the structure of the governing board under the new law is heavily influenced by political appointees and therefore undermines the credibility and independence of the proposed office.

According to Afenyo-Markin, the arrangement, which places the board under the direct supervision of the Finance Minister, creates the risk of political interference in procurement oversight.

He maintained that a regulatory institution without operational independence cannot effectively combat corruption and may instead become a mechanism for legitimising questionable procurement decisions.

The Minority Leader disclosed that he raised similar concerns during the Consideration Stage of the bill in Parliament, cautioning that the legislation could introduce what he described as “politically supervised corruption” into the procurement process.

He claimed the concerns raised by the Minority were dismissed by the government despite warnings that the law could create additional bureaucracy rather than genuine accountability reforms.

Afenyo-Markin further argued that countries with credible Value for Money institutions typically provide clear safeguards for independence in appointments, operations and oversight responsibilities, insisting that Ghana’s law falls short of those standards.

He also stated that Ghana already has existing accountability frameworks, including the Public Financial Management Act, the Public Procurement Act and internal audit systems within public institutions.

According to him, the country’s main challenge is not the absence of laws, but weak enforcement and inadequate support for existing institutions.

The Minority Leader urged the government to focus on strengthening current accountability structures instead of establishing what he described as politically controlled institutions.

He warned that the new law could eventually be used to defend future procurement scandals under the guise of regulatory approval.