The Ghanaian political landscape has been stirred by a contentious debate surrounding the stalled Tamale-Walewale Road Project. Roads and Highways Minister Kwame Agbodza sparked the controversy by alleging that only a negligible 1% of work had been completed on the project despite a substantial $30 million advance payment to the contractor. He further asserted that he was actively pursuing a refund of the disbursed funds. This claim has been vehemently refuted by the parliamentary Minority, who accuse the Minister of distorting facts for political gain. They contend that the Minister’s statements are not only misleading but also politically motivated, designed to create a negative perception of the previous administration’s handling of the project. The Minority insists that the Minister is well aware of the project’s legitimate procurement process, the designated purpose of the advance payment, and the ongoing international legal arbitration addressing the project’s funding challenges.
At the heart of the dispute lies the nature and purpose of the $29.65 million advance payment. The Minister’s portrayal suggests a misappropriation of funds, implying that the payment should have resulted in visible progress on the road itself. The Minority, however, argues that the payment was strictly for mobilization purposes, a standard practice in international construction contracts governed by the FIDIC Yellow Book. This internationally recognized set of contract terms allows for advance payments to enable contractors to undertake essential preparatory work before commencing major construction activities. These preparatory works include, but are not limited to, design refinement, mobilization of necessary equipment, establishment of site offices, procurement of construction materials, and initial civil works. The Minority emphasizes that the payment was not intended for actual road construction, thereby challenging the Minister’s implication of inactivity or misallocation of funds.
Further solidifying their argument, the Minority points to the existence of a valid Advance Payment Guarantee issued by an Indian bank, with Stanbic Bank Ghana serving as the local correspondent. This guarantee acts as a financial safeguard, ensuring that the advanced funds are protected and can be recovered should the contractor fail to fulfill their contractual obligations. This detail underscores the Minority’s assertion that the payment was handled responsibly and in accordance with established financial procedures. They maintain that the funds were utilized specifically for the aforementioned preparatory tasks, directly contradicting the Minister’s claim of minimal progress. The Minority frames the Minister’s statements as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and create a false narrative of mismanagement under the previous administration.
The crux of the project’s stagnation, according to the Minority, stems from Ghana’s suspension of external debt payments in December 2022. This fiscal decision had a cascading effect, leading the EXIM Bank of India to halt further disbursements for the project and ultimately resulting in the cancellation of the remaining loan. This unexpected disruption in funding effectively paralyzed the project, making it impossible for the contractor to proceed with the planned construction. The Minority emphasizes that this financial constraint was beyond the control of the previous administration and directly responsible for the project’s current state. They portray the Minister’s actions as an attempt to shift blame and deflect attention from the real cause of the delay.
The unfolding narrative takes a further legal turn with the contractor formally terminating the agreement in March 2024. This termination, prompted by the funding impasse, triggered a contractual process to recover the advance payment. The Ghana Highway Authority initiated the refund process through the Advance Payment Guarantee, and the matter is now under the jurisdiction of an Indian court. The Attorney-General’s Department is overseeing the legal proceedings, ensuring that Ghana’s interests are protected. The Minority argues that the Minister’s claim of pursuing a refund is redundant, as the recovery process was already in motion long before his appointment. They portray him as attempting to take credit for a process already underway, further highlighting their accusations of political posturing.
In summary, the Minority’s counter-narrative paints a picture of a project derailed by unforeseen financial circumstances, not mismanagement. They assert that the advance payment was properly allocated for mobilization purposes, backed by a valid guarantee, and that the current legal proceedings are a direct consequence of Ghana’s debt suspension. They accuse the Minister of exploiting the situation for political advantage, misrepresenting the facts to create a false impression of incompetence on the part of the previous administration. The ongoing legal arbitration will ultimately determine the outcome of the financial dispute, but the political fallout continues to resonate, highlighting the deep divisions within Ghana’s political landscape.
