By John-Mark Bekui, Esq.
(Legal, Compliance, Ethics and Governance)
Disclosure: The author is a former student of Dr. Abdul-Baasit Aziz-Bamba and subsequently served with him on the University of Ghana Council.
Introduction
The appointment of Dr. Abdul-Baasit Aziz-Bamba as Acting Director-General of the Value for Money Office, and therefore the inaugural head of the institution, presents an opportunity to focus not merely on an individual appointment, but on the broader governance challenge the new Office was created to address.
For years, Ghanaians have debated the prudence, affordability and implementation of major public projects. Public discussions surrounding Agenda 111, the National Cathedral, the Afari Military Hospital and several infrastructure projects across the country have often raised concerns about delays, cost overruns, project modifications and incomplete execution.
Regardless of one's political perspective, these concerns point to a central governance question: how can the State ensure that every cedi committed to a public project delivers measurable and demonstrable value to citizens?
That question lies at the heart of the Value for Money Office.
The Legal Framework
The Value for Money Office derives its mandate from the Value for Money Office Act, 2026 (Act 1172). The Act establishes a statutory framework for the regulation, monitoring, coordination, promotion and conduct of value-for-money assessments, while also requiring scrutiny of procurement practices, cost-estimation methodologies, contract-management processes and expenditure controls within covered entities.
The law contains important enforcement mechanisms. Under sections 30 and 31 of Act 1172, monetary thresholds for mandatory value-for-money assessments are to be prescribed, and a covered entity may not award a public contract above the applicable threshold unless the Office has issued a Value for Money Certificate of Clearance. The Act further provides that such a certificate should not be issued unless the project is duly budgeted for and a funding commitment has been made. Significantly, a contract executed in breach of the certification requirement is rendered null and void and unenforceable against the Republic or the covered entity.
The legislation therefore goes beyond a purely advisory model. It creates a gatekeeping mechanism intended to bring value-for-money scrutiny forward in the project cycle, before contractual commitments are made and public funds become exposed. At the same time, section 12 protects the institutional independence of the Office by providing, subject to the Constitution and other enactments, that it is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of its functions.
Importantly, the Office operates within a broader accountability ecosystem that already includes Parliament, the Public Procurement Authority, the Auditor-General, the Internal Audit Agency and other oversight bodies. Its success will therefore depend not only on the powers granted by law, but also on effective coordination and the avoidance of institutional duplication.
Why Leadership Matters
Even the most carefully drafted legislation ultimately depends on the quality of its implementation. The Value for Money Office will be expected to scrutinise major public projects, challenge assumptions, test cost estimates, assess risks and insist on adherence to established procedures.
Such a mandate requires leadership that combines technical competence with independence of judgment, credibility and a commitment to due process. As the inaugural head of a new institution, Dr. Aziz-Bamba will also have the responsibility of helping to shape its culture, standards and reputation from the outset.
Why Dr. Aziz-Bamba Is Well Placed for the Role
Dr. Aziz-Bamba brings to the position a background that combines legal scholarship, public-law expertise and practical institutional experience.
Having interacted with him both as a lecturer and later within the governance structures of the University of Ghana, I observed a professional who approached institutional decision-making with diligence, attention to detail and a strong regard for process. His experience in legal administration and governance provides a useful foundation for a role that will require the careful evaluation of complex public-sector decisions.
However, the true measure of his suitability will not be personal reputation alone. It will be his ability to build systems, establish credible review processes, attract multidisciplinary expertise and ensure that the Office earns public confidence through the quality and impartiality of its work.
Risks and Conditions for Success
While the establishment of the Office is a welcome reform, its success should not be taken for granted.
First, the Office must enjoy genuine operational independence. A value-for-money assessment framework can only be effective if its findings are respected, even when they concern politically significant or high-profile projects. The statutory protection for the Office's independence will matter only if it is reflected in institutional practice.
Second, the Office will require strong technical capacity. Value-for-money reviews demand expertise not only from lawyers and accountants, but also from engineers, quantity surveyors, procurement specialists, economists, project managers and other professionals.
Third, clear institutional coordination will be essential. The Office must complement, rather than duplicate, the work of existing oversight institutions. Clear lines of responsibility will help avoid unnecessary regulatory overlap and improve accountability.
Ultimately, a strong statutory framework and a capable Director-General will achieve little without adequate resources, institutional support and respect for the Office's mandate.
A Timely Opportunity
The appointment of Dr. Aziz-Bamba should therefore be viewed as an opportunity to build a credible institution capable of improving public-investment outcomes in Ghana.
The reform is also timely in the context of Ghana's wider fiscal-governance agenda. In its August 2026 Article IV report on Ghana, the International Monetary Fund called for stronger oversight of state-owned enterprises and public entities, merit-based board and management selection, enhanced procurement oversight and improved public-investment management. The report also specifically identified the operationalisation of the Value for Money Office as part of the effort to strengthen independent oversight of major public investments.
The real test will not be the credentials of the individual appointed. Rather, it will be whether the Value for Money Office succeeds in making it standard practice to ask difficult questions before public funds are committed: Is the project necessary? Is the proposed cost reasonable? Can the State realistically afford it? Can it be delivered within time and budget? Does it comply with the law and applicable procurement requirements? Will citizens receive value commensurate with the resources being invested?
If these questions become embedded in Ghana's public-expenditure culture, the Office could make a lasting contribution to fiscal discipline, accountability and public trust.
Conclusion
The establishment of the Value for Money Office represents an important governance reform. Dr. Aziz-Bamba's appointment deserves recognition, but the focus must now shift from the individual to the institution and from promise to performance.
For Dr. Aziz-Bamba, the task ahead is considerable, but so too is the opportunity. His most enduring legacy will not be measured simply by the number of reviews undertaken or reports issued, but by whether the Office helps change how Ghana conceives, approves and executes public expenditure.
If he can leave behind an Office whose independence is respected, whose judgments are trusted and whose scrutiny changes how Ghana commits public money, that will be a legacy worthy of the institution and the Republic.
Legal references: Value for Money Office Act, 2026 (Act 1172), particularly ss. 12, 30 and 31; IMF, Ghana: 2026 Article IV Consultation, Country Report No. 26/212 (August 2026).
Comments