A recent audit has uncovered a fictitious debt of GH¢89.4 million linked to Ghana’s flagship industrialisation initiative, the One District, One Factory (1D1F) programme, raising concerns about a potential attempt to wrongfully disburse public funds.
The findings were presented to Parliament on Monday, March 10, 2026, in a statement delivered by Deputy Finance Minister, Thomas Nyarko Ampem, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson. The audit was conducted by the Ghana Audit Service in collaboration with international auditing firms Ernst & Young and PwC.
The One District, One Factory initiative was introduced during the administration of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as a key component of Ghana’s industrialisation agenda. The programme aims to establish at least one factory in each district to stimulate local industries, promote economic growth, and create employment opportunities.
According to the audit report, the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 2024 submitted a request for GH¢89.4 million to be paid to five commercial banks. The amount was said to represent the government’s contribution toward interest payments on loans granted under the 1D1F programme.
The Ministry of Finance subsequently processed the request and forwarded it to the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department for payment.
However, as part of routine verification, auditors contacted the five commercial banks named in the claim. All the banks denied having any knowledge of the alleged debt and confirmed that the government did not owe them any such amount.
The audit report concluded that the GH¢89.4 million liability was entirely fictitious. Auditors indicated that if the discrepancy had not been detected, the funds could have been wrongly disbursed to settle a non-existent debt, potentially causing a significant loss to the state.
The audit also revealed another suspicious transaction involving a reported payment of GH¢10.5 million into a so-called “Buffer Account” at one of the commercial banks. Further investigations showed that the bank had no record of the transaction, and the account number provided did not correspond with the bank’s official account numbering system.
Auditors ultimately determined that the Buffer Account did not exist, raising further concerns about irregularities surrounding the financial transactions linked to the programme.
