By Boakye Stephen, Kumasi, Ghana | Reporting for Ghanaian News, Canada March 28, 2026
Concerns over procurement practices surrounding Big Push infrastructure programme have intensified after Kofi Bentil, Senior Vice President of IMANI Africa, alleged that irregularities began at the very onset of the current administration.
Speaking on Newsfile on JoyNews on Saturday, Bentil claimed that questionable procurement practices were evident within the first month of governance.
“These ‘cookings’ started in the first month of this government,” he said, suggesting deliberate manipulation rather than administrative lapses.
His remarks have raised concerns about intent, transparency, and adherence to procurement regulations in the execution of major infrastructure projects under the programme.
Bentil further cautioned against the continued use of sole-sourcing—a non-competitive procurement method—which he argued could erode institutional credibility and weaken accountability mechanisms. Analysts note that reliance on such methods, while sometimes justified under specific conditions, often draws scrutiny when applied extensively.
Beyond governance concerns, Bentil linked infrastructure delivery to electoral prospects, arguing that performance outcomes could significantly shape political fortunes.
“If this government can achieve 60% of the Big Push projects and they complete the Kumasi Expressway, they will win the next election,” he stated.
The comment introduces a broader debate about governance priorities, particularly the balance between delivering visible development and adhering to due process.
Observers say the allegations come at a time when public interest in infrastructure spending and accountability is high, with citizens increasingly demanding both efficiency and transparency in the use of state resources.
Commentary (Boakye Stephen):
This development underscores a longstanding philosophical tension in governance—whether legitimacy is derived from outcomes or from adherence to process.
A government may deliver roads, bridges, and visible infrastructure, but if procurement processes lack transparency, those achievements risk carrying a deficit of public trust. The distinction between performance legitimacy and procedural legitimacy becomes critical.
Bentil’s argument highlights a deeper question within democratic systems: should citizens prioritize results, or insist on ethical and transparent methods regardless of outcomes?
Historical patterns suggest that when opacity becomes normalized, corruption risks evolving from isolated incidents into systemic practice. In such contexts, accountability frameworks weaken, and public confidence in institutions declines.
