Ghana has long treated national security budgets as sacrosanct until now. Former NSB chief Kwabena Adu-Boahene’s testimony has exposed how GH¢49.1 million in classified funds were quietly disbursed under the guise of “special operations.”
This is not a one-off scandal; it’s proof of a glaring loophole in our system. In secret accounts, billions can be spent with virtually no oversight. Adu-Boahene’s leaked memo shows millions going to dubious ends: GH¢8.3 million for “Election Special Ops” to support an opposition party’s vote-counting, GH¢5.135 million on luxury SUVs for a “Special Aide to the President-Elect,” plus undisclosed allowances for MPs and other opaque expenditures.
Every line item marked “Classified” in that report underscores how easily secrecy can mask corruption. Yet defenders insist that divulging these expenses would harm national security. We have heard this excuse before in Ghana and around the world whenever scrutiny of spy agencies looms.
But as observers warn, invoking security to block accountability is a trap that breeds corruption. “Security funds exist to protect a nation, not enrich individuals,” notes one analyst, and history shows that unchecked secret budgets invite malfeasance.
In Ghana today, secrecy has created a culture of impunity. Intelligence laws can be twisted into shields, and MPs are so cowed by classified briefings that they rarely challenge even the largest covert outlays.
The result is predictable, when authority is unaccountable, some leaders will siphon public wealth for personal or political gain. Indeed, analysts warn that if this scandal is brushed aside under the guise of national security concerns, it will only confirm to political elites that secrecy is their blank check to steal without consequence.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Ghana can learn from liberal democracies that balance secrecy with supervision. In the United States, intelligence budgets and covert operations are rigorously overseen by Congress. The Senate and House each have permanent Select Committees on Intelligence, special committees charged with the oversight function, serving as surrogates for the public.
These committees hold closed-door hearings, summon spymasters, and demand audited reports on classified programs, all without publicizing secrets. Americans even have a special secret court, the FISA Court to authorize surveillance while maintaining secrecy.
As the US Congressional reforms of the 1970s recognize, citizens “rely on the special oversight mechanisms” to monitor spy agencies on their behalf.
In practice, this means every classified appropriation is reviewed by elected representatives before being spent. The United Kingdom offers a similar model. Britain’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) is a joint parliamentary panel of vetted MPs and Lords. It meets mostly in private, interrogating MI5, MI6 and GCHQ chiefs in secret and publishing only heavily redacted summary reports.
In other words, the ISC provides oversight without endangering operations. The ISC’s very setup a compromise solution of scrutiny-plus-secrecy has long allowed Parliament to ensure intelligence agencies operate legally, even on the thorniest issues.
Here in Africa, South Africa, has built robust checks into its intelligence laws. After years of abuse under apartheid and the Zuma era, the post-2021 reforms created an independent Inspector-General of Intelligence (IGI) with unfettered access to classified information. A Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence in Parliament, plus the Auditor-General of SA, now have statutory power to audit and report on secret budgets.
These bodies must review top-secret operations regularly, ensuring that nothing from election-related spending to counterterrorism projects escapes accountability. As South African advocates put it, security agencies there can no longer operate outside oversight or curry favor with politicians without detection.
By contrast, Ghana’s security sector has evolved under a legacy of secrecy and politicization. A study on Ghanaian oversight notes that “excessive secrecy in national security matters frustrates effective parliamentary oversight,” leading to a “culture of self-censorship” among MPs. In practice, few parliamentarians dare question secret expenditures or intrusive operations.
Even where Ghana’s constitution or laws envision oversight (for example through the Public Accounts Committee or a security committee), entrenched rules and shifting political interests often neuter them. Repeatedly, security officials have invoked statutes like the 2020 Intelligence Agencies Act to forbid audits, arguing that even disclosure of totals would breach secrecy.
In effect, the laws meant to regulate intelligence have been turned on their head. They serve not the people, but an elite. This environment bred impunity. Under successive administrations, leaks and scandals from covert campaign funding to mysterious arms procurements have surfaced, but rarely led to systemic reform.
Critics observe that Ghanaian officials rarely embezzle public funds openly, preferring to trade secrets and kickbacks instead. Adu Boahene’s revelations show just how easily security budgets can be co-opted for partisan purposes or personal enrichment. If we do nothing, we risk normalizing this behavior. As one commentator warns, Ghana cannot afford to let “national security remain a tool for financial exploitation rather than public protection.”
The very trust that underpins our democracy hangs in the balance. It is urgent that Ghana breaks this cycle. We must demand robust oversight, transparency, and depoliticization of our security services now. Specifically, reforms should include:
Empower Parliament’s oversight by giving more power to the creating a statutory Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee with full security clearance to audit secret spending, summon intelligence chiefs, and report to the public in summary form as in the UK.
Mandate Auditor-General reviews by amending the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act so the Auditor-General can examine classified accounts under oath. No security drawdown should be exempt from financial audit, just as Ghana’s highest spending ministries are.
Decouple security from politics through the enforcement of strict rules against using intelligence funds for political campaigns or favors. Any cross-party committee reports or exchanges that show partisanship must be probed. Intelligence agencies must report to professional boards or the Presidency, not party operatives.
Each of these steps is modeled on tested democratic practices. They are neither radical nor naive; rather, they recognize that secrecy and accountability can coexist. In fact, citizens of mature democracies rely on such oversight to keep secrets secret and government honest. Ghana’s democracy itself is at stake if we allow security budgets to slip back into the shadows, we are inviting the next scandal and the next until public confidence is destroyed.
The choice is clear, we can either let impunity thrive under national security or build institutions that safeguard both our liberty and our safety. As one watchdog commentator urges, “the time for silence is over. We must choose accountability over secrecy… governance over impunity, and justice over political convenience.”
We must act now. Parliament, civil society, the media and all citizens should demand these reforms without delay. Ghana’s security services exist to defend our democracy not to serve as a cash cow for the powerful. Let this scandal be the turning point where Ghana finally demands transparency and the rule of law in national defense. Only then can we ensure that national security truly protects the nation, rather than betraying it.
