Ghana’s successful completion of the fifth review under its $3 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme will unlock approximately $385 million, but the country’s top business leader says there’s little reason for celebration. Stephane Abbas Miezan, President of the Ghana National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GNCCI), has delivered a sobering message: this money represents temporary relief, not economic transformation.
His comments cut through the optimism that typically accompanies IMF disbursement announcements. While government officials and some analysts have welcomed the development as evidence of Ghana’s reform progress, Miezan wants Ghanaians to understand what this money actually means for the country’s economic future.
“$382 million, it’s not money for us to be joyful about,” Miezan stated bluntly in an interview monitored by The High Street Journal. He’s pointing to a pattern many economists recognize but few business leaders articulate so directly: external bailouts provide breathing room without addressing underlying weaknesses.
The GNCCI president acknowledged that the inflow might temporarily strengthen the cedi, perhaps bringing the dollar exchange rate down to 12 cedis or even 10 cedis. But then what? His question hangs in the air like an uncomfortable truth nobody wants to confront during moments of economic relief.
“Because after this $382 million comes, the dollar comes down to 12 cedis or 10 cedis, and then what, and then it goes up again,” he explained, highlighting the cyclical nature of Ghana’s currency struggles.
The IMF Executive Board is expected to consider Ghana’s fifth review by the end of December 2025, with approval bringing total disbursements under the programme to $2.6 billion. That’s substantial money by any measure. Yet Miezan’s concern isn’t about the amount but about what happens after it’s absorbed into the economy.
“Inasmuch as it’s going to do something good for our economy, it’s going to be pumped into the economy, cedi is going to strengthen but this is going to be consumed in no time and then we are back to the same levels,” he cautioned.
His perspective resonates with a growing chorus of analysts and business people who’ve watched Ghana navigate multiple IMF programmes over the decades. Each time, the pattern repeats: disbursement arrives, markets stabilize temporarily, government congratulates itself on reform progress, and then structural problems reassert themselves.
What Miezan wants instead is forward thinking. He’s calling for strategies that build economic resilience rather than dependency on periodic external interventions. For him, that means industrialization, local enterprise growth, and value addition to Ghana’s raw materials.
The business community leader envisions building capacity for local businesses to scale up production so Ghana doesn’t have to chase dollars to import everything. It’s an old argument in development economics, but one that remains stubbornly relevant for countries like Ghana that continue importing basic consumer goods they could manufacture domestically.
His position reflects frustration with what he sees as celebration of the wrong milestone. “Good news? Yes,” he admitted, acknowledging that any IMF approval carries positive signals. But for the business community he represents, it’s really nothing worth throwing parties over.
The GNCCI perspective matters because this organization represents thousands of businesses across Ghana’s formal sector. These are companies dealing daily with import costs, forex shortages, and the cascading effects of currency instability. They understand better than most that $385 million in foreign reserves, while helpful, doesn’t fundamentally alter Ghana’s import-dependent economic structure.
Miezan’s comments also touch on a sensitive political reality. President John Mahama’s Reset Agenda has been credited with helping Ghana achieve all performance targets under the IMF programme, which represents genuine policy discipline. However, discipline in meeting IMF conditions doesn’t automatically translate to the structural transformation Miezan advocates.
The energy sector reforms, fiscal consolidation, and monetary tightening required by the IMF create stability conditions. But they don’t, by themselves, build factories, develop new export products, or reduce import dependency. That requires a different kind of policy focus entirely.
What makes Miezan’s intervention particularly noteworthy is its timing. Most business leaders hesitate to throw cold water on positive economic news, especially when government is celebrating reform achievements. His willingness to speak bluntly suggests deep concern about complacency setting in at a critical juncture.
Ghana’s economic challenges run deeper than forex availability. The country faces structural issues including narrow export base, weak manufacturing sector, limited value addition to agricultural and mineral resources, and chronic energy sector problems. An IMF disbursement, regardless of size, doesn’t address any of these fundamental weaknesses.
The GNCCI boss isn’t arguing against the IMF programme itself or suggesting Ghana should reject the disbursement. Rather, he’s advocating for perspective about what this money represents and doesn’t represent. It’s medicine that treats symptoms without curing the underlying disease.
His emphasis on industrialization and local production capacity reflects understanding that sustainable economic stability requires Ghana to produce more of what it consumes and add value to what it exports. That’s the only path to reducing forex pressure, creating quality jobs, and building genuine economic independence.
Whether policymakers will heed this message remains uncertain. Government officials naturally prefer celebrating reform achievements over confronting uncomfortable truths about structural transformation. The latter requires politically difficult decisions about industrial policy, trade protection, infrastructure investment, and education reform.
For now, Ghana will likely welcome the IMF disbursement with appropriate ceremony. Markets will respond positively, the cedi may strengthen temporarily, and government will point to successful reform implementation. All of that is predictable and, to some extent, deserved recognition of policy discipline.
But Miezan’s warning lingers: what happens when this money gets consumed? Will Ghana finally have used the breathing room to address structural weaknesses? Or will the country find itself back in familiar territory, celebrating the next IMF disbursement while fundamental problems remain unaddressed?
The GNCCI president clearly believes Ghana must choose the harder path of structural transformation over the easier comfort of periodic bailouts. Whether the country has the political will to make that choice may define its economic trajectory for the next generation.