On 6 February 2026, Ghana’s Parliament passed the 24-Hour Economy Authority Bill, 2025, clearing the path for the establishment of a statutory body to coordinate the implementation of the 24-Hour Economy and Accelerated Export Development Programme (24H+).
The decision represents more than an administrative adjustment; it is a deliberate response to one of Ghana’s most persistent development challenges, the inability to sustain national programmes across political cycles.
The debate around the Authority is therefore not simply about coordination structures, but about whether Ghana is prepared to protect a long-term economic transformation agenda from the disruptions of political turnover.
24H+ as a Long-Term Structural Transformation Agenda
The 24-Hour Economy Programme is explicitly designed as a structural transformation initiative, not a short-term policy experiment.
According to the official programme framework, 24H+ seeks to reorganise Ghana’s production systems, deepen value addition, integrate national supply chains, and improve the utilisation of labour, infrastructure, and capital.
It aims to shift the economy away from low-value raw exports and import dependence toward a production-led, value-added, and globally competitive model operating efficiently around the clock.
Such ambitions cannot be realised within a single electoral cycle. They require sustained coordination, policy consistency, and institutional memory over many years, conditions that Ghana’s governance history has struggled to guarantee.
The Cost of Policy Discontinuity: Lessons from 1D1F
Ghana’s experience with previous flagship programmes underscores this risk. The One District, One Factory (1D1F) initiative offers a salient example. Introduced as a major industrialization drive, 1D1F recorded measurable progress in several districts, with factories
completed or at various stages of development.
However, following a change in government, the programme was discontinued, Projects stalled, factories were left in limbo, and institutional momentum dissipated. Regardless of
political interpretations, the broader lesson is unmistakable: programmes
closely associated with a particular administration, and lacking strong
statutory protection, are highly vulnerable to abandonment.
This pattern has repeated itself across sectors, generating investor uncertainty, disrupting local economies, and weakening public confidence in long-term national planning.
Why a Secretariat Is Not Enough
Supporters of the Authority argue that these risks cannot be addressed by a secretariat alone. Even when housed within the Presidency or a ministry, a secretariat remains administratively
fragile.
It lacks independent legal personality, depends on executive discretion for its existence and funding, and can be dissolved or marginalised without parliamentary action.
In practical terms, a secretariat haslimited authority to compel coordination across Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs).
It is also constrained in contracting, resource mobilisation, and long-term planning, critical functions for a programme as expansive as 24H+.
The Case for a Statutory Authority
By contrast, an Authority established by Act of Parliament enjoys legal permanence. Its mandate, governance structure, powers, and reporting obligations are codified in law.
Any attempt to dismantle or fundamentally alter its role would require parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and justification.
According to the official programme framework, the 24-Hour Economy Authority will have its own legal personality and defined powers to act as a convenor, catalyst, coordinator, analyst, and
mobiliser.
It is mandated to work continuously with MDAs, MMDAs, the private sector, and development partners to align sectoral plans with national 24H+ objectives.
This legal anchoring enhances coherence, reduces institutional fragmentation, and strengthens accountability, conditions essential for sustained implementation.
Addressing Critiques of Duplication and Bureaucracy
Critics of the Authority model, including some Minority voices in Parliament, have questioned the need for a
new institution.
They argue that existing ministries already perform coordination functions and point to global cities that operate 24-hour economies without a dedicated authority. Concerns have also been raised about potential duplication, bureaucracy, and fiscal cost.
However, these critiques do not resolve Ghana’s specific governance challenge. The programme’s “Why 24H+?” framework highlights deeply interconnected constraints: fragmented value chains, under-utilised infrastructure, weak logistics systems, and widespread under-employment, particularly among the youth.
Addressing these challenges requires sustained oversight, incentives alignment, and performance accountability across sectors, functions that a statutory Authority is better positioned to deliver than an advisory secretariat with limited leverage.
Investor Confidence and the Politics of Predictability
Continuity is not only a governance issue; it is also an investment imperative. Industrial parks, logistics hubs, agro-processing facilities, and export-oriented manufacturing cannot be planned on the basis of four-year political cycles. Investors require predictability
and policy stability.
A statutory Authority signals seriousness of intent, reduces political risk, and reassures investors that the 24-Hour Economy Programme will not be abruptly reversed following an election.
In this sense, the Authority functions as a credibility anchor for long-term private sector participation.
A Non-Partisan National Economic Project
Crucially, the Authority also reinforces the framing of 24H+ as a non-partisan national programme. The initiative is not about extending working hours for their own sake, nor is it
tied to a particular political ideology.
It is about productivity, import substitution, export expansion, job creation, especially for the youth and positioning Ghana competitively within regional and global markets.
Such objectives transcend partisan divides and align with Ghana’s long-term development aspirations. Embedding the programme in law helps shift ownership from a single administration to the state itself.
Institutional Strength as a Precondition for Success
Without statutory protection, the 24-Hour Economy Programme risks following the familiar path of previous initiatives, strong in concept but weakened by governance instability. Fragmented implementation, loss of institutional memory, and declining credibility would
undermine outcomes, regardless of technical soundness.
The creation of the 24-Hour Economy
Authority therefore reflects a sober recognition of Ghana’s development
history. Transformational programmes must be insulated from political turnover
if they are to succeed.
By embedding 24H+ in law, Ghana is taking a necessary step to ensure that the programme endures as a national economic project, owned by the state, not by any single government.
In this sense, the Authority is not merely an administrative upgrade. It is a strategic safeguard against policy discontinuity and a foundation for sustained, non-partisan economic transformation.
The writer is a journalist and she can be reached via Maryamartey03@gmail.com
