To say that Ghana is being held ransom in the unitization debate may, in fact, be an understatement. The issue transcends mere economic or technical disputes and enters the realm of governance, accountability, and the very essence of national sovereignty in managing natural resources.
It reflects how political transitions, bureaucratic inertia, and vested interests can intertwine to create a gridlock that paralyzes decision-making, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) government, having risen to power on the promise of retracting the controversial unitization directive that has plagued Ghana’s oil and gas sector, now appears hesitant, if not outright evasive, in addressing the issue. It is almost as if, in opposition, they perceived the directive with clarity and conviction, but now in power, they view it as a novel conundrum demanding fresh scientific inquiry.
The irony is stark. Political opposition often brings a clarity unburdened by the pressures of governance, yet once in power, that clarity dissipates into a fog of indecision, lobbying, and political calculus.
Many industry stakeholders had hoped that this administration would break from the legacy of its predecessor, the New Patriotic Party (NPP), which had instituted the directive and led Ghana into a humiliating defeat at the international arbitration tribunal.
That defeat was not merely a legal setback—it was an indictment of Ghana’s technical and institutional capacity to manage its own resources. The ruling exposed a country that seemingly lacked the expertise to grasp fundamental issues in the oil industry.
How could a ministry entrusted with the fiduciary duty of protecting public interest align itself with claims that lacked empirical support? How could a nation that employs over 2,000 professionals in the petroleum sector—from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) to the Petroleum Commission (PC) and the Ministry of Energy—fail to mount a coherent, evidence-based defence of its policies?
One industry expert, dismayed by the entire episode, recounted how baffling it was that, despite the multitude of government employees and the legal expertise of the Attorney General’s office, Ghana still ended up championing the claims of a private company over the national interest. That these same individuals continue to stand by the discredited directive post-arbitration ruling suggests a deeper problem—one that is not merely technical or legal but ethical.
If individuals who were responsible for leading Ghana into a disastrous legal outcome remain in positions of influence and continue to advocate for the same discredited position, then the issue at hand is not just a lack of expertise but a fundamental disregard for the public interest.
At the center of this quagmire stands Michael Ayeetey, the Managing Director of Explorco, a subsidiary of GNPC. Ayeetey was instrumental in leading Ghana down the ill-fated path of arbitration through his technical advice. Even after his miscalculations were laid bare, he continued to support Springfield’s claims without undertaking a thorough review of their validity.
This raises critical questions about governance and accountability. Should someone who played a key role in such a debacle still wield influence in decision-making? Shouldn’t the principles of accountability and professional integrity demand that he step aside, if not be held to account?
The situation becomes even more convoluted with the role of Kevin Okyere, the businessman at the helm of Springfield. Okyere’s influence appears to transcend political boundaries. He has successfully manoeuvred within both the NPP and NDC governments, seemingly ensuring that his interests remain protected regardless of who is in power.
This should serve as a cautionary tale about the extent to which corporate influence can shape national policy in ways that may not necessarily align with the broader public good. When an individual or entity can exert such control over state decision-making, democracy itself is at risk of being undermined by oligarchic interests.
For five years, Okyere had the NPP administration backing his claims. Now, he reminds industry players that he initially secured his oil block under an NDC government, implying that the transition in political power would not disrupt his influence.
And indeed, the new administration finds itself entangled in the same indecision, unable to act on an issue that, from a legal and technical standpoint, has already been settled. This is not merely a bureaucratic delay; it is a testament to how deeply entrenched lobbying and private interests have become within the corridors of power.
Recent developments provide even more reason for concern. The Petroleum Commission, after reviewing newly submitted data from Springfield, has determined that the evidence does not sufficiently justify unitization. It has also raised questions about the claimed volumes of oil in place, findings that have been submitted to the Minister of Energy to support the withdrawal of the directive.
Given this, and with the Attorney General’s legal opinion reinforcing the lack of basis for unitization, one would expect a swift policy reversal. Yet, inexplicably, the minister hesitates, awaiting a clearer directive from the president.
Herein lies the philosophical crux of the issue: why does political leadership, even when armed with conclusive evidence and a clear legal mandate, hesitate to act in the public interest? Is governance ultimately about evidence-based decision-making, or is it a perpetual balancing act between competing interests, where truth and justice are secondary considerations? If the evidence unequivocally discredits the directive, and the Attorney General’s position affirms this, why does the presidency appear uncertain?
The answer may lie in the pressures of political financing. The Springfield project’s financiers have reportedly intensified lobbying efforts, leaving the president in a precarious position: should he prioritize the national interest or the interests of those who may have played a role in his party’s ascent to power? This is the ethical dilemma of governance in resource-rich states—where the vast potential of natural wealth is frequently at odds with the political and financial structures that sustain those in power.
At its core, this issue is not about oil alone. It is about the integrity of state institutions, the independence of regulatory bodies, and the ability of a government to act decisively in the face of vested interests. It is a question of whether Ghana can truly assert control over its resources or whether it remains susceptible to manipulation by powerful corporate actors who have mastered the art of political influence.
One thing remains clear: the unitization directive lacks justification. No amount of political manoeuvring can alter the factual and legal realities that have already been established. The arbitration ruling, the Petroleum Commission’s findings, and the Attorney General’s opinion all point to the same conclusion. Any further delay in reversing the directive only deepens the perception that governance in Ghana is beholden to interests other than the common good.
In the grand scheme of things, this case will serve as a defining moment for Ghana’s oil and gas sector. It will reveal whether state institutions have the resilience to withstand corporate lobbying and whether political leadership has the will to uphold the national interest over private gain.
The lesson for the future is stark: when governance is reduced to a game of influence and financial clout, the people ultimately lose. And if such a trend continues unchecked, then Ghana’s resource wealth, rather than being a blessing, may become yet another example of the resource curse—a tale of squandered opportunities and compromised sovereignty.
The time to act is now. The facts are clear, the legal position is firm, and the public interest is at stake. To delay further is to perpetuate an injustice—not just against the present generation, but against future Ghanaians who will look back at this moment and wonder why those entrusted with power failed to do what was right.
More to come!
The post Private interest chains Ghana’s national interest in Eni-Springfield unitization tussle appeared first on The Herald ghana.
