Suame Interchange Downgrade: Asenso-Boakye Alleges Government Neglect of Kumasi

Introduction

A major political and infrastructural controversy has erupted in Ghana concerning the Suame Interchange project in Kumasi. Francis Asenso-Boakye, former Minister for Roads and Highways and Member of Parliament for Bantama, has publicly accused the current government of attempting to shortchange the people of Kumasi by downgrading a critical traffic solution due to alleged financial constraints. His claims, made on a prominent radio program, suggest a pattern of neglect toward the Ashanti Regional capital despite the project being listed as a flagship initiative. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the situation, examining the historical context, the specific allegations regarding funding and design changes, the potential consequences for Kumasi’s traffic congestion, and the broader implications for infrastructure governance in Ghana.

Key Points

Background: The Suame Interchange Project

Origins and Intended Scope

The Suame Interchange was conceived as a transformative infrastructure project to address chronic and worsening traffic congestion in Kumasi, Ghana’s second-largest city and the commercial hub of the Ashanti Region. The interchange is located at a critical junction where several major roads converge, including the Kumasi-Accra and Kumasi-Takoradi highways. According to Asenso-Boakye’s statements, the original engineering design, developed under the previous administration, was a comprehensive four-tier interchange. This type of grade-separated intersection is designed to allow traffic to flow freely on multiple levels without the need to stop at traffic lights, which is the gold standard for resolving congestion at highly complex, high-volume junctions.

Financing Journey: From Spain to Afreximbank

The project’s financial journey has been tumultuous. The initial phase was to be funded by a loan agreement with a Spanish financial institution. Crucially, Asenso-Boakye emphasizes that this loan agreement was formally approved by the Parliament of Ghana, satisfying constitutional and legal requirements for external borrowing. The funds were therefore legally secured and ready for disbursement. However, the project encountered a significant hurdle during a period of national debt restructuring. This macroeconomic challenge, often involving negotiations with international creditors and multilateral institutions, appears to have led the Spanish lender to withdraw its commitment, creating an immediate financing vacuum.

Following this setback, the preceding government (the Akufo-Addo administration, in which Asenso-Boakye served as Roads Minister) sought and secured alternative financing from the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank). This new facility allowed construction works to recommence. Progress reportedly reached approximately 56% completion during the 2023-2024 period before the current challenges regarding final completion funding surfaced.

On-Ground Implementation Challenges

Beyond financial and political hurdles, large-scale urban interchange projects invariably face physical site challenges. Asenso-Boakye specifically cited “permutations on the ground,” particularly the relocation of major pipelines that run underneath the proposed interchange footprint. Utility relocation—including water, sewage, gas, and telecommunications lines—is a common, costly, and time-consuming prerequisite for major civil works. This factor contributed to the project’s timeline and budget, independent of the broader financing disputes.

Analysis of the Allegations

The Financial Claim: Shortage or Reprioritization?

The core of Asenso-Boakye’s accusation is that the government is using “lack of money” as a pretext to execute a cheaper, less effective design. His argument rests on a perceived contradiction: the government lists the Suame Interchange as a flagship project yet claims insufficient funds for its original, approved design. He juxtaposes this with the initiation of new infrastructure projects, suggesting a misallocation of limited fiscal resources. From a project management and public finance perspective, this raises critical questions:

• Budgetary Transparency: Is there a clear, publicly available cost-benefit analysis comparing the four-tier and two-tier designs?
• Opportunity Cost: What are the specific new projects being launched, and how do their projected socio-economic returns compare to a fully functional Suame Interchange?
• Project Viability: Has a formal review concluded the four-tier design is no longer viable due to changed circumstances (e.g., altered traffic projections, land use changes), or is the change purely financially motivated?

If the downgrade is purely a cost-cutting measure, it risks creating a “false economy.” An interchange that fails to resolve congestion will necessitate earlier-than-planned expansions or entirely new solutions, ultimately costing taxpayers more in the long run.

Engineering and Urban Planning Implications

Asenso-Boakye’s technical assertion is profound: a two-tier interchange will not adequately resolve Kumasi’s traffic challenges. The difference between a two-tier and a four-tier interchange is not merely cosmetic; it represents a fundamental difference in traffic capacity and operational efficiency.

• Two-Tier Interchange: Typically involves one level for the main highway and another for the crossroad, managed by ramps. It is suitable for moderate traffic volumes but can still experience weaving and merging conflicts.
• Four-Tier Interchange: Often a “stack” interchange with four distinct levels, providing dedicated, uninterrupted lanes for all major movements. It is designed for extremely high traffic volumes and complex junction geometries, eliminating all conflict points.

Kumasi is a rapidly growing metropolis. Choosing a design based solely on immediate cost, without a robust 20-30 year traffic forecast, could be a catastrophic planning failure. The city’s economic vitality is directly tied to the efficiency of its transport network. Persistent congestion increases business costs, pollution, travel time, and reduces quality of life.

Practical Advice for Stakeholders

For Citizens and Civil Society

• Demand Transparency: Advocate for the public release of the detailed project design reports, cost estimates, and traffic impact assessments for both the original and revised plans.
• Engage with MP: Utilize town hall meetings, social media, and direct communication with elected representatives, especially those from Kumasi, to voice concerns about the project’s direction.
• Monitor Procurement: Follow the procurement process for any new contracts related to the revised design. Look for red flags like single-sourcing, inflated prices, or lack of competitive bidding.

For Media and Watchdog Groups

• Fact-Check Claims: Investigate the veracity of the funding trail. Request information from the Ministry of Finance and the Ghana Highway Authority regarding the Spanish loan status, Afreximbank disbursements, and the current budget allocation for the project.
• Comparative Analysis: Commission independent engineering experts to provide a public opinion on the sufficiency of a two-tier design for the Suame intersection’s specific geometry and projected traffic.
• Highlight Long-Term Costs: Frame the story not just as a political spat, but as a potential case of infrastructure under-investment leading to greater future expenditure and economic loss.

For Government Agencies

• Clarify the Record: The Ministry of Roads and Highways and the Ministry of Finance should issue a joint statement clarifying the project’s current status, exact completion percentage, remaining funding gap, and the rationale for any design change. This must be supported by data.
• Re-evaluate with Data: Commission an independent, third-party technical audit to determine the minimum viable design that will serve Kumasi’s needs for the next 30 years. Base the decision on this audit, not just short-term cash flow.
• Explore Hybrid Financing: If the full four-tier design is unaffordable in one budget cycle, explore phased implementation or public-private partnership (PPP) models for specific components, while ensuring the core functional integrity is not compromised.

FAQ: Understanding the Suame Interchange Controversy

What is the Suame Interchange and why is it important?

The Suame Interchange is a planned grade-separated intersection (flyover system) at a major traffic choke point in Kumasi. It is important because Kumasi suffers from extreme traffic congestion, which hampers economic activity, increases transportation costs, and contributes to pollution and lost productivity. A functional interchange is seen as essential for the city’s future growth.

Who is Francis Asenso-Boakye and why is his opinion significant?

Francis Asenso-Boakye is a former Minister for Roads and Highways (2021-2024) and the current Member of Parliament for Bantama, a constituency in Kumasi. His opinion is significant because he was the sector minister responsible for overseeing such projects until recently. He has firsthand knowledge of the project’s design, initial financing, and progress. His criticism comes from within the same political tradition (New Patriotic Party) but highlights a perceived failure in project execution.

What is Afreximbank and what is its role?

The African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) is a pan-African multilateral financial institution that supports intra-African and Caribbean trade. Its role in the Suame Interchange was to provide a loan facility that replaced the original Spanish financing after it was withdrawn, enabling construction to continue. It is a key development finance partner for Ghana and other African nations.

What does “downgrade from four-tier to two-tier” mean in practice?

It means reducing the complexity and scale of the interchange. A four-tier “stack” interchange allows all crossing traffic streams (left turns, right turns, through movements) to move on separate, dedicated levels, completely avoiding traffic lights and交叉冲突. A two-tier design typically has one level for the main road and another for the crossroad, still requiring some traffic to cross paths at-grade (at the same level) or use looping ramps, which can create bottlenecks and is less capable of handling very high traffic volumes.

What are the legal implications if Parliament approved a loan for a four-tier design but a two-tier is built?

This could raise questions of public financial management and project scope deviation. Loans approved by Parliament are typically tied to specific project objectives and designs. A significant deviation, such as building a much smaller project, could be seen as a misuse of approved funds. The relevant parliamentary committees (Finance and Roads) could demand explanations from the executive on the variance between the approved project and the executed one. There is also the question of whether the value for money intended by Parliament has been delivered.

Conclusion

The dispute over the Suame Interchange transcends a simple political argument; it strikes at the heart of infrastructure planning, fiscal responsibility, and regional equity in Ghana. The allegations by Francis Asenso-Boakye paint a picture of a critical Kumasi project being compromised by shifting financial priorities, potentially saddling the city with a long-term traffic solution that is inadequate from the start. The government’s response will be telling. A transparent, data-driven explanation that addresses the technical sufficiency of the proposed two-tier design is essential to restore public trust. Without it, the narrative of Kumasi being neglected in favor of other projects will harden. The ultimate stakeholders are the millions of Kumasi residents and businesses who bear the daily cost of congestion. Their interest lies in a durable, high-capacity solution, not a short-term fix that becomes obsolete before it’s even finished. The Suame Interchange must be built right, or not at all, and its fate should be determined by engineering needs and long-term economic sense, not transient budget pressures.