Ghana Government Bans Independent Biometric ID Programs for State Agencies: Key Details and Implications

Introduction

In a landmark move to centralize biometric identity management across Ghana, the government has issued a nationwide ban on independent biometric systems for all state agencies. Effective October 24, 2025, the directive, signed by Secretary Callistus Mahama, Ph.D., prohibits Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) from procuring or operating alternative biometric Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS). This shift aims to unify identity verification under the National Identification Authority (NIA), enhancing data security, reducing redundancy, and streamlining governance. This article breaks down the requirements, legal framework, and practical steps for compliance.

Analysis: Why the Ban on Independent Biometric Systems?

Centralized Identity Management

The government’s decision reflects a broader strategy to standardize national ID systems. By mandating NIA’s Ghana Card as the sole biometric identifier, Ghana seeks to eliminate fragmented databases, a common pain point in public service delivery. This approach reduces administrative overhead, minimizes data duplication, and ensures interoperability across agencies.

Addressing Security Risks

Independent AFIS systems often lack the robust encryption and oversight mechanisms embedded in the NIA’s centralized platform. This ban mitigates risks of data breaches, identity theft, and voter fraud, aligning with the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843), which prioritizes secure handling of biometric information.

Economic Efficiency

Maintaining parallel biometric systems across 20+ MDAs and MMDAs imposes financial strain. The President’s Office estimates that merging databases will save significant funds, allowing reallocation to critical health and education projects.

Legal Basis for the Moratorium

The directive operates under three pillars: the National Identification Authority Act, 2006 (Act 707), the National Identity Register Act, 2008 (Act 750), and the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843). These laws mandate exclusive NIA oversight over Ghana Card issuance, biometric data storage, and privacy protections.

Summary of Key Directives

• Procurement Ban: MDAs cannot acquire or deploy new AFIS systems.
• Database Restrictions: Parallel biometric systems are prohibited.
• Compliance Deadline: Existing systems must integrate with NIA by June 30, 2026.
• Verification Rules: Ghana Card’s biometric authentication must be used for identity checks.
• Exception Process: Specialized needs require Presidential approval.

Key Points: Prohibitions and Compliance Requirements

Actions Banned by the Directive

1. Procurement, development, or deployment of standalone AFIS systems.
2. Operation of biometric databases outside NIA’s system.
3. Identity verification via visual inspection alone.
4. Signing contracts for biometric tools without Presidential consent.

Deadlines and Guidelines

Agencies currently using biometric systems have until June 30, 2026, to migrate to NIA’s platform. The Authority has pledged technical support for integration. Non-compliance will result in legal action, per Section 22 of Act 843.

Practical Advice for State Agencies

Step-by-Step Compliance Plan

1. Audit Existing Systems: Review current AFIS usage and identify integration gaps.
2. Submit Transition Plans: Detail how your agency will merge data with NIA by June 2026.
3. Leverage NIA Resources: Attend workshops for technical training on the National ID System.
4. Seek Exemptions Sparingly: Only request deviations for niche compliance needs (e.g., border control biometrics).

Points of Caution

• Legal Penalties: Non-compliance risks fines or prosecution under Acts 707 and 843.
• Data Loss Risks: Avoid abrupt disconnection from NIA’s system before full migration.
• Ethical Use: Ensure biometric data is only used for lawful identity verification, not surveillance.

Comparison: NIA’s System vs. Independent AFIS

Legal Implications of Non-Compliance

Under Article 12 of the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843), unauthorized biometric systems violate privacy rights. Penalties include fines up to 5% of annual revenue or imprisonment for responsible officials. Additionally, courts may penalize MDAs for stifling competition or innovation, though this remains untested in Ghanaian law.

Conclusion: A Path to National Identity Cohesion

By mandating a nationwide shift to the NIA’s biometric system, Ghana positions itself as a leader in digital governance innovation. While challenges remain in enforcement, the move promises long-term gains in security, efficiency, and service delivery. Agencies must act swiftly to avoid legal and operational setbacks.

FAQs on the Biometric Moratorium

Q: Why is the government banning independent biometric systems?

A: To centralize identity management, boost security, and reduce costs associated with fragmented databases.

Q: What happens if my agency doesn’t comply by the June 2026 deadline?

A: Non-compliance may result in legal action, fines, or service disruptions under the Data Protection Act and Presidential directive.

Q: Can we apply for a biometric system exception?

A: Yes, but only for critical operational needs (e.g., border security). Requests require a detailed justification and written Presidential approval.