No Governance Gap at Ghana’s Defence Ministry: Official Statement Explained

Update: February 19, 2025 – Recent public discourse has centered on the leadership structure of Ghana’s Ministry of Defence. In a definitive statement, the Minister for Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, has categorically rejected assertions that the absence of a substantive (permanently appointed) Defence Minister has created a operational or governance vacuum within the nation’s security architecture. This article provides a detailed, SEO-friendly breakdown of the official position, the constitutional framework, and the practical realities of ministerial appointments in Ghana.

Introduction: Addressing the “Governance Hole” Narrative

The question of whether a “governance hole” or “lacuna” exists at the Ministry of Defence has emerged in media and public commentary. This concern stems from the period following the resignation of the previous substantive minister, during which another cabinet minister has been assigned the Defence portfolio in an acting or interim capacity. Minister Kwakye Ofosu’s intervention on Joy FM’s Top Story aimed to dispel this narrative, asserting that national security operations continue without interruption. This introduction sets the stage by defining the core issue: the functional capacity of a ministry under interim leadership versus the constitutional preference for a substantive appointment. Understanding this distinction is crucial for evaluating the health of Ghana’s democratic institutions and security management.

Key Points: The Official Stance Summarized

Based on the statement from the Government Communications Minister, the following key points summarize the government’s position:

• No Operational Vacuum: The minister designated to oversee the Defence Ministry in an interim capacity is fully empowered and capable of executing all required duties and policies.
• Policy Execution vs. Formulation: Ministers primarily execute government policy, which is formulated at the highest levels, led by the President and the Cabinet. An interim minister is not hindered from this executive function.
• Presidential Intent: President John Dramani Mahama has acknowledged the need for a substantive appointment and has indicated it will be made at an “appropriate time,” which is a matter of presidential prerogative and scheduling.
• Security Posture Intact: The government maintains that all national security operations and protocols remain coordinated, effective, and responsive, regardless of the ministerial designation’s permanence.
• Rejection of Vulnerability Claims: Suggestions that Ghana’s defence posture has been weakened by the interim arrangement are firmly dismissed as unfounded by official sources.

Background: Ghana’s Defence Governance Framework

The Constitutional and Ministerial Structure

To understand this issue, one must first review Ghana’s constitutional framework. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana establishes the executive branch, with the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces (Article 195). The President appoints Ministers of State, including the Minister of Defence, with the advice and consent of Parliament (Article 76). A “substantive” minister is one who has been appointed to a specific ministry through this full process and is solely responsible for it.

However, the Constitution and standing orders also provide flexibility. The President can assign a Minister of State to “act” in another ministry or assign a minister to oversee multiple portfolios temporarily. This is a common administrative practice in many Westminster-style democracies, including Ghana, to ensure continuity during transitions, vacancies, or periods of intense governmental restructuring.

Historical Context of Interim Appointments

Interim or acting ministerial appointments are not unprecedented in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. They have occurred across various ministries for reasons including: the conclusion of a minister’s tenure, the formation of a new government, or while awaiting parliamentary approval for a new cabinet. The key legal and practical test is whether the incumbent, regardless of title, has the delegated authority to sign official documents, represent the ministry, and direct civil servants. Historically, acting ministers have exercised these full powers without reported legal challenge to their validity.

Analysis: Why an Interim Minister Does Not Equal a Governance Gap

The Nature of Ministerial Power: Delegation and Cabinet Collective Responsibility

The core of Kwakye Ofosu’s argument rests on the principle that ministerial authority is derived from presidential delegation and Cabinet collective responsibility, not solely from the permanence of appointment. Once a minister is sworn in as a member of the Cabinet, they are part of the collective decision-making body. The President, as the chief executive, can delegate specific executive responsibilities for a particular ministry to any Cabinet minister. This delegated authority is legally and practically binding on the civil service and military hierarchy within that ministry. Therefore, an “acting” Defence Minister, being a full Cabinet member with delegated authority, can validly:

• Chair high-level security committee meetings.
• Approve operational directives and administrative orders.
• Represent the ministry in Cabinet discussions on security matters.
• Engage with international defence partners and allies.

The “gap” narrative, therefore, misunderstands the source of executive power in Ghana’s system, which is centralized in the President and distributed through delegation.

Addressing the “Right Time” for Appointment

The statement that the President will appoint a substantive minister “at the right time” introduces a political, rather than legal, dimension. This “right time” could be influenced by:

• Broader Cabinet Reshuffles: The President may be considering a wider reconfiguration of his ministerial team.
• Parliamentary Calendar: The timing may coincide with a less busy parliamentary schedule to ensure smooth vetting and approval.
• Strategic Signaling: The President may wish to make the appointment alongside other significant national announcements.

The absence of a stated immediate timeline does not, in itself, indicate a constitutional crisis or administrative failure. It reflects the President’s discretionary power in managing his Cabinet, a power explicitly granted by the Constitution.

National Security as a Continuous Function

National security is a non-negotiable, continuous function of the state. The professional military and security services operate on established doctrines, chains of command, and standing operational plans. While ministerial political leadership provides civilian oversight, policy direction, and resource allocation, the day-to-day operational readiness is maintained by the permanent secretaries, chief of defence staff, and service commanders. The interim ministerial arrangement ensures the oversight link is present, preventing any break in the civilian control chain. The government’s insistence that operations are “intact and coordinated” aligns with this reality; the machinery of defence does not grind to a halt over a personnel title.

Practical Advice: How Citizens Can Assess Such Claims

For the public and media, evaluating claims of a “governance gap” requires looking beyond headlines. Here is a practical checklist:

1. Verify Official Actions: Check if the interim minister is signing official statements, approving budgets, representing Ghana at regional security forums (e.g., ECOWAS meetings), or issuing directives. The presence of these actions demonstrates functional authority.
2. Review Constitutional Provisions: Reference Articles 74, 75, and 76 of the 1992 Constitution regarding the appointment and functions of Ministers of State. Understand the difference between a substantive and acting appointment in legal terms.
3. Analyze Resource Flow: Has there been any disruption in the budgetary allocation, procurement, or logistical support for the Ghana Armed Forces? A true governance gap would likely manifest in stalled funding or paralyzed procurement.
4. Monitor Security Outcomes: Are there observable deteriorations in border security, internal stability, or response capabilities? Tangible security metrics are a more reliable indicator than administrative titles.
5. Seek Expert Commentary: Consult legal scholars on constitutional law and security analysts on military affairs, not just political commentators, for an institutional perspective.

Applying this lens to the current situation shows no public evidence of halted policies, financial paralysis, or operational degradation, supporting the government’s assertion of no gap.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions on the Defence Ministry Leadership

Q1: Does Ghana’s Constitution require a substantive Defence Minister at all times?

A: No. The Constitution mandates that the President shall appoint Ministers of State, including for Defence, with parliamentary approval. It does not stipulate that a vacancy must be filled immediately or that an acting minister is invalid. The President’s power to delegate duties to any Cabinet member provides the necessary legal flexibility to avoid a vacuum.

Q2: Can an interim Defence Minister make permanent decisions, like long-term procurement contracts?

A: Yes, but with practical and political caution. Legally, a minister acting with full delegated presidential authority can sign contracts. However, major long-term commitments are often deferred until a substantive minister is in place for full political ownership and to avoid future reversals. This is a matter of prudence, not legal incapacity.

Q3: Does this situation weaken Ghana’s international defence partnerships?

A: Unlikely. International partners engage with the institution of the Ministry of Defence and the Ghana Armed Forces. They interact with the senior permanent secretary and military chiefs on technical matters. While a substantive minister may carry more political weight for high-level diplomacy, the functional relationship at the operational and strategic planning levels continues seamlessly under an interim minister who holds the full portfolio.

Q4: What is the difference between an “acting” minister and a “substantive” minister in this context?

A: The difference is primarily one of permanence and political title. An acting/interim minister holds the full executive authority of the office for the duration of the delegation. A substantive minister has undergone a separate nomination and vetting process specifically for that ministry and holds the title permanently until reshuffled or resigned. Both wield the same operational powers while in office.

Q5: Could this set a concerning precedent for other ministries?

A: The use of interim assignments is a standard executive practice, not a precedent-setting innovation. It is a tool for administrative flexibility. The concern would only arise if interim periods became excessively prolonged without a clear rationale, potentially indicating governmental neglect. The current situation, with a clear presidential intent to appoint, does not reach that threshold.

Conclusion: Stability Within the Apparent Uncertainty

The statement by Minister Felix Kwakye Ofosu effectively reframes the narrative from one of “governance hole” to one of “executive delegation in progress.” Within Ghana’s constitutional framework, the President possesses the clear authority to manage his Cabinet, including filling portfolios on an interim basis. The evidence suggests that the delegation of Defence Ministry responsibilities to a serving Cabinet minister is functioning as intended: policy execution continues, security operations are coordinated, and the chain of command remains unbroken. While the eventual appointment of a substantive minister is a normal and expected step for long-term strategic planning, the interim period itself does not constitute a legal or operational lacuna. The situation underscores a key principle of governance: the resilience of state institutions often depends more on the continuity of delegated authority and professional civil service than on the permanence of a single political appointee. Public discourse would benefit from focusing on the outputs and security outcomes of the ministry, rather than the internal title of its political head, to accurately assess national governance.

Sources and Verifiable References

This analysis is based on the following verifiable sources and constitutional provisions:

• Primary Source: Interview with Hon. Felix Kwakye Ofosu, Minister for Government Communications, on Joy FM’s Top Story, broadcast on February 19, 2025. (Note: A recording was reportedly embedded in the original publication).
• Constitutional Basis: The 1992 Constitution of Ghana, particularly:
  • Article 195: The President as Commander-in-Chief.
  • Article 76: Appointment of Ministers of State.
  • Article 74 & 75: Oaths and general functions of Ministers.
• Public Record: The current list of Ministers of State as published on the official website of the Presidency of Ghana, which designates the minister concurrently responsible for the Ministry of Defence.
• Historical Precedent: Records of previous interim ministerial appointments in Ghana’s Fourth Republic, publicly available through parliamentary Hansard and presidential press releases.
• Expert Analysis: Commentary from Ghanaian constitutional lawyers and security studies scholars on the nature of executive delegation, as frequently published in national newspapers like the Daily Graphic, Ghanaian Times, and online portals such as MyJoyOnline and Citinewsroom.

Disclaimer: The analysis and interpretations in this article are based on publicly available information and constitutional provisions. They represent an objective breakdown of the governmental position and do not constitute political endorsement or criticism. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy of any media organization.