There is a persistent and, in my view, backward notion in our public discourse that the age of a company is somehow synonymous with its competence.

It is not.

A company may have existed for decades, possess every conceivable certificate and have an impressive history, yet lack the equipment, personnel, financial capacity or technical competence required for a particular job. Conversely, a company incorporated only months ago may possess all these things.

The question should therefore be simple: Can the company do the job, and can it demonstrate the capacity to do it?

This principle is worth defending regardless of the political party in power, the company involved or the controversy of the day.

Consider a senior engineer who has spent 30 years working for the Ghana Highway Authority or a major construction company. He has supervised highways, bridges and complex infrastructure projects. One day, he resigns and establishes his own construction company. He acquires the necessary equipment, recruits experienced engineers and technicians, obtains the required statutory classifications and demonstrates adequate financial capacity.

Why should his company be considered incompetent simply because it is six months old?

Did his 30 years of engineering experience disappear on the day he incorporated a new company?

Of course not.

The same logic applies everywhere else.

When a new radio station obtains its frequency and all regulatory approvals, must it broadcast secretly within its studios for ten years before it is considered experienced enough to accept advertising?

When a new bank satisfies the Bank of Ghana's capital, governance, technology and regulatory requirements and receives a licence, must it take deposits only from the families of its directors for several years before being allowed to serve the public?

When an airline obtains its operating licence, aircraft, qualified pilots, engineers, insurance and every required safety certification, must it fly empty aircraft for five years before accepting paying passengers?

That would be absurd.

Yet we sometimes apply precisely this reasoning to entrepreneurship and public contracting.

There are legitimate reasons to scrutinise a newly established company receiving a major public contract. Government must establish beneficial ownership, technical capacity, financial strength, equipment, personnel, previous experience of key professionals, regulatory compliance and the ability to execute the particular assignment. Procurement processes themselves must also comply with the law and protect value for money.

But scrutiny is different from prejudice.

Being new is not evidence of incompetence, just as being old is not proof of competence.

Indeed, if Ghana wants to build a serious entrepreneurial economy, we must be careful not to create a system in which yesterday's successful companies are permanently entitled to tomorrow's opportunities.

Every established Ghanaian company was once a new company.

If newcomers can never obtain substantial work because they lack corporate longevity, how exactly are they supposed to acquire the track record that qualifies them for substantial work?

That becomes a closed circle: you cannot get the contract because you have no history, and you cannot build a history because nobody will give you the contract.

Such thinking protects incumbents rather than promoting enterprise.

Our attention should instead be directed towards measurable capacity: Who are the people behind the company? What have they individually done before? What equipment and systems are available? What technical personnel have been assembled? Does the company have the financial capacity? Are the statutory requirements satisfied? Is the procurement method lawful? Is the price competitive and defensible? Can taxpayers obtain value for money?

Those are serious questions.

The date on a certificate of incorporation, by itself, tells us remarkably little about the ability of an organisation to perform.

We should therefore separate two important debates. Whether a particular public contract was properly procured is one question. Whether a newly incorporated company is inherently unqualified to undertake substantial work is another.

The first deserves rigorous scrutiny.

The second is simply bad economics.

Ghana needs more entrepreneurs, more engineering firms, more manufacturers, more technology companies and more young businesses willing to challenge established players. We cannot preach entrepreneurship every day and simultaneously construct a culture that treats new businesses with automatic suspicion.

Judge companies on competence, capability, compliance, capacity and value for money.

Let longevity be supporting evidence where relevant, not a substitute for competence.

And certainly not a barrier to enterprise.