Member of Parliament for Damongo, Samuel Abdulai Jinapor, has questioned the characterisation of the Mahama administration as a “lean government,” arguing that the true size of government should be assessed by examining appointments across the entire public sector rather than focusing solely on ministers and deputy ministers.

His remarks come amid continuing debate over the cost of governance, with the opposition maintaining that reductions in the number of ministers do not necessarily translate into lower public expenditure.

The discussion has also followed recent comments by Minister of State in charge of Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, who rejected claims that staffing costs at the Presidency had increased under the current administration.

According to Mr Jinapor, a comprehensive evaluation of government size must include appointments made to ministries, departments, agencies, diplomatic missions and other state institutions. He contended that the number of political and administrative appointees across these structures contributes significantly to the overall cost of running government.

The Damongo MP cited Ghana’s foreign missions as an example, noting that while the current administration promotes itself as operating a lean government, the number of deputy ambassadors has increased compared to the previous administration.

He argued that such appointments should be factored into any assessment of government expenditure and staffing levels.

Speaking on Channel One TV on Monday, June 15, Mr Jinapor said the emphasis on the reduced number of ministers creates a false impression of efficiency.

“Why do we have a so-called lean government today, and yet the cost of running that government is much bigger?” he asked.

He added that former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo appointed six deputy ambassadors, whereas President John Dramani Mahama has appointed 18.

Mr Jinapor maintained that although the Constitution grants the President discretion in determining the structure of government, describing the administration as lean solely based on the number of ministers is inaccurate.

He argued that the wider network of appointments suggests a government structure that is larger in substance than it appears on paper, with corresponding implications for the public wage bill and overall expenditure.