The Minority in Parliament has criticised government for what it calls a lack of transparency in securing its first loan facility since taking office.

Parliament on Tuesday, July 1, approved a $360 million financing agreement between government and the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) as part of the Second Resilient Recovery Development Policy Financing to support Ghana's 2025 budget.

However, the Minority insists the government is being disingenuous about the true nature of the facility.

Contributing to the debate before the approval, Ranking Member on the Committee on Economy and Development, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, accused government of deliberately using vague language to disguise the transaction as anything but a loan.

• Read also: Parliament approves $360m World Bank facility to support 2025 budget

“Mr Speaker, first is the subject of candour. It is important for the government to exercise candour and full transparency in what you are doing.

"If you notice the communication that has been associated with this facility, be it in the media or even here in the chamber, on the order paper and the report, there is an attempt to obfuscate,” he said.

“This is a loan of $360 million that this government is taking, but because they want to hide it, they are deliberately describing it as financing. We understand what financing is. We do. We understand what it is. But, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber over and over again, when the order paper appears, we talk of a loan agreement.”

The facility, presented to the House by Deputy Finance Minister Thomas Nyarko Ampem, is expected to support macroeconomic stability, restore economic growth, reduce inflation, and enhance the livelihoods of citizens.

According to the Finance Committee, which recommended the facility’s approval, the agreement forms a critical part of the government's broader economic recovery programme.

But for the Minority, the controversy is not about the merits of the loan itself but the manner in which the government has communicated it.

They insist that transparency and accountability should not be sacrificed, especially at a time when public confidence in fiscal policy remains fragile.