The Minority Caucus of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Parliament has contested aspects of a Special Audit Report issued by the Auditor-General of Ghana on the government’s flagship One District One Factory (1D1F) initiative.

In a press statement issued on Thursday, March 19, the Caucus acknowledged the constitutional mandate of the Auditor-General under Article 187 of the 1992 Constitution, reaffirming its support for transparency and public expenditure oversight.

However, it raised serious concerns over what it described as “materially inaccurate and legally unsupported characterisations” contained in the report.

The 1D1F programme, formally known as One District One Factory, was launched in 2017 under former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as a cornerstone of Ghana’s industrial transformation agenda.

According to the Minority, the initiative was designed to address structural unemployment, reduce reliance on raw commodity exports, and strengthen the country’s productive capacity.

It operated under a private sector-led, government-facilitated model, where the state provided policy support and financial risk mitigation rather than directly establishing factories.

The programme supported both greenfield investments—new manufacturing enterprises in underserved districts—and brownfield projects, involving the expansion or modernisation of existing businesses.

Central to the Minority’s objection is the report’s treatment of financial arrangements under the programme, particularly the use of interest subsidies and stimulus packages channelled through Participating Financial Institutions (PFIs).

The Caucus explained that high commercial lending rates, often exceeding 30 per cent annually, posed a major barrier to industrial investment.

To address this, government entered into agreements with 14 financial institutions to provide loans to beneficiary companies at capped interest rates of 20 per cent, with the state covering the differential through advance subsidy payments.

However, the Minority disclosed that in several instances, these advance subsidy funds did not fully materialise. As a result, PFIs were unable to extend the expected loans to beneficiary companies.

It argued that this explains why some companies were reported by banks as having no outstanding loans—because no funds had been disbursed in the first place. The Caucus insisted that this situation does not constitute evidence of financial impropriety.

The Minority took particular exception to the Auditor-General’s alleged characterisation of certain transactions as “fictitious” and as a “deliberate attempt to divert funds”.

It maintained that the transactions in question were lawfully appropriated by Parliament, processed through the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department and the Bank of Ghana, and disbursed to licensed financial institutions in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).

“A transaction that has passed through all established public financial management controls cannot, in law, be labelled fictitious absent evidence of fabrication,” the statement asserted, adding that no prior audit had flagged irregularities in the programme’s fund-flow mechanisms.

The Minority Caucus has therefore called on Parliament and relevant authorities to take specific actions, including directing the Ministry of Finance to retract the disputed characterisations.

It also urged the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a thorough and impartial review of the audit findings before attributing blame to any individuals or institutions.

Additionally, it called for greater engagement between auditors and implementing agencies in future special audits to ensure factual accuracy prior to publication.

Despite its objections, the Minority emphasised that it remains committed to accountability and transparency in public financial management. However, it cautioned against what it described as the politicisation of oversight processes.

“Accountability must be grounded in law, fact, and fairness,” the statement concluded, warning that mischaracterisation of programmes such as 1D1F risks undermining initiatives that it believes have delivered significant developmental benefits to the people of Ghana.