Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of the government’s proposed 24-hour economy initiative, describing it as an ambitious plan that may not survive the realities of governance.
In a detailed social media post, Bentil compared political campaigning to poetry and governance to prose—suggesting that while campaign rhetoric may be filled with grand promises, governing demands practicality and realism.
“Campaign is poetry, governance is prose,” he wrote. “You can sweet talk and imagine great things when campaigning, but in government, you must deal with reality!”
Bentil acknowledged the potential appeal of a 24-hour economy but stated plainly, “I wish it could work, but I know it won’t! I however wish the government well.”
The policy, championed by former President John Mahama during his campaign, aims to stimulate continuous economic activity through a three-shift industrial model, supposedly unlocking employment opportunities and boosting productivity. However, critics like Bentil say key prerequisites for its success remain unmet.
Bentil’s critique cited recent comments by Presidential Advisor on Industry, Goosie Tanoh, outlining the core requirements for such an economy:
-
Capacity Utilisation: “You must have capacity utilisation if you want to run a 24-hour economy; that allows you to implement the three-shift economy.”
-
Market Acceptance: “You must have qualitative products that are accepted and wanted by the market.”
-
Price Competitiveness: “And you must be price-competitive.”
-
Export Orientation: “The most important thing is that we achieve the levels of competitiveness, output growth that supports industry and traders to export.”
To each of these, Bentil responded with rhetorical questions: “Do we? Are we? Can we?”—highlighting skepticism over the country’s readiness to meet these requirements.
A key concern raised in the post was the estimated cost of the initiative, pegged at $6 billion over four years. Bentil broke it down to $1.5 billion annually but noted that with six months of the year already gone, the required annual expenditure could rise to $1.7 billion.
“Even if we have that money, would this be its best use?” he asked. “And we don’t have that money, so are you saying we will borrow this money for this purpose?”
Bentil warned that partial funding or implementation of the programme would lead to failure, drawing a metaphor: “A half-blown balloon won’t rise halfway up. It won’t rise at all.”
He also pressed the government for transparency on the programme’s deliverables: “We know how much it will cost, so please tell us in the same clear terms how much we are getting from this expenditure.”
Bentil raised concerns about possible financial mismanagement, asking, “In the end, will we have probes to find where the money was wasted and who stole what, or will we see the clear benefits of the huge open-ended expenditure?”
