Minority Demands Review of Ghana’s 24-Hour Economy Market Programme

Accra, Ghana — September 16, 2026: The Minority Caucus in Parliament has called for a comprehensive review of the government’s 24-Hour Economy Market Programme, arguing that the initiative should be driven by the actual needs of individual communities rather than a uniform national approach.

The Minority says the programme could support local economies and improve trading infrastructure, but has raised concerns about project selection, planning, stakeholder consultation and the reported demolition of existing public infrastructure in some areas.

Speaking to the press on behalf of the Caucus, Francis Asenso-Boakye, Ranking Member of Parliament’s Committee on Local Government and Rural Development, said the programme should be redesigned around clearly established economic and developmental needs.

He called for a “needs-based and demand-driven” approach under which market projects would only be undertaken after proper assessments have established that they are required.

Minority Wants District Plans to Drive Market Projects

According to Asenso-Boakye, district development plans should play a central role in determining where new markets are built.

He argued that local assemblies, traders, traditional authorities, residents and other community stakeholders should have a meaningful role in decisions concerning the location, design and operation of the markets.

“Our local people, assemblies, traders, traditional authorities, residents and other stakeholders must have a meaningful say in the location, design and operation of these markets,” he said.

The Minority stressed that its position should not be interpreted as opposition to modern markets or efforts to strengthen local economies.

Instead, it wants government to ensure that such investments are based on demonstrated need, proper planning, community consultation and value for money.

‘One-Size-Fits-All’ Approach Questioned

A major concern raised by the Minority is what it describes as an apparent attempt to implement similar market projects across districts without sufficient consideration of the differences between communities.

Asenso-Boakye questioned whether adequate needs assessments, feasibility studies and local development plans had been used to determine the projects.

He argued that districts have different population sizes, levels of economic activity, infrastructure gaps and development priorities.

While some communities may genuinely need completely new markets, he said others may require different interventions.

Some districts, according to the Minority, may need existing markets to be rehabilitated or expanded, while others already have projects under construction that should simply be completed.

Roads, Schools and Drainage Also Require Attention

The Minority said district development cannot be reduced to market construction alone.

Asenso-Boakye pointed to other infrastructure needs that may be more urgent in particular communities, including:

• Roads
• Drainage systems
• Schools
• Health facilities
• Sanitation infrastructure
• Expansion or rehabilitation of existing markets

He argued that imposing essentially similar projects on districts without adequately considering their individual development plans could undermine the principle of decentralisation.

Concerns Over Demolition of Existing Infrastructure

The Minority also expressed concern over reports of existing public infrastructure being demolished as part of the implementation of the programme.

It is calling for a broader review to establish whether such actions represent good value for money, particularly where existing facilities could potentially be rehabilitated, expanded or repurposed.

The Caucus believes that public investment should avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure that taxpayers receive maximum value from infrastructure projects.

Minority Questions Programme’s Planning

Asenso-Boakye also questioned the origins and planning of the programme, arguing that a nationwide market infrastructure initiative was not clearly presented in the governing party’s 2024 manifesto in the form in which it is now being implemented.

He therefore described the current approach as appearing to have been developed later and questioned the planning processes behind the rollout.

“This raises a basic question about what needs assessments, feasibility studies and local development plans are guiding these projects,” he said.

The criticism places the programme within the wider political debate over how Ghana should balance national development priorities with the autonomy and planning responsibilities of local government authorities.

Minority Clarifies Position on 24-Hour Trading

The Caucus also made a distinction between 24-hour economic activity and the construction of 24-hour economy markets.

According to Asenso-Boakye, the Minority is not opposed to markets operating for extended hours where there is genuine economic demand.

Its concern, he said, is with how the infrastructure component of the programme is currently being implemented.

The Minority argues that the concept should not automatically translate into the construction of similar market facilities in every district regardless of whether communities actually require them.

African360 Analysis: Should Every District Get the Same Market Model?

The debate raises an important question about Ghana’s approach to decentralised development:

Should national programmes provide the same infrastructure across districts, or should local authorities determine what their communities need most?

The answer may not necessarily be one or the other.

A national development programme can establish broad standards and provide funding, while district assemblies can use local data and consultations to determine which projects are most appropriate for their communities.

For example, a rapidly growing urban district with thousands of traders may require a completely new market complex.

Another district may already have a functioning market but need better drainage, sanitation, storage facilities, parking or expansion.

A third community could arguably benefit more from roads or healthcare infrastructure than another market.

That is why the Minority’s call for needs assessments and local stakeholder involvement goes to the heart of the decentralisation debate.

At the same time, whether the government’s programme has been poorly planned or whether particular projects represent unnecessary duplication are matters that require evidence on a project-by-project basis.

The government will ultimately have to demonstrate that the markets being selected are economically justified, properly costed and aligned with local development priorities.

If that can be established, modern markets could become important centres for trade, jobs, small-business growth and local economic activity.

If communities are not adequately consulted, however, even well-funded infrastructure risks failing to meet the needs of the people it is intended to serve.

For Ghana’s 24-Hour Economy agenda to deliver its full promise, the most important question should therefore be:

What does each community actually need—and how will government prove that the investment is delivering value?