REVIEW 24-HOUR ECONOMY MARKET PROGRAMME - MINORITY DEMANDS

Minority said It stressed the need for the government to deepen stakeholder engagement and undertake a comprehensive and non-partisan review of the programme to address concerns over planning, project selection and the reported demolition of existing public infrastructure. It said the programme should be redesigned to be “needs-based and demand-driven”, with projects undertaken only where genuine economic and developmental needs had been established. Addressing the press on behalf of the Caucus, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development, Francis Asenso-Boakye, said district development plans must guide the selection of market projects. “Above all, 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. Mr Asenso-Boakye said the Minority supported investment in modern markets and the strengthening of local economies but insisted that such development must be based on need, proper planning, consultation and value for money. He said the government could not claim to support decentralisation while imposing development priorities on district assemblies from the centre. Decentralisation Expressing serious concern about the implementation of the programme across the country, Mr Asenso-Boakye stressed that the Minority was not opposed in principle to markets operating for extended hours where there was genuine economic demand. He, however, described the programme, as currently being implemented, as poorly conceived, inadequately planned and disconnected from the actual development needs of many communities. To him, the programme appeared to be an afterthought because it was not presented to Ghanaians as a nationwide market infrastructure programme in the governing party’s 2024 manifesto. “Yet, the government is now pursuing what appears to be a national programme of constructing 24-hour economy markets across districts regardless of their development needs, population sizes, economic activities and existing infrastructure. “This raises a basic question about what needs assessments, feasibility studies and local development plans are guiding these projects,” he said. He explained that district assemblies were designated as planning authorities within their jurisdictions to ensure that development responded to local needs and priorities. While some districts required new markets, he said, others needed the rehabilitation or expansion of existing facilities. Some also had markets already under construction that required completion. Other districts, he added, might have more urgent needs, including roads, drainage systems, schools, health facilities and sanitation infrastructure. “To impose essentially the same projects across districts without adequate regard for their development plans undermines the very principle of decentralisation,” he said.