By Sarah Baafi
The Member of Parliament for Garu, Thomas Anaba, has rejected suggestions that global conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war should be used to justify Ghana’s economic challenges.
Speaking on the GTV Breakfast Show during a discussion on the ongoing US–Israel–Iran conflict, Mr Anaba argued that while international crises may have ripple effects, they must not become a shield for poor governance.
“It is clear that global events can affect economies worldwide,” he said. “But we will not accept that as an excuse for incompetence or mismanagement. You cannot simply blame Ukraine for everything that goes wrong in Ghana.”
Mr Anaba maintained that governments must take responsibility for domestic economic decisions rather than attributing hardships solely to external shocks. Drawing parallels with the COVID-19 period, he questioned the handling of pandemic-related funds and accused authorities of failing to adequately account for resources mobilised during that time.
He further challenged the narrative that Ghana’s economy is uniquely vulnerable to global disruptions, citing cocoa prices as an example.
“When cocoa prices change on the world market, does it not affect Ghana?” he asked. “You cannot dismiss global market realities in one instance and then turn around to use another global crisis as justification for economic difficulties.”
The Garu MP also pointed to flagship government programmes such as Planting for Food and Jobs, arguing that promises of food sufficiency and sound economic management should be reflected in improved living conditions within a short period.
According to him, leadership requires preparedness and accountability, especially in times of global uncertainty. While acknowledging that conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war have global implications, he insisted that Ghana must respond with strong internal policies rather than resorting to blame.
His comments add to the ongoing national debate over how much of Ghana’s economic strain can be attributed to international developments versus domestic policy choices.
