A new study by the Centre for Extractives and Development Africa (CEDA), with support from the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), has raised concerns about the structure, governance, and overall effectiveness of the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF).
The findings were presented by CEDA’s Executive Director, Samuel Bekoe, during a training workshop for journalists aimed at strengthening transparency and accountability in the management of Ghana’s sovereign wealth resources.
According to the study, MIIF’s dual role—balancing commercial investments with development financing—has blurred its core mandate. This overlap, the report suggests, makes it difficult to properly assess performance and opens the door to potential political influence. It also highlights the absence of a clear fiscal framework, noting that the Fund does not operate with defined savings rules, withdrawal limits, or a firm fiscal anchor comparable to international standards.
Governance weaknesses were also identified, particularly the level of executive involvement in board appointments and the requirement for ministerial approval of allocation agreements. These, the report argues, undermine the Fund’s independence and weaken safeguards meant to ensure accountability.
On transparency, the study observed that MIIF’s disclosure practices remain limited, relying mainly on annual reports without provisions for publishing contracts, revealing beneficial ownership, or providing open access to data. “This reflects a compliance-oriented approach rather than a robust accountability framework,” Mr Bekoe stated.
The report further examined the impact of recent amendments to the law governing the Fund. It noted that the reduction of MIIF’s share of mineral royalties—from 80 percent to just 2 percent—has significantly weakened its financial base. Much of the revised allocation is now directed toward operational expenses, a shift the study says has curtailed the Fund’s ability to function effectively as a vehicle for long-term wealth accumulation.
Additional changes were found to have increased centralised executive control, limited the scope of investments, and heightened dependence on the Ministry of Finance for funding.
CEDA also pointed to gaps in oversight, highlighting the absence of an independent, multi-stakeholder body similar to the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC), which oversees petroleum revenues. Parliamentary supervision, the report added, is constrained by limited technical support for analysing sovereign wealth fund operations.
In comparing MIIF with similar funds in countries such as Norway, Chile, and Botswana, the study concluded that Ghana’s model falls short in areas such as fiscal discipline, institutional independence, and transparency.
Established under the Minerals Income Investment Fund Act, MIIF is mandated to manage Ghana’s equity interests in mining companies and maximise returns from mineral royalties. Since its creation in 2018, the Fund’s assets have grown from about $180 million to roughly $1 billion as of 2024.
Its investment portfolio includes $40 million in Asante Gold Corporation, covering the Bibiani and Chirano mines; $60 million in Atlantic Lithium; another $60 million in Electrochem Ghana Limited; $2 million in Castle Minerals; $4 million in Injaro Ghana Venture Capital; and $30 million directed toward an artisanal and small-scale mining incubation programme.
Despite this growth, the study maintains that significant structural and governance reforms are needed to improve transparency, strengthen oversight, and better position the Fund to achieve its long-term objectives.
ALSO READ:
