The Mahama government’s decision to withdraw the controversial unitization directive is a crucial step in restoring investor confidence and ensuring evidence-based governance in the oil and gas sector. The President, John Dramani Mahama and the Minister, John Abdulai Jinapor, deserve commendation for remaining true to their promise.
During yesterday’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) to Parliament in Accra on Thursday, 27 February, Mr Maham confirmed the withdrawal of the Unitization Directive imposed by the Akufo-Addo government through John Peter Amewu, who was then the Energy Minister, and sustained by Dr Mathew Opoku Prempeh.
He stated that this decision, would create more opportunities and encourage greater investment in the country’s oil and gas sector, which has experienced a 35 per cent decline.
Shortly after his statement, Eni, welcomed the Ministry of Energy and Green Transition’s decision to withdraw the Unitization Directives issued in 2020 regarding the Sankofa oil field.
A statement issued by Eni, copied to The Herald, which has been championing the directive’s controversial nature, said: “In line with the Government’s objectives, Eni remains committed to leverage its portfolio of innovative projects, seizing new opportunities both in traditional and transition energy sectors, while strengthening domestic energy security and sustainability.”
More Read
However, the withdrawal alone is not enough. The architects of the flawed policy—those who engineered and facilitated a directive that undermined Ghana’s oil industry—must be held accountable. Failure to do so would not only reward wrongdoing but also set a dangerous precedent that could threaten future resource management decisions.
The unitization directive, which sought to merge the Sankofa and Afina oil fields, was never based on robust technical evidence. Instead, it was driven by political expediency and corporate lobbying bolstered by dubious technical advice by people who should know better.
At the heart of this “technical suicide” was Michael Aryeetey, the Managing Director of Explorco, who played a pivotal role in crafting the report that justified the unitization directives.
Aryeetey’s report, provided the pseudo-technical basis for the directive, aligning perfectly with a political agenda rather than industry best practices.
He was not alone. Kwame Ntow, who was recently appointed the CEO of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), was also a strong supporter of the directive.
Though he appears to have softened his stance in recent weeks—perhaps in anticipation of his CEO appointment—his role in advancing a policy that hurt Ghana’s oil sector cannot be ignored. It raises serious concerns about the kind of leadership he will bring to GNPC and whether he can truly be trusted to make decisions that serve the national interest.
The Petroleum Commission, under the leadership of Egbert Faibille, also failed in its mandate. As the regulator responsible for ensuring the technical and commercial soundness of petroleum operations, it had a duty to scrutinize the claims behind unitization.
Instead, the Commission looked the other way, allowing a directive with no solid technical foundation to be enforced. This negligence contributed to the subsequent arbitration defeat and the stagnation of Ghana’s upstream sector. The current leadership of the commission has demonstrated clear leadership contrary to what Egbert did.
The directive did not just create legal and political headaches—it directly harmed the oil and gas industry. Had Ghana pursued policies that encouraged competitive exploration and investment rather than forced unitisation, the sector could have doubled in size. The lost opportunities for additional investment, job creation, and revenue generation are staggering.
Ghana’s oil sector was already struggling with declining exploration activities, owing in part to poor governance, but the unitization controversy exacerbated the problem. International investors, already cautious about regulatory unpredictability, saw the directive as further proof that Ghana’s petroleum governance could be swayed by political and corporate interests rather than by technical merit.
Some companies put investment plans on hold, while others reconsidered their long-term presence in the country.
Ironically, the directive was justified on the grounds of maximising revenue for the state, but in reality, it achieved the opposite. The legal battles and industry slowdown meant that Ghana lost out on timely revenues that could have been used to support the Mahama administration’s economic recovery efforts today.
The damage done to the sector will take years to reverse, and merely withdrawing the directive is not enough to restore the lost growth potential.
Given the immense harm caused by the directive, it is unacceptable that those who designed and enabled it benefited from or are benefiting from high-profile appointments. If anything, they should face scrutiny and consequences for their actions and role in anchoring flawed political decisions.
The key figures behind the directive—Aryeetey, Ntow, and Faibille—must be investigated for their roles in advancing a policy that had no technical merit and led to economic losses. Their decisions must not be brushed aside as mere policy missteps; they represent a deliberate effort to push an agenda that prioritised corporate and political interests over the national good.
This is not about political witch-hunting. It is about setting a standard for accountability in Ghana’s governance. If public officials and corporate leaders can manipulate state policy without consequence, what is to stop future administrations from doing the same? If regulatory bodies can ignore their mandate and allow harmful policies to proceed unchecked, how can Ghana ensure that future resource decisions are made in the best interests of the people?
Ghana must now take decisive steps to prevent such governance failures in the future. Several key reforms are necessary. The Petroleum Commission must be insulated from political influence. Its leadership should be appointed based on technical expertise rather than political loyalty, and its decisions should be subject to transparent scrutiny.
Before any major policy directive is issued in the oil and gas sector, there must be a clear, independently verified technical and economic rationale. This would prevent situations where policies are implemented based on corporate lobbying rather than sound data.
A full audit of the decision-making process behind the unitization directive should be conducted. Those in technical positions found to have manipulated technical reports or failed in their regulatory duties must face consequences, whether through legal action, dismissal, or other disciplinary measures.
Ghana must send a strong message that it is committed to transparent, fair, and predictable governance in the oil sector. This requires not just policy reversals but also visible reforms that reassure investors that such incidents will not happen again.
By taking action against the key actors behind the directive, the government would reinforce the message that public office is a position of trust, not an avenue for self-serving decisions.
It would also ensure that Ghana’s oil resources are managed with integrity, competence, and a long-term vision for national development.
