Healthcare Crisis Deepens as Ghana Diverts Funds to 24-Hour Markets, Says Suame MP

Suame Member of Parliament John Darko has intensified calls for the government to reprioritise its spending, questioning why billions are being invested in 24-hour economy markets when critical healthcare infrastructure remains unfinished across the country.

Mr Darko's intervention adds fresh momentum to growing criticism of the flagship 24-hour economy programme, which has already faced resistance from traders and communities unhappy with proposed market locations. The dispute highlights a fundamental tension in Ghana's development priorities: whether immediate market modernisation or healthcare completion should take precedence.

The Agenda 111 Stalemate

The MP's frustration centres on the Agenda 111 hospital project, which was launched to construct 111 new hospitals across Ghana but has stalled in many districts. Mr Darko argues that the government's capacity to fund large infrastructure projects should first be directed at completing these healthcare facilities, which directly serve life-saving functions in communities.

His reasoning is stark: a functioning hospital operating 24 hours is more valuable to a rural family facing a medical emergency than a night-time market for agricultural produce. He points out that government should consult communities about their actual needs before committing funds, noting that different constituencies face different challenges. A district lacking emergency medical facilities has fundamentally different priorities than one seeking market upgrades.

The timing is significant. As traders across Accra—including Konkomba yam sellers—protest market relocation plans, questions are emerging about whether the 24-hour economy rollout has been adequately planned or properly consulted on with stakeholders.

Implementation Concerns and False Promises

Beyond the funding argument, Mr Darko raises practical concerns about whether the 24-hour market concept will deliver genuine economic activity. He alleges that government has strategically chosen existing market sites—where traders and customers already operate—rather than developing new commercial zones. The advantage is clear: existing foot traffic provides an appearance of success without organic economic growth.

The MP suspects that once markets are rebuilt, government officials will photograph evening activity and declare victory for the 24-hour economy policy, regardless of whether genuine night-time commerce actually develops. This criticism touches on broader governance anxieties: whether flagship programmes deliver real transformation or merely create optics of progress.

Why This Matters for Ghana

This debate exposes a critical resource allocation problem facing Ghana's government. The country has finite development capital, and choices made today shape citizens' quality of life for decades. Healthcare infrastructure—especially in rural areas—remains a lifeline issue; many Ghanaians die from treatable conditions because hospitals are distant or non-functional.

The 24-hour economy concept itself is not inherently flawed. Round-the-clock commerce can genuinely boost productivity and employment. But Mr Darko's challenge is legitimate: if government can afford both programmes, why are hospital projects abandoned? If resources are limited, which better serves Ghana's 35 million people?

Additionally, the pushback from traders and communities suggests the government has not built sufficient consensus for the market transformation. Parliamentary committees acknowledge consultation gaps. For a policy to succeed long-term, stakeholders must believe in it; resentment-driven implementation risks creating white-elephant projects that benefit neither traders nor the state.

Vice Chairman Charles Agbeve has attributed opposition to poor stakeholder engagement rather than the policy itself. That diagnosis, if accurate, suggests the government still has time to reset expectations and properly communicate the 24-hour economy vision to communities. However, Darko's intervention signals that the conversation is now broader: not just where markets go, but whether this is where Ghana's development resources should flow at all.