Bright Simons: Ghana’s IMF Exit Is More Politics Than Progress

Ghana’s IMF Exit Is More Politics

Ghana’s recent decision to exit the International Monetary Fund (IMF) program ahead of schedule seems to be driven more by political image than genuine economic strategy, according to Bright Simons, Vice President of the policy think tank IMANI Africa. In his view, the move is largely symbolic, with both the government and the IMF aiming to present a public image of success—even if the underlying fiscal goals remain unachieved.

Simons expressed skepticism about the long-term significance of this decision. He painted a picture of a government eager to showcase progress but unwilling to commit fully to the difficult reforms that would ensure lasting financial stability. “The IMF will do a victory lap, the government will join in celebrating, and it will all look like a win,” he said. “But by 2028, we still won’t meet those targets. And by that point, we’ll no longer be in the program, so there will be no one to hold us accountable.”

READ: IMF Pledges Support for Ghana Amid Global Tariff Impact

For him, the early withdrawal isn’t just about exiting a financial agreement—it symbolizes a loss of commitment to fiscal discipline. The targets, such as reducing debt-to-GDP ratios or tightening public spending, were supposed to guide Ghana’s economic reforms. But once the structure and oversight provided by the IMF are gone, there’s little incentive for the government to stay on track. “The question becomes: do we still care about those targets without the program? Right now they matter, but by then, they probably won’t anymore.”

Simons was critical of both the government and the IMF, accusing them of focusing more on how the situation looks than on the actual economic realities. “They’ve elevated signalling above substance,” he argued. “And the government is going to take full advantage of that shift in priorities.” Without the external pressure and technical assistance the IMF provides, Simons doubts the government will maintain the political will necessary to carry out the difficult reforms.

One of his key concerns is that ending the program early removes the mechanisms that would have helped Ghana stay the course between 2026 and 2028—the period when much of the program’s intended impact would be most needed. According to him, if the IMF had truly wanted Ghana to meet those fiscal targets, it would have supported the government’s earlier request to extend the program. That extension, he said, would have kept the necessary “program levers” in place to push for the reforms and discipline required.

Without those levers, Ghana now has more freedom to chart its own path. While that might sound empowering, Simons suggests it could actually be a way to avoid the hard decisions. “Now they have more flexibility, sure—but that also means less accountability,” he explained. He believes that Ghana will try to regain access to international markets and source financing through other channels, possibly from countries or institutions that don’t demand the same level of fiscal reform. “If they think they can return to market borrowing, which they probably will by that time, then IMF goals like reducing debt to 55% or 70% of GDP will become irrelevant.”

He pointed to other African nations like Kenya and Nigeria as examples Ghana might try to follow. Kenya, he noted, ended its own IMF program early and managed to raise $1.5 billion from the Gulf region. Nigeria, on the other hand, has refused to engage with the IMF entirely in recent years. But while these countries may have found alternative sources of financing, Simons warned that Ghana’s situation might not be comparable. The real question is not whether Ghana can find money elsewhere—but whether it can implement meaningful reforms without the external discipline provided by institutions like the IMF.

“If you’re not serious about achieving those targets, then the whole discussion becomes irrelevant,” Simons said. “What matters is whether you’re truly reforming your institutions and economy. And right now, we don’t see that hunger, that urgency.”

ALSO READ: Nursing Training Admission Forms for 2025/2026 Out: Buy and Apply Here

He emphasized that while IMF programs often don’t come with huge financial payouts, their value lies in the credibility and discipline they bring. It’s not about how much money Ghana receives directly from the IMF, but about the trust and structure the program provides to the government and investors alike. “The real strength of the IMF program is that it forces governments to make hard, necessary choices. That’s where its power lies—not in the cash, but in the commitment it demands.”

Simons ended his commentary with a blunt assessment of the situation: “This is politics over purpose,” he said. “And we’ve seen how that story ends. It never ends well.”

In his view, Ghana’s early exit from the IMF program may offer short-term political advantages, but it risks undermining the long-term fiscal reforms the country desperately needs. The concern is not just about missing targets, but about missing the opportunity to truly reshape the economy in a sustainable way.

FOR MORE: CLICK Here