The Cathedral Conundrum; Where Does the NDC Stand?

After years of criticism in opposition, Ghanaians deserve to know what the Mahama administration intends to do with a project it once made a powerful political issue.

The National Cathedral usually began with a promise.

Not a manifesto promise. Not, at least in the way Ghanaians understood major policy commitments during the 2016 election campaign.

It was presented after former Prez. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo won the presidency as something more personal; a pledge he had made to God. The symbolism was powerful.

A president fulfilling a promise to his God. A monument to Christianity. A national place of worship. A physical embodiment of faith, unity and spirituality.

But somewhere along the way, a personal pledge became a project involving the Ghanaian state.

Public land was committed to it. Buildings were demolished to make way for the project. Public institutions became entangled in its development. Public money was spent.

After years of political controversy, the country is left with an unfinished project, a valuable piece of land in the centre of Accra and a very large question:

What exactly does the government intend to do with the National Cathedral?

Ghanaians deserve an answer. Neither another political argument nor another exchange between the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Not another appeal to religion. An actual blueprint.

From personal pledge to public project

The distinction between a personal pledge and a government policy matters.

President John Mahama has recently described the National Cathedral as exactly that; a personal pledge by former President Akufo-Addo to God, rather than a national policy that his administration is obliged to continue. He has also said that he has nothing against Ghana having a National Cathedral, but that taxpayers should not be expected to finance it.

That position raises an obvious question.

If this was a personal pledge, how did the Ghanaian state become so deeply invested in its execution?

The answer is now part of the country’s history.

The project occupied public land in the heart of Accra. Existing structures on the site were demolished, including judicial bungalows. Whatever the arguments over the legality of the land allocation, the fact remains that public assets were affected by the decision to make the site available. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the allocation did not breach the Constitution.

So the issue is not simply whether the land allocation was legal.

It is what Ghana chose to do with a scarce public asset and what it has to show for it.

The money cannot dissapear into politics

This is where the National Cathedral becomes an accountability issue rather than merely a religious one.

The financial story has never been as simple as the original rhetoric suggested.

There was a time when the project was presented as one that would be supported primarily through contributions from Christians, with the state providing land and initial support.

Interestingly, then-Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta acknowledged that expenditure on the project had been made through the Contingency Vault under government obligations. He also described the National Cathedral as 100 per cent owned by the state.

That should have settled one question.

Instead, it created another.

If the project is state-owned, then the Ghanaian public is entitled to know precisely what it owns.

How much has been spent? How much is outstanding? What contracts remain? What liabilities have been created? What assets have been acquired? What is the value of the structure today? And what would it cost to complete?

Commission on human rights and admistratived justice (CHRAJ)’s own investigation provides an indication of the scale involved. The Commission reported that GH¢225.96 million had been spent on the project as of May 31, 2022, covering areas including site preparation, contractor mobilisation, fundraising, consultants and symposia. It subsequently recommended a forensic audit into the project from its inception.

That is not pocket change. It is money that demands an explanation.

The NDC made the cathedral a political issue

For the NDC, the National Cathedral was not a peripheral issue while the party was in opposition.

It became one of the clearest symbols of what the party argued was wrong with the Akufo-Addo administration’s approach to public resources and accountability.

The NDC’s 2024 manifesto went beyond criticism.

It promised a forensic audit and an inquiry into what it described as the “$58 million National Cathedral scandal” and said it would seek broad consensus on what should happen to the abandoned site.

That was a promise to voters. Now the NDC is in government and that changes everything.

Opposition parties can criticise.

Governments must decide.

So what is the blueprint?

This is where Ghanaians deserve clarity.

The government has begun taking steps. It has dissolved the Board of Trustees, and the project site is to be handed over to the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs by October 31, 2026.

The Christian Council has also established a technical committee to consider the future of the project, including questions around funding and location, with recommendations expected to feed into government’s decision-making.

These are processes and Ghanaians need the destination. What happens after the handover?

Does government intend to complete the Cathedral? If yes, who pays? Will another cedi of taxpayers’ money go into it? If the answer is no, who takes responsibility for completing it?

Does government intend to hand the project over to the Christian community?

If so, under what legal and financial arrangement?

Will the existing site remain the location? If not, what happens to the land and the partially completed structure? what happens to the money that has already been spent?

These questions are not unreasonable.

They are the minimum questions that should accompany a project of this scale.

Ghana cannot afford another political limbo

There is a danger that the National Cathedral could become something worse than a controversial project.

It could become a monument to indecision. A half-built structure sitting on valuable public land. A reminder of money spent but never fully accounted for. A political football passed from one administration to another.

That cannot be the outcome.

If the government believes the Cathedral should not be completed, it should say so clearly and explain what happens next.

If it believes the Cathedral should be completed, it should present the financing model and explain why.

If it believes the Christian community should take ownership, it should explain how that transition will happen.

If the government is still waiting for audits, investigations and technical recommendations before deciding, it should tell Ghanaians exactly what information it is waiting for and when the country can expect a final decision.

Uncertainty is not a blueprint and the decision cannot wait.

Accountability remains same after a transfer of power

There is also a larger principle at stake.

When the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was in opposition, it was entitled to scrutinise the Cathedral.

Now that it is in government, it has a greater responsibility; to demonstrate the accountability it demanded from its predecessor.

That means publishing the facts, allowing the audit to establish what happened, It means establishing the financial obligations attached to the project, it means explaining the status of the land, It means accounting for public expenditure and ultimately, it means presenting Ghanaians with a clear decision.

The government does not have to complete the Cathedral simply because the previous government started it.

Nor does it have to abandon it simply because the previous government started it.

The decision should be based on the public interest and supported by evidence.

Most importantly, the country cannot remain indefinite in this strange middle ground where the project is neither completed nor definitively abandoned.

The cathedral is now bigger than Prez Akuffo Addo

Perhaps this is the most important point.

The National Cathedral may have begun as former Prez. Nana Akufo-Addo’s personal pledge.

But once public land, public institutions and public resources became involved, the project ceased to be merely a private matter between a president and his God.

It became a matter of public interest and public interest requires public accountability.

The NDC spent years asking questions about the Cathedral.

Now Ghanaians are entitled to ask the NDC the questions.

What is the plan? What is the cost? What happens to the land? What happens to the structure? What happens to the money already spent?

Perhaps the most important question of all:

What does this government believe should become of the National Cathedral?

Ghanaians do not need another campaign slogan.

They do not need another political battle over Akufo-Addo’s legacy.

They need clarity.

The audits should tell us what happened.

The government should tell us what it intends to do.

After everything Ghana has already put into the National Cathedral, the least the country deserves is to know where it is going next.

By Hannah Agyemang

About The Author