Kwabena Agyepong’s take on Mahama’s 'missed' economic reset
3rd March 2026
President John Dramani Mahama’s February 27, 2026 State of the Nation Address (SONA) was expected to mark a defining turning point for a country struggling with economic pressure, environmental destruction, investor uncertainty and deep public frustration.
Constitutionally, the address represents the highest policy moment — a platform meant not only to account for governance, but to define national direction. Yet, rather than delivering a strategic reset, the address has been widely interpreted as an exercise in political reassurance, offering continuity where the nation demanded clarity and reform.
Historically, moments of economic strain in Ghana have forced presidents to use the SONA as a tool for national recalibration. From the structural adjustment era to post-energy crisis recovery and debt restructuring periods, such speeches have traditionally served as blueprints for reform. In that context, expectations for the 2026 address were high.
The economy remains under stress, public trust in institutions is fragile, environmental damage is accelerating, and confidence among farmers, entrepreneurs and investors is deeply shaken.
The SONA was therefore seen as a rare opportunity to redefine national priorities and restore belief in the future.
Instead, Ing Kwabena Agyapong in a statement argue that the address focused more on managing political perception than on confronting hard policy choices. While it acknowledged challenges, it failed to present a coherent transformation agenda capable of unifying farmers, investors and ordinary citizens around a shared national recovery vision.
The speech, he said stabilised the political narrative but did not restructure the economic one.
One of the most controversial aspects was the framing of fiscal discipline around cocoa pricing.
He added that Cocoa remains one of Ghana’s most strategic economic assets, supporting millions of rural livelihoods and anchoring foreign exchange earnings.
Yet cocoa farmers already face rising costs of inputs, climate uncertainty, ageing plantations and unstable global prices. Against this background, the suggestion that producer prices must be reduced to avoid returning to an International Monetary Fund programme has been widely criticised as a policy that protects macroeconomic indicators while exposing rural livelihoods to deeper vulnerability.