Government rejects claims of inflated sanitary pad procurement costs for school girls
The government of Ghana has rejected allegations that the procurement of sanitary pads under its Free Pads Policy for schoolgirls was marked by gross overpricing and lack of transparency. The response came after a lawmaker from the opposition raised questions about the cost per pack, suggesting potential misuse of public funds.
During the 2026 Budget debate, the Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, claimed that based on budget figures, the government was spending GH¢292 million to procure 6.6 million sanitary-pad packs, implying a unit cost of about GH¢45 per pack, which he argued was far above prevailing market rates.
The claims sparked public outcry and prompted demands for a detailed audit of the procurement process. Critics questioned whether the transaction delivered value for money or if inflated costs were used to justify excessive government spending.
In response, the Deputy Minister for Education, Dr Clement Apaak, rejected the allegations. He termed the arithmetic behind the claims “misleading” and said the assertions were based on selective interpretation of figures rather than full procurement data. He declared that there was no scandal and that government had not procured pads at GH¢45 per pack.
Dr Apaak clarified that actual procurement prices ranged between GH¢19 and GH¢24 per pack depending on supplier location and delivery region. He added that as of November 2025, millions of sanitary pads had been distributed to schoolgirls, covering basic, junior high and senior high levels.
The debate has reignited wider concerns about transparency in public procurement, cost-effectiveness, and accountability of government spending. Civil society groups and budget-watch organizations are calling for full disclosure of supplier contracts, per-unit costs, delivery verification, and independent audits.
Meanwhile, supporters of the Free Pads initiative argue that the programme remains a vital step toward improving menstrual hygiene, boosting school attendance among girls, and reducing gender-based disparities in education. They caution that politicizing the initiative could undermine its social and developmental benefits.
As pressure mounts, the Ministry of Education and other relevant agencies are under growing expectation to make full procurement records public and ensure that future allocations reflect market realities. For now, the government stands by its procurement process while opponents maintain they will monitor developments closely and continue calling for accountability.
The outcome of this controversy may have implications beyond the sanitary-pad programme itself, affecting how public spending, social interventions, and government procurement are perceived and managed in Ghana going forward.
