As the Bank of Ghana (BoG) advances plans to introduce diaspora bonds, a prominent banking and finance consultant is urging policymakers to confront a set of deep structural, financial, and credibility challenges that could undermine the initiative before it gains traction.
Dr. Richmond Atuahene, in a research paper examining the proposed instruments, identifies over a dozen risk factors that he says require urgent attention in the design and formulation stages. His analysis follows a high-level roundtable in Virginia, United States, on April 19, 2026, where BoG Governor Dr. Johnson Pandit Asiama outlined plans to convert Ghana’s surging diaspora remittances, which reached nearly $7.8 billion in 2025, into long-term investment capital through structured instruments including diaspora bonds.
Dr. Atuahene’s central concern is trust. He argues that the shadow of Ghana’s 2022 Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP) continues to weigh heavily on investor sentiment, particularly among Ghanaians abroad who remain wary of government commitments following the country’s debt default. Concerns about transparency, political interference, and the ultimate use of proceeds continue to erode confidence, making credibility the most significant hurdle to clear.
Beyond trust, the consultant points to weak legal and regulatory frameworks as a compounding risk. Fragile contract enforcement, limited creditor protections, and underdeveloped bankruptcy systems collectively undermine the investor security that successful bond issuances depend on. He also warns that issuing diaspora bonds is structurally expensive, with legal structuring, international marketing, and cross-border regulatory compliance potentially consuming as much as 4 to 5 percent of a bond’s value, eroding the financial benefit Ghana hopes to capture.
Currency risk is another concern. With Ghana’s exchange rate historically volatile, diaspora investors earning in foreign currencies face the prospect of returns being eroded by cedi depreciation, particularly on local-currency-denominated instruments. High inflation compounds that deterrent.
Dr. Atuahene also highlights a significant data gap. Ghana currently lacks comprehensive profiling of its diaspora, including where members are located, their income levels, and their investment preferences. Without this information, designing financially attractive and targeted products becomes difficult. He further notes that many diaspora investors prioritize liquidity over the patient, long-term capital commitments that bond instruments typically require, creating a structural mismatch.
On institutional readiness, the analyst observes that fragmented government agency mandates around diaspora affairs, the absence of a coherent national diaspora policy, and a diaspora community organized along ethnic and regional lines make coordinated and inclusive engagement a persistent challenge. He also cautions that government engagement has been heavily skewed toward Ghanaians in Europe and North America, overlooking potentially significant investor bases in Africa and other regions.
Regarding Ghana’s sovereign credit rating, which sits in the lower “B” range, Dr. Atuahene warns that without backing from credible international institutions or asset-based guarantees, investor appetite is likely to remain weak. He adds that a substantial share of remittances across Sub-Saharan Africa continues to flow through informal channels, limiting the volume of funds available within the formal financial system that bond programmes would draw from.
“Clear success will depend on more than good intentions,” Dr. Atuahene concludes. The challenge for policymakers, he stresses, is to rebuild trust, strengthen institutions, and design an instrument that meets both global financial standards and diaspora expectations.
