Ghana’s government has shut down the purchase and operation of separate biometric fingerprint systems across all public institutions, marking a decisive move toward unified identity management under one central authority.
The directive, dated October 24, 2025 and signed by the Secretary to the President, Callistus Mahama, mandates the standardisation of biometric identification across all state entities under the National Identification Authority. It’s the latest chapter in a decade long struggle to consolidate fragmented identity databases that have cost taxpayers millions while creating security gaps.
The moratorium applies immediately to every Ministry, Department and Agency, as well as all Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies. They’re now banned from buying, building, or running any Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems outside the NIA’s framework. What’s more, agencies can’t even verify Ghana Cards through visual inspection anymore; they must use the NIA’s biometric authentication platform.
The NIA, established by the National Identification Authority Act, 2006 (Act 707) and the National Identity Register Act, 2008 (Act 750), is mandated to register Ghanaians and legally resident foreign nationals, maintain the National Identity Register, and issue national identity cards. That legal foundation makes it the sole custodian of Ghana’s biometric infrastructure, yet over the years, dozens of government entities built their own competing systems.
Those parallel databases haven’t just been wasteful. According to the directive, the proliferation of biometric systems across government institutions has led to inefficiencies, security vulnerabilities, and unnecessary costs associated with maintaining parallel databases. Each standalone system requires separate maintenance contracts, technical staff, and security protocols, multiplying expenses across the public sector.
The Presidency isn’t asking nicely. It further warned that any procurement in violation of the moratorium would be deemed illegal and a direct disregard of presidential authority. Agencies running their own biometric systems right now have exactly six months to integrate everything with the NIA’s National Identification System or face enforcement action.
There’s a narrow escape hatch, though. Institutions claiming they need specialised biometric capabilities for unique operations must submit written justification directly to the Office of the President for approval. But that’s clearly meant to be the exception, not the rule.
The NIA won’t leave agencies stranded during the transition. The NIA has been tasked to provide technical support to MDAs to facilitate data harmonisation and integration into the National Identity Register and the Identity Verification System platform. Minister for Interior Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak will oversee compliance and handle any agencies that drag their feet.
The moratorium also references the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843), which requires that all personal and biometric data collected by public institutions be secured and processed lawfully. Centralising everything under one authority should make it easier to enforce those protections, though it also creates a single point of potential failure if security isn’t properly managed.
A 2014 presidential moratorium on independent AFIS procurement, which the new directive now reinforces. That earlier attempt clearly didn’t stick, which explains why this version includes tougher enforcement mechanisms and explicit legal consequences for violations.
The policy reflects a broader push across West Africa to streamline digital identity systems. Nigeria has discussed similar harmonisation efforts for its biometric databases. For Ghana, consolidation could mean faster service delivery when citizens interact with multiple agencies, since they’d all verify identities through the same system instead of maintaining separate records.
Whether the six month deadline proves realistic remains to be seen. Government IT integration projects have a mixed track record, and merging potentially incompatible databases from dozens of agencies into one platform is technically complex. But with presidential authority behind it and explicit illegality attached to non compliance, agencies won’t have much room to delay.
