By Abubakar Sani, PhD (Finance)
So… Ghana runs on remittances. I mean, in 2024 the country pulled in about US$6.65 billion, which is crazy when you realize that’s over four times more than foreign direct investment (FDIs). Six percent of GDP, just from money people send back home. That’s not small change, that is school fees, that is hospital bills, that is someone’s shop rent.
Then boom, the Bank of Ghana goes and suspends a bunch of operators; TapTap Send, Afriex, Remit Choice, Top Connect, Send App. I get it, they want tighter compliance, protect the system and all that. But let’s be honest: the first people who feel it are not the Fintechs. It is the families waiting for money. “When the remittance rails are shut, it is not the Fintechs or the regulators who feel the first shock; it is the ordinary Ghanaian family waiting for money to buy food or pay school fees.” That line keeps ringing in my head.
And we’ve seen this story before. Nigeria tried it in 2016: limited remittances to just three operators. Prices went up, competition went down, diaspora complained, and government backtracked.
Classic Singapore? They were smarter. In 2023 they suspended only one corridor: money going to China via non-bank channels. Targeted, sharp, less chaos. Belize? That was a mess. When correspondent banks pulled out, the whole remittance system nearly died until they scrambled for international fixes.
Honestly, those examples should be like red flashing lights for us.
Now here’s where I think we need to push new ideas. Not the usual “enforce harder” stuff, because, well, that’s already been said. Imagine if Ghana had a remittance continuity plan like a safety net. If one operator is suspended, households can still receive money through a backup channel, maybe supported by World Bank or AfDB. Families shouldn’t just be left hanging.
Also, why not demand smarter data instead of blunt bans? If operators had to use ISO 20022 reporting – yeah, I know it sounds technical but basically, it’s richer data; regulators could see problems in real time.
You don’t need to switch off the whole system. “Shutting down an entire corridor because of compliance concerns is like switching off electricity in the whole city because of one faulty wire – what we need is a smarter grid, not a blackout.” That’s exactly how I see it.
And honestly, let’s think about the people at the end of the chain. If someone is scammed, why should they bear the loss? Why not make operators share liability for fraud, like in the UK? That would push firms to do stronger checks before money even moves. Oh, and instead of outright bans, ask non-compliant firms to post a performance bond. If they mess up again, the bond is called. That way, compliance is enforced, but users aren’t cut off.
Transparency matters too. What if the Bank of Ghana published a dashboard every quarter, fees, transaction speed, reliability, operator by operator? Sunlight. Customers would switch to whoever is cheaper and faster, and providers would step up. No need for endless clampdowns.
Look, I’m not saying regulation isn’t important. Of course it is. But “The success of this regulatory moment will not be judged by how many operators were punished, but by whether Ghanaians can still send and receive money safely, affordably, and reliably.” That’s the test.
Ghana can learn from Nigeria’s blunt mistakes, Singapore’s precision, and Belize’s near-collapse. If we’re smart, we can chart a better path; one that uses data, continuity, user protection, and transparency.
That way, when compliance problems pop up (because they always will), ordinary families don’t have to suffer first.
Stay tuned for more insightful posts from Abubakar Sani, (PhD)
