Introduction

On August 6, Ghana was thrown into mourning when a tragic incident claimed the lives of eight gallant officers. Their passing drew deep emotions across the nation, culminating in a state-led funeral that brought together government, opposition, security services, civil society, and ordinary citizens. The government, as expected, pledged support for the bereaved families, commissioned multiple layers of investigations, and demonstrated solidarity through a dignified national burial.

While the gesture was solemn and symbolic, it raises a critical question: how much do such national interventions cost the state, and could such resources be better balanced with preventive investments in security infrastructure and capacity-building?

The Case for Transparency in State Expenditure

National burials, investigations, and compensations are legitimate responsibilities of the state. They reflect respect for service and duty, while also reassuring citizens that their government values human life and sacrifice. However, the opacity surrounding the actual cost of these interventions undermines accountability.
1. National Burial Costs – From caskets, transportation, security deployment, and ceremonial logistics to state-provided financial support for families, the overall expenditure can run into millions of cedis. Yet, rarely are these figures made public.
2. Family Support Packages – Government often pledges scholarships for children, employment support, or direct compensation. But without published figures, it becomes difficult to track delivery and follow through on promises.
3. Investigations – With multiple commissions, expert panels, and specialized probes launched after August 6, the cumulative cost to the taxpayer is not insignificant. Each comes with administrative budgets, allowances, and logistics. The public deserves to know how much is being invested in post-tragedy inquiries.

Publishing these figures is not about politicizing grief; it is about entrenching transparency, accountability, and value for money in governance.

The Juxtaposition: Costs of Reaction vs. Costs of Prevention

While the state invests heavily after tragedies, there is often less enthusiasm for preventive expenditure. This creates a vicious cycle: underfunding of preventive measures leads to avoidable disasters, which then compel the government to spend far more in the aftermath.
• Retooling Security Agencies – Many security agencies lack modern equipment, training, or technology that could avert or minimize tragedies. Investments in early-warning systems, protective gear, surveillance technology, and well-maintained infrastructure would reduce risks significantly.
• Culture of Maintenance– Globally, institutions that prioritize routine maintenance spend less on emergencies. Ghana’s security infrastructure often suffers from neglect, leading to accidents, equipment failure, or preventable vulnerabilities.
• Comparative Costs – For example, if GHS 30 million is spent on a state funeral, family support, and investigations, but only GHS 10 million annually is dedicated to upgrading safety protocols and retooling, then the state’s priorities are clearly reactionary rather than preventive.

Global Perspectives

Globally, governments are increasingly recognizing the importance of preventive spending over reactionary expenditure:
• United States – After multiple security lapses, billions were redirected into prevention, equipping agencies with technology to detect and avert threats before they escalate.
• Rwanda – Significant investment in military and police infrastructure has reduced the frequency of tragedies, thereby limiting costly post-event interventions.
• Norway – After the 2011 terror attack, government not only funded investigations but also transparently published their costs, alongside parallel investments in strengthening security institutions.

The lesson is clear: countries that prioritize transparency and prevention spend less in the long run while ensuring higher public trust.

Why Ghana Must Lead with Transparency

1. Restoring Public Confidence – Citizens must see that government support goes beyond rhetoric. Publishing costs demonstrates sincerity.
2. Encouraging Accountability – Making figures public deters misuse of funds and ensures promises to families are fulfilled.
3. Rebalancing Priorities – Transparency creates space for conversations about whether it is wiser to channel more funds into preventive measures instead of reactionary responses.

The August 6 tragedy has rightfully united the nation in grief and remembrance. But true honor for the fallen will not be found only in elaborate burials or post-tragedy pledges. It will be found in a transparent accounting of state expenditure, and a decisive commitment to preventive investment that saves lives before disaster strikes.