The Media Coalition for Good Governance (MCGG) has recently stepped into the spotlight to defend two major pillars of Ghana’s maritime infrastructure: LCB Worldwide Ghana Ltd. and the Integrated Customs Management System (ICUMS). During a recent press briefing, the group’s Lead Convener, Kwadwo Baffour Atuahene, took a firm stance against what he characterized as a wave of baseless and misleading allegations currently circulating in the media. Atuahene argued that when we discuss the efficiency and integrity of our national ports, we have a responsibility to rely on verified facts and technical assessments rather than rumors. He pointed out that the current accusations—which range from claims of poor service delivery to allegations of operational malpractice—are notably absent of any supporting evidence, such as independent audits or laboratory reports, which makes them reckless attempts to stir up public anxiety.
At the heart of the debate is the role of LCB Worldwide in maintaining public health safety at Ghana’s borders, a task that Atuahene insists must be handled with scientific rigor. By referencing findings from SARL Africa, a think-tank specializing in trade facilitation, he highlighted that the company operates under strictly regulated protocols approved by the Ghana Health Service. Every step of their disinfection process is apparently subject to routine inspections and laboratory validation to ensure that the chemicals used are actually effective. Atuahene’s message was clear: if there are legitimate concerns about how port health is managed, the solution is not to go on a smear campaign, but to sit down for constructive, technical dialogue that actually addresses the mechanics of the port rather than relying on sensationalist headlines.
The conversation also shifted to address public fears regarding the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP) 2025 Half-Year Report. There has been a prevailing narrative in the public eye that this report serves as a “smoking gun” indicting LCB Worldwide for corrupt practices. Atuahene worked to dismantle this misconception, explaining that the report was intended as a routine governance review designed to highlight institutional vulnerabilities, not a criminal prosecution of private businesses. He clarified that the OSP neither found the company to be corrupt nor issued any formal adverse findings against them. By misreading the intentions of the OSP, critics are arguably distorting the purpose of institutional oversight, turning a tool for improvement into a weapon for character assassination.
Beyond the health sector, the MCGG addressed the controversial topic of the Integrated Customs Management System (ICUMS). Critics have long argued that the platform is prone to “dysfunctional” behavior, leading to massive financial losses for local importers. Atuahene countered this by providing a more grounded perspective on digital trade systems. He noted that even in the world’s most advanced economies, single-window platforms occasionally experience downtime—it is an inevitability of modern technology rather than a failure of management. ICUMS, according to his data, maintains an uptime of 98 to 99 percent, a performance metric that holds its own against similar global customs systems. He argued that equating a minor technical glitch to systemic incompetence is a gross exaggeration that ignores the platform’s actual contributions to revenue collection and cargo visibility.
One of the most persistent complaints regarding ICUMS involves the accumulation of demurrage charges, which are the fees importers pay when goods are left too long in the port. Critics claim the system’s failures are directly costing businesses these fees. Atuahene pointed out the logical inconsistency in this narrative: ICUMS has never experienced a downtime period longer than 24 hours, yet the free grace period for importers at the port is a full seven days. He argued that it is mathematically impossible for a one-day technical hiccup to be the root cause of demurrage charges that only begin to accrue after a week. By focusing blame on the system, he suggests that critics may be obscuring other operational bottlenecks that are truly responsible for these added costs.
Ultimately, the MCGG is calling for a “maturation” of public discourse in Ghana. Atuahene stressed that advocacy should be backed by data, a solid understanding of regulatory frameworks, and objective comparative benchmarking. When we criticize our national infrastructure without a foundation of evidence, we risk damaging the very institutions that support our economy and security. The coalition is urging civil society groups, journalists, and policy advocates to shift their approach from broad, unsubstantiated allegations toward evidence-based engagement. If Ghana is to continue strengthening its public health security and trade efficiency, the conversation must be elevated—moving past inflammatory rhetoric and toward a collaborative effort to ensure that our national systems operate with transparency and excellence.