The Hidden Cost of Digital Dependency
The turbulence surrounding Ghana’s health data systems has revealed a deeper national problem that stretches well beyond a malfunctioning digital platform. When the Ministry of Health announced the rollout of the Ghana Health Information Management System (GHIMS) to replace the Lightwave Health Information Management System (LHIMS), it was not merely a technical shift but a moment of reckoning. Beneath the operational jargon lies an uncomfortable truth: Ghana has for too long underestimated the governance implications of its dependence on private vendors for critical digital infrastructure.
This pattern of dependency is not confined to the health sector. From e-revenue platforms to national identification systems, the state has repeatedly signed contracts that transfer operational control to private entities while sidelining long-term continuity. These arrangements often exclude access to source code, rely on foreign hosting, and lack clear exit strategies. Once implemented, such systems become indispensable, and governments find themselves trapped in cycles of dependence that are difficult and costly to break. The LHIMS episode, where hospitals were forced to revert to manual records after contractual breakdown evidentially illustrates not just technological fragility, but a governance failure with real human consequences.
Gaps in Law and Governance
Ghana’s Data Protection Act of 2012 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2020 provide valuable guardrails around data privacy and system security, yet they remain largely silent on the governance of digital infrastructure. The statutes define the duties of data controllers and processors but do not anticipate scenarios where the state cannot access or migrate its own data without vendor consent. They protect confidentiality but not continuity; they safeguard privacy but not sovereignty.
In practice, the absence of a dedicated policy framework means contracts have become the true regulators of national data governance. Too often these agreements fail to include clauses guaranteeing the state’s ownership of data, its right to access source code, or its ability to migrate information to other systems. Many are silent on local hosting and redundancy, leaving national datasets stored on servers governed by foreign law. Once such systems take root, the cost of renegotiation in most cases financial, technical, and political then becomes prohibitively high.
This gap reflects a deeper policy vacuum. Ghana has not yet developed a coherent philosophy of digital stewardship. Public agencies still approach technology projects through a short-term procurement lens, valuing cost and speed of delivery over sustainability and control. Without clear rules on vendor conduct, interoperability standards, and contractual safeguards, each new system risks reproducing the same vulnerabilities that have haunted earlier initiatives.
A Policy Shift In Technology Contracting
The way forward must begin with a decisive change in how the state conceives of technology contracting. Digital systems are not disposable commodities; they are long-term public assets that require governance, oversight, and continuity planning. The government’s role must shift from that of a purchaser to that of a steward. This means re-imagining procurement laws and tender processes to prioritise open standards, data portability, and interoperability as essential components of national resilience.
A national framework for technology contracting is urgently needed. Such a framework would mandate among other things that all systems developed for public use store primary data within Ghanaian or regional jurisdictions, adopt open data formats, and include enforceable provisions guaranteeing state access and control. It would also ensure that authorities and agencies retain the technical capacity to manage, migrate, or replace systems without disruption. Parliament and the Public Procurement Authority should work with the Ministry of Communications and Digitalisation to embed these standards across government operations, supported by training for legal officers and procurement teams on technology contract governance.
Ultimately, this is about sovereignty in the digital age. True digital independence is not defined by the ownership of hardware or the nationality of a vendor, but by whether a country retains unimpeded control over its data and systems. The recent health-sector disruption is a timely reminder that without foresight, policy discipline, and enforceable governance structures, even the most promising digital transformations can unravel overnight. Ghana’s next phase of digital evolution must therefore prioritise stewardship over acquisition, and resilience over convenience. Only then can the nation secure its place as both a participant in and a guardian of its own digital destiny.
Author:
Desmond Israel, Esq. is a Lecturer and Head of Department of Public Law And Governance at the GIMPA Law School, He is also a Partner in charge of Cyberlaw & Technology Practice at AGNOS Legal Company and a Senior Policy Analyst with Institute for Liberty and Policy Innovation (ILAPI)
