Parliament’s consideration of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA) Bill, 2026 presents an important opportunity to strengthen Ghana’s downstream petroleum sector. But it also demands careful scrutiny to ensure that regulatory reform does not inadvertently undermine one of the state’s most important energy-security institutions — Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company (BOST) Energies.
The concern raised by the Institute for Economic Research and Public Policy (IERPP) deserves serious consideration, not because Parliament should automatically accept the institute’s position, but because the proposed legislation touches directly on the relationship between regulation, commercial operations and national fuel security.
BOST is not simply another state-owned commercial enterprise. Its responsibilities include petroleum storage and transportation infrastructure that have implications for the country’s ability to maintain fuel supplies. At a time when Ghana’s energy security is increasingly linked to regional trade and volatile international markets, the institutional arrangements governing such infrastructure cannot be treated casually.
Indeed, BOST’s latest financial performance makes the debate even more significant. The company reported GH¢3.81 billion in revenue and GH¢683.96 million in profit after tax for 2025, representing revenue growth of 195 per cent and a 72 per cent increase in profit. It also paid its first-ever dividend to the Government of Ghana.
These figures do not mean that BOST should be shielded from regulation or scrutiny. On the contrary, a profitable state-owned company handling strategic national infrastructure must remain subject to strong oversight, transparency and accountability.
But regulation should not create a situation in which BOST carries national obligations without having the commercial authority or financial capacity to discharge them.
That is the central question Parliament must resolve.
If BOST is expected to maintain strategic fuel reserves and operate an extensive network of depots and pipelines, the law should clearly establish how those responsibilities will be funded. Strategic reserves are national assets. Their cost should therefore not be left entirely to the commercial fortunes of a state-owned company.
The proposed legislation must also clearly distinguish between the role of the NPA as regulator and BOST as an operator of strategic infrastructure. Effective regulation requires independence from the entities being regulated. At the same time, excessive regulatory intervention in day-to-day commercial decisions can undermine an entity’s ability to operate efficiently.
This is particularly important because Ghana needs both a competitive downstream petroleum industry and reliable national fuel-security infrastructure. These objectives should complement, rather than undermine, each other.
IERPP has raised questions about tariff-setting, competition from private depots and the allocation of responsibilities for strategic reserves. Those questions should not be dismissed. They should form part of the parliamentary examination of the Bill.
Parliament should therefore demand clear answers to several fundamental questions.
Who will finance strategic fuel reserves? Who will determine the appropriate stock levels? How will BOST recover the cost of maintaining national petroleum infrastructure? What tariff mechanism will ensure that regulated charges are transparent and cost-reflective? And how will competition be structured so that private investment is encouraged without leaving BOST with costly national obligations while profitable segments migrate elsewhere?
These are not merely technical questions. They go to the heart of Ghana’s energy security.
Recent developments underline the importance of getting the balance right. BOST has reportedly reduced fuel exports to Burkina Faso and Mali amid tighter regional and international supply conditions, prioritising Ghanaian domestic demand. The company currently accounts for about 30 per cent of Ghana’s fuel market, according to Reuters.
That illustrates why BOST’s commercial health and national mandate cannot be considered separately.
At the same time, Parliament should resist any argument that profitability alone proves that the existing system requires no reform. BOST’s impressive 2025 performance should encourage policymakers to examine what produced the turnaround and how those gains can be sustained, rather than treating the company as beyond scrutiny.
The answer, therefore, is neither to weaken BOST nor to place it beyond regulation.
We at THE BUSINESS MAIL think the answer is to build a legal framework in which NPA regulates, BOST performs its strategic and commercial functions, private operators compete fairly, and the state properly funds obligations imposed in the national interest.
Parliament should subject the Bill to broad consultation involving BOST, the NPA, the Ministry of Energy, petroleum industry operators, organised labour, consumer representatives, energy-sector experts and independent economists.
If provisions in the Bill create uncertainty over BOST’s mandate, revenue base or responsibility for strategic reserves, they should be amended before passage. If they strengthen regulation without compromising BOST’s ability to perform its national functions, they should be retained.
Ghana has too often seen state institutions weakened before policymakers later recognise the cost of rebuilding them.
The country should not repeat that cycle with petroleum infrastructure that is critical to national fuel security.
The objective of the NPA Bill should be a stronger downstream petroleum sector — not a stronger regulator at the expense of a weakened strategic national asset.
Parliament must therefore get the balance right: regulate firmly, promote competition, demand accountability, but do not weaken BOST’s capacity to protect Ghana’s energy security.
