The Bank of Ghana (BoG) is facing growing scrutiny over its proposed Non-Interest Banking and Finance (NIBF) framework, with critics questioning whether the initiative amounts to the introduction of Islamic banking under a more neutral-sounding name.
The central bank has intensified engagements with religious leaders and other stakeholders as it works towards establishing the institutional, legal and regulatory framework for the proposed system.
The NIBF framework provides for banking and financial services that do not involve the conventional charging or payment of interest. Its key features include transactions associated with Islamic finance, such as the prohibition of riba or interest, asset-backed financing, leasing, trade-based financing and profit-and-loss sharing.
Ahead of the proposed introduction of the framework, the BoG engaged Christian religious leaders in Accra on August 31, 2026, as part of what the central bank described as broader stakeholder consultations.
Governor of the BoG, Dr Johnson Pandit Asiama, said the engagement was intended to gather views, address concerns and ensure that stakeholders were carried along as the central bank develops the institutional, legal and regulatory framework for NIBF in Ghana.
However, critics are questioning the motive behind the engagement with religious leaders. According to them, the decision to court influential faith leaders goes beyond public education and consultation, arguing that it could be aimed at securing their endorsement and ultimately persuading their congregations to accept the framework.
Although the BoG officially describes the initiative as Non-Interest Banking, some industry players and insiders remain skeptical, arguing that the terminology could obscure the model’s religious and ideological roots.They contend that the use of “Non-Interest Banking” creates the impression of a purely neutral financial system, despite the model’s close association with principles and practices rooted in Islamic finance.
For the critics, the central issue is not the name but the substance of the proposed framework.They argue that if the system prohibits interest and relies on trade-based financing, leasing, investment partnerships and profit-sharing arrangements, then it reflects principles associated with Islamic banking, regardless of the terminology adopted by the regulator.
The BoG, however, is expected to present the framework as an inclusive financial model available to individuals, businesses and institutions regardless of religious affiliation. Supporters of the initiative could argue that non-interest banking is not exclusively Islamic and can provide an alternative to conventional interest-based banking for customers of all faiths.But critics maintain that this does not eliminate questions about the model’s origins and ideological foundations.
Non-interest banking is not a new concept. The model is already established in several parts of the world, particularly in Arab and predominantly Muslim countries, where Islamic finance has developed into a significant component of the financial-services industry.
Some prominent Islamic banks operating internationally include Al Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia, Dubai Islamic Bank and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait Finance House in Kuwait, Qatar Islamic Bank in Qatar, Bank Islam Malaysia in Malaysia and Meezan Bank in Pakistan.
These institutions generally operate according to Sharia principles, with financial products structured around activities such as trade, leasing, investment, asset ownership and profit-sharing rather than conventional interest-bearing loans.
It is this strong association with Islamic finance that has fuelled concerns among some stakeholders that Ghana could be introducing Islamic banking through a different regulatory terminology.
QUESTIONS OVER CONSULTATIONS
The BoG’s engagement with religious leaders has consequently become a major part of the debate.Faith-based organisations wield considerable influence in Ghana, and religious leaders could play a significant role in shaping public opinion if they endorse the framework or encourage their congregations to accept it.However, sources familiar with the August 31 engagement claim that the participating religious leaders did not seek clarification from the BoG on some of the concerns surrounding the framework.
The development, according to critics, raises questions about whether the consultations provided sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to interrogate the origins, objectives and potential implications of NIBF.They are therefore calling for future consultations to go beyond what they describe as public-relations exercises and provide stakeholders with an opportunity to ask difficult questions about the framework.
Among the issues they want addressed is whether the framework has already been decided and whether the stakeholder engagements are intended to secure public acceptance rather than genuinely influence the policy.Critics are also demanding an explanation as to why the initiative is being called Non-Interest Banking instead of openly acknowledging its relationship with Islamic banking.
They argue that the terminology could be intended to avoid religious, political and constitutional concerns that might arise from the introduction of a banking model perceived to be rooted in Islamic principles.Documents cited by the Republic Press indicate that the BoG acknowledges the relationship between the non-interest banking concept and Islamic banking principles.
Critics say this strengthens their argument that the “Non-Interest Banking” designation is primarily a regulatory description intended to make the model appear universally accessible rather than an indication that it is unrelated to Islamic finance.
The BoG and supporters of the framework, however, are expected to maintain that the system is based on the avoidance of interest and can be accessed by customers irrespective of their religious beliefs.They may also argue that the introduction of NIBF would expand consumer choice, promote financial inclusion and provide products for individuals and businesses that do not wish to use conventional interest-based banking services.
Under the proposed model, a bank could, for instance, purchase an asset and resell it to a customer at an agreed profit rather than provide an interest-bearing loan.Another arrangement could involve leasing an asset to a customer for an agreed period, while investment-based products could involve the bank and a customer contributing capital to a business venture and sharing the resulting profit or loss.
In such arrangements, the bank’s return is linked to an underlying transaction, asset or economic activity rather than simply to the passage of time on borrowed money.While critics acknowledge that such products could offer additional financial options, they insist that the potential economic benefits should not prevent a broader national conversation about the framework’s religious and regulatory foundations.
Questions have also emerged over the possible role of Sharia advisory structures in the proposed system.Critics want clarity on how such bodies would operate, who would appoint their members, the extent of their authority and how their decisions would be reconciled with Ghanaian law and the existing regulatory structure.
They are particularly concerned that the creation of Sharia advisory mechanisms could introduce parallel standards within Ghana’s banking sector.The BoG would ultimately be responsible for ensuring that institutions operating under the NIBF framework comply with Ghana’s banking laws, prudential requirements and consumer-protection standards.
For critics, however, regulatory supervision does not answer the broader question surrounding the identity of the model.They insist that the central bank must be transparent about the relationship between Non-Interest Banking and Islamic finance and allow Ghanaians to have an informed national discussion about the framework.
The controversy therefore boils down to one fundamental question: Is Ghana introducing a new category of banking, or is it adopting Islamic banking principles without calling it Islamic banking?
As the BoG continues its consultations, pressure is mounting on the central bank to provide greater clarity on the origins, objectives and operating principles of NIBF and explain whether the distinction between Non-Interest Banking and conventional Islamic banking is substantive or merely terminological.
