The third attempt at a national carrier: A risk and insurance perspective on the strategic partner decision

By Diana Ama OPOKU –

On 28 April 2026, Ghana’s Ministry of Transport issued a formal press release inviting ‘potential strategic partners’ to participate in building a new national airline. The proposed joint venture, with initial operations targeted no later than the first quarter of 2027, marks the country’s third attempt at establishing a functional flag carrier in just over two decades. It comes after the catastrophic collapse of Ghana Airways in 2004 and the subsequent failure of Ghana International Airlines in 2010.

For risk and insurance professionals, this announcement is both a study in institutional memory and a live case study in sovereign aviation risk. The structural choices Ghana has made this time, particularly the decision to cede majority equity to a private strategic partner, carry profound implications for risk allocation, insurance underwriting, contingent liability exposure, and long-term fiscal resilience. This article examines those implications critically.

The Historical Risk Baseline: What Went Wrong Before

Any credible risk assessment must begin with the track record. Ghana Airways, founded in 1958 as a joint venture with the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), accumulated debts of approximately $160 million by the time it ceased operations in 2004. Severance payments to former employees exceeded $5 million, all ultimately borne by the Ghanaian taxpayer.

The causes of failure were multifaceted and well-documented: political interference in operational decisions, chronic overstaffing, failed restructuring agreements with successive private partners, and, critically from an insurance and safety standpoint, a 2004 ban by the United States Department of Transportation for operating unsafe aircraft on an out-of-date licence. That ban, which forced the cancellation of New York and Baltimore routes, was the precipitating event that brought down the airline.

The causal chain ran from operational risk (maintenance and compliance failure) through regulatory risk (US DOT ban) to financial and sovereign risk (government liability for $160 million in debts). The interconnection of these risk categories is precisely what makes airline insurance so complex, and so consequential when a state-owned carrier fails.

Ghana International Airlines, the successor entity launched in 2005, repeated many of the same errors and collapsed in 2010. A further proposed partnership involving Ashanti Airlines and the Zotus Group came to nothing. Ghana has now been without a functioning national carrier for over two decades, a period during which foreign airlines have extracted substantial aviation revenue from a market recording  3.6 million passengers in 2025 through Accra International Airport.

The New Model: Risk Transfer Through Private Majority Ownership

The most significant departure from previous attempts is the ownership architecture. Under the 2026 proposal, the strategic partner is expected to hold a majority equity stake in the joint venture, a deliberate reversal of the fully state-owned model that doomed Ghana Airways. The government has also stipulated that eligible partners must demonstrate active airline operations expertise, regulatory compliance records, and the financial capacity to support fleet acquisition and route development.

From a risk management standpoint, this is sound reasoning. Majority private ownership achieves several things simultaneously.

Risk Transfer and Skin-in-the-Game Alignment

When a private operator holds majority equity, the financial consequences of operational failure fall primarily on that operator, not on the Ghanaian state. This fundamentally changes the incentive structure. Under state-owned models, management often operates with an implicit sovereign backstop, the knowledge that the government will absorb losses, which weakens cost discipline and encourages politically motivated decisions. A majority private partner faces real capital loss, which concentrates the mind.

Operational and Compliance Competence

The eligibility requirements, requiring demonstrated airline expertise and regulatory compliance records, are designed to screen out undercapitalised or inexperienced investors. This is crucial because the most catastrophic risks in aviation (hull loss, third-party liability, passenger liability, and, critically, regulatory sanctions such as the 2004 US DOT ban) are primarily driven by operational and airworthiness failures. Bringing in a credible operator reduces the probability of the same compliance failures that destroyed Ghana Airways.

Insurance Credibility and Underwriting Access

Aviation insurers underwrite against the operator’s safety record, fleet quality, maintenance protocols, route network, and governance standards, not the sovereign credit rating of the host country. A state-owned airline with weak governance and ageing aircraft will face punitive insurance premiums, restricted coverage, or outright exclusion from international markets.

A joint venture anchored by a credible private operator with an established safety record is a materially different insurance risk, likely commanding more favourable terms and broader market access.

Residual Sovereign Risk: What Ghana Cannot Fully Transfer

However, it would be analytically incomplete to present the strategic partner model as a clean risk transfer solution. Several categories of risk remain with the Ghanaian state regardless of the ownership structure.

Minority Equity Exposure

While the strategic partner holds majority equity, Ghana retains a minority stake. This means the government remains exposed to capital calls, debt guarantees, and reputational liability if the airline fails. History shows that when national carriers collapse, governments rarely escape the political and financial fallout even as minority shareholders.

Contingent Sovereign Liability

Governments are frequently called upon to backstop airport charges, fuel subsidies, route guarantees, or debt obligations when airlines hit financial distress. These contingent liabilities often do not appear on the sovereign balance sheet until they crystallise. For a country that recently completed a debt restructuring under an IMF programme, adding off-balance-sheet aviation exposure is a material fiscal risk.

Reputational and Political Risk

A third failure would be damaging far beyond the financial cost. Ghana’s international standing as a stable, business-friendly West African economy, a key pillar of its positioning for AfCFTA and foreign direct investment, would take a serious hit. This is a risk that cannot be insured in conventional markets; it falls entirely on the state.

Currency and Fuel Price Risk

Aviation is uniquely exposed to fuel price volatility and, in Ghana’s case, cedi depreciation. Jet fuel is priced in US dollars; revenues on regional routes are collected partly in cedi. The mismatch creates a structural currency risk that no partnership structure eliminates.

Ghana’s recent history of currency volatility makes this a live and material concern. While insurance products exist for some fuel price risk through derivatives and commodity hedges, these require sophisticated treasury management that developing-country joint ventures often lack.

The UAE Dimension and Partner Selection Risk

Early diplomatic signals, including conversations with UAE authorities, have been noted, though no partner has been finalised. The UAE connection is commercially logical: Emirates, Etihad, and flydubai collectively represent world-class operational expertise, and Gulf carriers have demonstrated both an appetite for and capability in African aviation partnerships.

However, partner selection itself carries substantial risk that deserves scrutiny.

Alignment of Commercial Interests

Gulf carriers operate extensive networks to and from West Africa. A UAE-based strategic partner might have interests not always aligned with Ghana’s, for instance, preferring to use the Ghana venture as a feeder network for its Gulf hub rather than developing Accra as an independent intercontinental hub. This strategic misalignment is a slow-burning operational risk that insurance cannot address, but robust joint venture agreements and governance structures can mitigate.

Control Risk in Minority Positions

If Ghana holds a minority stake, it must ensure that the joint venture agreement contains robust minority protection provisions, tag-along rights, anti-dilution protections, and clear step-in rights if the strategic partner defaults on its obligations. These are not hypothetical concerns, they are standard deal protections in aviation joint ventures precisely because the interests of state and private partners routinely diverge under commercial pressure.

Due Diligence and Regulatory Compliance Risk

Ghana’s Ministry of Transport has stipulated that partners must have regulatory compliance records. This is necessary but not sufficient. A thorough due diligence process must examine the partner’s safety audit history with ICAO and national civil aviation authorities, its claims history with aviation insurers, its financial covenants and debt obligations, and its record on labour relations and operational reliability.

Choosing a partner based primarily on financial capacity or diplomatic optics, rather than operational track record, recreates the conditions that led to the failures of the Nationwide Airlines and British Midland partnerships in the early 2000s.

Insurance Architecture for the New Carrier

If the venture proceeds, constructing an appropriate insurance programme will be one of the most consequential early decisions. The following risks require coverage consideration.

Aviation Hull and Liability

This is the core of any airline insurance programme: physical damage to aircraft (all-risk hull) and third-party liability for bodily injury and property damage. For a new carrier with no track record, hull insurers will demand thorough underwriting data, fleet specifications, maintenance protocols, pilot qualification records, and route profiles. Long-haul routes to Europe and North America carry different risk profiles from regional West African routes. Premiums will be heavily influenced by the strategic partner’s global safety record.

Passenger Liability

Ghana is a signatory to the Montreal Convention, which governs international airline passenger liability. Compliance with Convention limits and appropriate liability coverage is non-negotiable for any carrier operating international routes. Inadequate passenger liability cover was a contributing vulnerability in the Ghana Airways collapse.

Business Interruption and Revenue Protection

Given Ghana’s history of regulatory sanction, the new carrier should consider specific cover for revenue loss arising from regulatory suspension or grounding, the precise risk that materialised in 2004. While such coverage is not standard in basic aviation programmes, it is available in the specialty insurance market and should be treated as essential rather than optional for this venture.

Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability

Political interference in Ghana Airways was a root cause of its operational dysfunction. A well-structured D&O programme, combined with clear governance boundaries in the joint venture agreement, can create accountability mechanisms and risk transfer for management decisions. Insurers underwriting D&O for a state-linked aviation venture will scrutinise governance arrangements carefully.

Political Risk Insurance

If the strategic partner is a foreign investor, it will likely seek political risk insurance, covering expropriation, currency transfer restrictions, political violence, and breach of contract by the host government. Multilateral institutions such as MIGA (Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency) and bilateral investment treaty protections may be relevant. Ghana’s strong ICAO safety oversight score and its established regulatory infrastructure are positive factors in this context.

Systemic Risk: The African Aviation Context

No analysis of Ghana’s carrier ambitions would be complete without acknowledging the structural environment. African carriers collectively held just 2% of the global aviation market in 2023. High operating costs, punitive fuel taxes, currency volatility, thin domestic markets, and fierce competition from established Gulf and European carriers make profitability deeply elusive for African airlines.

The African Union’s Single African Air Transport Market (SAATM), intended to liberalise intra-African aviation and unlock a continent-wide market, has moved slowly due to protectionist national policies. Without meaningful intra-African open skies, regional route economics remain structurally weak.

The proposed hybrid model, full-service long-haul alongside a low-cost or hybrid regional offering, is commercially sensible in theory, but executing two distinct business models under one carrier structure is operationally demanding and creates internal risk management complexity. Very few African carriers have managed this successfully.

Critical Assessment: Has Ghana Learned Enough?

There is genuine reason for cautious optimism. The decision to require majority private ownership represents a meaningful institutional lesson from past failures. The requirement for demonstrated expertise and compliance records shows regulatory sophistication. The establishment of a 10-member task force and a structured three-round partner selection process suggests a more disciplined approach than previous ad hoc negotiations.

However, several critical uncertainties remain unresolved.

The 2027 target launch date is aggressive. Fleet acquisition, regulatory certification, staff recruitment, route licensing, insurance programme placement, and commercial launch preparation, all within 12 months of partner selection, sets a pace that has defeated more experienced aviation ventures. Rushing operational readiness in aviation is not merely a commercial risk; it is a safety risk, and safety risk is precisely what destroyed Ghana Airways.

The political economy of the venture is also uncertain. Every previous failure has involved a point at which political pressures overrode commercial logic, routes chosen for prestige rather than profitability, staff levels maintained for employment optics rather than efficiency, or restructuring deals rejected because minority ownership felt like a loss of sovereignty. A majority private partner reduces but does not eliminate these pressures.

Ghana must resolve the question of what ‘success’ looks like and over what time horizon. National carriers in developing markets frequently require years of losses before achieving operational sustainability. If public expectations are set for profitability within two or three years, political pressure to intervene or subsidise could recreate the pathologies of the past.

Conclusion

Ghana’s decision to pursue a majority-private-led joint venture for its national carrier is, from a risk and insurance perspective, the most structurally sound approach the country has yet attempted. It reflects hard-won lessons about the consequences of sovereign operational risk and the limits of state-led aviation management.

But risk transfer is never complete, and governance never fixes itself simply by changing ownership ratios. The residual sovereign exposures, contingent liability, currency risk, political interference risk, and reputational risk from a potential third failure, remain material and demand proactive management through robust joint venture agreements, disciplined partner selection, comprehensive insurance architecture, and realistic commercial expectations.

Ghana holds genuine strategic assets: a world-class terminal at Accra International Airport, a strong ICAO safety oversight score, a growing passenger market, and its status as the host of the AfCFTA Secretariat. These are real competitive advantages. Whether they are sufficient to sustain a commercially viable flag carrier in one of the world’s most challenging aviation markets depends entirely on execution, governance, and the discipline to let commercial logic, not political logic, guide the venture.

The ghosts of Ghana Airways and Ghana International Airlines are not easily exorcised. But with the right partner, the right governance, and the right insurance programme, the third attempt has better odds than its predecessors. The burden of proof, however, rests heavily on those making the decisions, and the cost of failure, yet again, will be borne by the Ghanaian people.

The writer is a Risk and Insurance Analyst

This article represents the independent analytical views of the author in a risk and insurance capacity and does not constitute legal, financial, or insurance advice. All data and regulatory references are current as of May 2026. Readers should seek professional counsel before relying on any analysis contained herein for commercial or investment decisions.

The post The third attempt at a national carrier: A risk and insurance perspective on the strategic partner decision appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story