The writer
Loan defaults in Ghana have reached levels that go beyond isolated borrower missteps to reveal systemic weaknesses throughout the financial sector.
According to recent data from the Bank of Ghana, the banking industry’s Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratio, the share of loans in default, has hovered persistently above 20 per cent since 2023, with figures around 23 – 24 per cent in 2025 and an absolute stock of bad loans exceeding GH¢20 billion.
These elevated NPL ratios mean that roughly one in four loans issued by financial institutions is currently non-performing, a stark indicator of credit stress. Such pervasive distress invites a deeper interrogation of causality beyond the traditional borrower-blame narrative.
Loan defaults are commonly attributed to borrower failure, yet an objective assessment of credit risk reveals that lenders themselves can significantly contribute to the problem. Weak internal practices, poor judgment, and commercial pressures within financial institutions often create conditions that increase the likelihood of default. These issues are often cited by defaulting borrowers as legal defences when lenders initiate recovery actions.
It is, therefore, critical for lenders to recognize and address these lender-driven factors, which are fundamental to building resilient loan portfolios and preserving financial stability. This is emphasized in the current regulatory climate, where the Central Bank in its efforts to improve credit portfolio quality across the banking industry, has mandated all financial institutions to reduce non-performing loans to 15% by June 2026 and further to 10% by December 2026. In light of this, lenders must conduct a thorough self-assessment of their credit processes to identify non–value-adding activities and adverse behavioural practices across the credit value chain.
One of the primary contributors is complacency. Periods of economic stability or past lending success can cause institutions to relax their credit discipline. When lenders become overly confident, they may reduce the depth of credit analysis, underestimate risk, or ignore early warning signals of borrower distress. This erosion of vigilance increases exposure to high-risk borrowers and weakens overall portfolio quality.
Also, carelessness in credit appraisal and documentation further exacerbates default risk. Inadequate assessment of a borrower’s financial capacity, insufficient cash flows, and weak evaluation of credit history can result in loans being extended to borrowers who lack the ability to repay. Poor documentation such as incomplete facility agreements, unclear loan terms and unstamped security documents not only heightens default risk but also creates legal and enforcement challenges when repayment problems arise.
Competitive pressure within the financial sector also plays a critical role. In an effort to grow market share, lenders may abandon their own credit standards and follow competitors into riskier lending practices. Lowering credit requirements or offering aggressive loan terms to win over clients often leads to a gradual deterioration in asset quality. Over time, this undermines institutional stability and increases non-performing loans.
Another key issue is ineffective communication of lending policies. When internal credit guidelines are not clearly communicated to staff, inconsistent loan approval practices emerge. Equally important is the failure to adequately explain loan terms, purposes, and consequences to borrowers.
A common practice is the tendency for Relationship Managers to rush clients through documentation and directing them to sign off Credit facility letters without proper explanation after approval of credit facilities.
This exposes lenders to reputational and legal risks, especially when loan conditions are breached. Defaulting clients resort to legal machinations against lenders for not being afforded the opportunity to fully understand the underlying conditions of the credit facility.
Systemic inefficiencies within lending institutions such as interest overcharges, bureaucratic credit procedures, and delays in loan approval and disbursement, significantly contribute to loan defaults by disrupting borrowers’ operations and cash flows.
This is particularly damaging where borrowers depend on timely financing to execute time-bound contracts, as delays can lead to missed deadlines, lost revenue, and weakened repayment capacity. These outcomes underscore that inefficient processes and poor execution by lenders can directly increase default risk and expose institutions to legal and reputational consequences.
Finally, an excessive focus on closing credit deals can cause lenders to ignore obvious warning signs of potential default. Pressure to meet growth targets may result in overlooking unstable income streams, high leverage, as well as unfavourable operating environments. This short-term, deal-driven mindset prioritizes immediate gains over sustainable risk management.
Loan defaults are rarely the result of borrower failure alone. They are often a reflection of the lender’s own credit culture, appraisal standards, and risk management practices. Strengthening credit discipline, reinforcing clear communication, and maintaining a long-term risk-focused approach are critical steps toward reducing defaults and ensuring the soundness and profitability of lending institutions.
By Samuel Appiah-Asare