The costly culture of frequent study tours: Why government must rein in on boards of publicly funded institutions!

By Dr Alieu O Faal

Across many publicly funded institutions, a troubling pattern is emerging- the frequent use of study tours, retreats, and overseas training programmes by boards of directors and top management. While capacity building is an important element of governance, the scale and frequency of these trips have increasingly raised serious questions about fiscal responsibility and the prudent use of public funds.

In many cases, these study tours involve multiple board members travelling abroad with full state funding—covering business-class air tickets, accommodation, per diems, and logistics. When multiplied across several institutions and repeated annually, the cost can easily run into millions and millions of dalasi, placing an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. To give a simple example, a public regulatory authority has spent D10 million on study tours within three years. In addition, auditors have also been raising concerns about the growing incidence of annual repeated study tours in sub-vented institutions.

The reality is that many board members of public institutions are appointed precisely because of their professional expertise and experience. Boards typically include lawyers, accountants, engineers, economists, and senior administrators. It is therefore difficult to justify the routine need for repeated foreign training or study tours when these individuals are already expected to possess the competence required to provide strategic oversight.

Ghana’s Bold Step Toward Fiscal Discipline
A significant policy response to this growing concern has recently emerged in Ghana. The Ghanaian president, John Dramani Mahama, has banned state-funded international travel for boards of state-owned enterprises and public institutions, citing concerns about escalating costs and the increasing frequency of such trips. 

The directive prohibits boards from undertaking international travel for training, conferences, retreats, or study tours funded directly or indirectly by public resources. The decision was motivated by the recognition that these trips often involve substantial expenditure on airfares, accommodation, and allowances, placing avoidable pressure on public finances. 

However, the policy does allow limited exceptions where travel is absolutely necessary and cannot be conducted locally or virtually. In such cases, boards must submit detailed justification and obtain presidential approval. 

This approach reflects a broader commitment to fiscal discipline and responsible public expenditure.

The governance paradox
The widespread practice of frequent study tours by boards exposes a fundamental governance paradox. Boards are appointed to provide strategic direction, oversight, and accountability. Yet, in some cases, the very individuals entrusted with safeguarding public resources are also authorising costly activities that offer questionable value to the institutions they serve.

This raises important questions:
•           Are these study tours producing measurable improvements in institutional performance?
•           How often are the lessons learned implemented after these trips?
•           Is there proper cost–benefit evaluations before such expenditures are approved?

Too often, the answers remain unclear.

Without clear outcomes, study tours risk becoming little more than publicly funded travel disguised as capacity building. Extravagant board travel undermines public confidence and weakens the credibility of governance institutions.

Every dalasi spent on unnecessary travel is a dalasi diverted from critical public needs. For developing countries such as The Gambia, where the government is facing significant fiscal constraints, public funds must be directed toward priorities such as: healthcare; education; infrastructure; social protection and service delivery.

In today’s digital age, there are far more cost-effective ways to build capacity without resorting to expensive international travel. These include virtual training and webinars, partnerships with universities and professional bodies, regional knowledge exchanges, and short-term in-country expert engagements. Such approaches can deliver similar or even better outcomes at a fraction of the cost.

The policy adopted by Ghana offers an important lesson for The Gambia. A similar policy could require that board travels be strictly limited and justified, all overseas trips receive high-level approval, Institutions demonstrate clear expected outcomes and cost-benefit analysis, while priority be given to local or virtual training options.

Conclusion
Study tours and training can play a role in strengthening governance, but when they become excessive, frequent, and costly, they undermine the very purpose of public institutions. The Gambia would do well to take a cue from Ghana’s example. Responsible governance demands not only expertise and integrity from board members, but also restraint, accountability, and respect for the public purse.

Authorities in charge of boards and top management of public institutions must reinforce the principle that public office is a public trust, not a gateway to privileges funded by taxpayers. Ghana’s decision to halt state-funded board travel sends a powerful message: public resources must be protected and used wisely.

Dr Faal is an accomplished financial management and governance expert. A certified project management professional (PMP) who is currently serving as a board chairman in one of the SOEs, continue to serve as a subject matter specialist proffering expert advice to the Committee of the National Assembly. He has previously worked as resident senior advisor at the Finance Ministry as well as working as consultant with various public and international institutions. He holds a PhD in Finance, MBA, and bachelor’s degrees in Accounting and Auditing. He’s in addition a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) and a member of the Project Management Institute and Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA).