BoG Non-Interest Banking: Pause or Fix the Rules?

Ghana’s banking sector has spent the last few years rebuilding trust: clean-ups, tighter supervision, and a louder public demand for transparency. So when a civil society group asks the Bank of Ghana (BoG) to suspend a planned “normalisation” of non-interest banking, it’s not a side story—it’s a stress test of how we make financial policy in 2026.

On 23 December 2025, Advocates for Christ Ghana, Economy, Finance and Business Sustainability Gate submitted a memorandum urging the BoG to halt the planned normalisation, arguing the proposed framework has regulatory, constitutional, and operational defects. We don’t have the full text of the BoG draft or the group’s memo from the RSS snippet, but the message is clear: the rules, as proposed, may not be ready for prime time.

This matters for more than legal tidiness. Non-interest banking is often positioned as a route to deeper financial inclusion in Ghana, especially for communities that prefer products aligned with faith-based principles or risk-sharing models. And as this series—“AI ne Fintech: Sɛnea Akɔntabuo ne Mobile Money Rehyɛ Ghana den”—keeps arguing, regulation and innovation now move together. If the rules are unclear, fintechs won’t invest. If the rules are weak, customers get hurt. Either way, Ghana loses momentum.

What “normalisation of non-interest banking” really changes

Normalisation isn’t just paperwork; it decides who can offer what products, under which risk rules, and with what consumer protections. In practice, when a central bank “normalises” a segment, it typically tries to move it from “special/experimental arrangements” into a standard supervisory framework.

Why the fight is happening now

Non-interest banking sits at the intersection of:

• Banking law and licensing (who can operate, capital requirements, governance)
• Product structure (profit-sharing, asset-backing, fees vs interest)
• Consumer expectations (people assume it’s safer or “more ethical,” even when risks still exist)
• Shariah/faith governance for certain models (oversight committees, disclosure)

If the BoG’s proposal reclassifies institutions, changes how products are booked, or introduces new compliance structures, then it can reshape the market overnight. That’s exactly why civil society is raising red flags before the framework becomes “business as usual.”

The inclusion angle: it’s not automatic

People often talk about non-interest banking like it automatically boosts inclusion. I don’t fully buy that.

It can widen access if it leads to:

• better small business financing tied to real economic activity (inventory, equipment, trade)
• products that match community preferences (especially in areas where conventional interest-based lending is viewed negatively)
• simpler, more transparent pricing

But inclusion fails when:

• products are complex and poorly explained
• dispute resolution is weak
• the market becomes a branding exercise (“non-interest” in name only)

Regulation is the difference between those two outcomes.

Why civil society objections matter (even for fintech founders)

When civil society calls out constitutional, regulatory, and operational defects, the core issue is legitimacy. If the rules look shaky, they invite court challenges, inconsistent enforcement, and reputational risk for every institution that participates.

Regulatory defects: the loophole problem

A “regulatory defect” usually means the framework could:

• conflict with existing banking rules
• leave gaps in supervision (who audits what, who approves products)
• create unclear definitions (what qualifies as “non-interest”)

For fintech and mobile money operators building adjacent products—agent networks, merchant credit, digital savings, SME financing—unclear definitions are expensive. They mean delayed product launches, compliance rework, and higher legal costs.

Constitutional defects: legitimacy and equal treatment

The constitutional angle can mean several things in practice:

• whether the framework appears to privilege or disadvantage certain religious groups
• whether public institutions are perceived to be endorsing specific faith interpretations
• whether consumer rights and equal access are properly safeguarded

Non-interest banking can be offered in a way that respects constitutional neutrality, but the drafting must be careful. A framework that’s perceived as politically or religiously biased will face public resistance, regardless of its technical merits.

Operational defects: where good ideas break

Operational issues are the quiet killers. Even a well-intentioned policy fails if:

• supervisors aren’t trained to examine non-interest products
• institutions lack internal controls to prevent mis-selling
• dispute resolution mechanisms don’t fit the product reality

If non-interest products rely on asset backing and profit-sharing, supervision must check asset valuation, profit calculation, and disclosure quality, not just interest rate terms. That’s a different playbook.

The practical risk: consumer confusion and trust erosion

The biggest near-term risk is that customers misunderstand what “non-interest” means. Many people hear “non-interest” and assume “no cost.” Others assume “guaranteed returns” because the product sounds ethical.

Neither assumption is safe.

Non-interest models can still involve:

• fees (sometimes complex)
• profit rates that fluctuate
• losses shared under certain structures
• penalties for late payments (structured differently, but still real)

If Ghana rolls out a normalised framework without strong disclosure rules, we’ll see the same cycle we’ve seen elsewhere: aggressive marketing, thin explanations, disputes, and then a public backlash that harms legitimate providers.

Snippet-worthy reality: “Non-interest banking isn’t risk-free banking. It’s banking with different risk and different disclosures.”

What good consumer protection would look like

If the BoG proceeds, the framework should require plain-language disclosure at minimum:

• how returns are calculated (with examples)
• what happens in a loss scenario
• all fees and charges, displayed upfront
• complaint channels and timelines
• whether deposits are protected and under what conditions

That last point—deposit protection and product classification—often becomes a flashpoint, because customers need clarity on what is a deposit-like product versus an investment-like product.

Where AI fits: making non-interest banking safer and more scalable

Here’s the link to our series theme. AI in fintech in Ghana isn’t just about chatbots and shiny apps. In banking regulation, AI can reduce three problems that consistently show up in alternative finance: opaque pricing, weak monitoring, and slow enforcement.

1) AI-assisted compliance that catches mis-selling early

BoG and regulated institutions can use machine learning to flag:

• unusual complaint spikes tied to a product or branch
• marketing materials that overpromise returns
• agents repeatedly enrolling customers with incomplete disclosures

This is especially relevant in Ghana where agent networks are a major distribution channel for mobile money and emerging financial products. The risk isn’t only at head office; it’s at the last mile.

2) Product transparency with automated “cost of finance” summaries

Non-interest products can become confusing fast (profit rates, service fees, asset purchase agreements). AI can generate standardized, customer-friendly summaries:

• “What you pay each month” scenarios
• best/worst-case outcomes
• early settlement outcomes

If you want inclusion, you need comprehension. AI can help make disclosure understandable at scale—across English and local languages.

3) Better credit and fraud controls for asset-backed financing

Many non-interest structures are tied to real assets (inventory, equipment, vehicles). AI-driven tools can strengthen:

• invoice verification and anomaly detection
• merchant transaction analysis (where consent exists)
• fraud pattern detection in digital onboarding

This overlaps directly with mobile money risk management and digital lending controls. The same fraud rings that exploit mobile money weaknesses will exploit weak onboarding in any new banking segment.

A “pause” isn’t anti-innovation—sometimes it’s the pro-growth move

Suspending normalisation sounds dramatic, but it can be the responsible option if the framework is genuinely defective. The cost of a rushed rollout is long-lived:

• court disputes that freeze the market
• supervisory confusion that increases systemic risk
• consumer harm that kills adoption

A better approach: fix, pilot, then scale

If Ghana wants non-interest banking to support financial inclusion and fintech innovation, a practical path looks like this:

1. Publish a clean, consolidated draft with definitions that match existing banking law.
2. Run an open consultation with banks, fintechs, consumer groups, and legal scholars.
3. Pilot supervision: select a small number of institutions/products under enhanced monitoring.
4. Standardize disclosures and require pre-approval of marketing claims.
5. Train examiners specifically on profit-sharing and asset-backed structures.
6. Set measurable readiness gates (complaint handling SLAs, audit capacity, governance checks).

This isn’t slow for the sake of slow. It’s speed with brakes.

“People also ask” (quick answers)

Is non-interest banking the same as Islamic banking? Not always. In practice, many non-interest models are associated with Islamic finance principles, but non-interest products can also be structured as ethical, asset-backed, or profit-sharing products without religious branding.

Does non-interest banking mean cheaper loans? Not necessarily. Pricing can be comparable to conventional products once fees, profit margins, and risk are accounted for. The difference is often structure and disclosure, not cost.

Can fintechs participate in non-interest banking in Ghana? Yes—through partnerships, digital channels, agent networks, and compliance tooling. But they need regulatory clarity on product classification, consumer protection, and supervisory expectations.

What stakeholders should do next (practical checklist)

If you’re a regulator or policy advisor:

• insist on clear definitions and product classification rules
• require standardized disclosures with examples
• build a supervisory “playbook” for non-interest products

If you’re a bank, fintech, or mobile money-adjacent provider:

• map products to customer understanding: where will confusion happen?
• invest in complaint analytics and agent monitoring
• design “explainers” that work on low-end phones and in local languages

If you’re a consumer advocate or civil society group:

• push for measurable consumer safeguards (not just broad principles)
• demand transparency on dispute resolution outcomes
• advocate for public education that distinguishes deposits vs investments

Where this debate leaves Ghana’s financial future

The call to suspend the BoG’s normalisation of non-interest banking is a reminder that financial innovation needs legitimacy to scale. If the framework is constitutionally shaky or operationally unclear, it won’t build inclusion—it’ll build disputes.

For this series on AI and fintech in Ghana, the bigger point is simple: smart regulation and smart technology should reinforce each other. AI can help supervise agent networks, detect mis-selling, and make complex products understandable. But none of that works if the baseline rules are confused.

So here’s the forward-looking question worth sitting with as we enter 2026: Will Ghana treat non-interest banking as a checkbox policy, or as a trust-building exercise designed for the realities of mobile money, fintech distribution, and consumer protection?