The losses reported outside the Auditor-General’s books.

A case appears here only when a specific figure has been published by a parliamentary committee, a state-commissioned audit, a court or prosecutorial filing, an official statement, or a named investigation by an established outlet. Where we could not tie a case to a published figure, it is left out rather than estimated.

Every record states what its number actually is: Contract value (The value of the deal itself — not a loss finding.); Amount queried (A sum a committee, auditor or investigator formally questioned.); Reported loss (A loss stated by an official body or court record.); Documented estimate (A documented estimate published by a named source.). A contract value is not a loss, and a queried amount is not a proven one.

Each record carries a source reliability score out of 100 and a citation completeness bar. The score is mechanical: it rewards an official source (prosecutor, court, auditor, parliament), corroboration by more than one named publisher, publication dates on every citation, and a specific amount tied to a currency year. It measures how well a figure is documented — never whether the underlying claim is true.

These figures are kept strictly separate from the Auditor-General dataset. The two are produced by different bodies on different bases, and some sums may overlap with audit findings — adding them together would double count.

Cedi and dollar figures are the amounts as reported, converted at the exchange rate for the year the figure was reported. No inflation adjustment is applied, so amounts from different years are not directly comparable.

Attribution is by the government in office at the time of the contract or spending, not the government in office when the figure surfaced. It is a filing convention, not a finding of responsibility, and nothing here is a determination of guilt. If a figure is wrong or out of date, report it and we will re-check the source.