In my earlier article, “The Case for Inclusive Leadership in Ghana” and “Rethinking Health Leadership in Ghana”, I stressed that leadership grounded in transparency, accountability, and broad participation produces lasting progress.
Today, Ghana’s health sector faces a leadership test of its own. One centered not on programs or donations, but on digital transformation and data sovereignty. The recent shutdown of the Lightwave Health Information Management System (LHIMS) and the government’s new push for a Ghana Health Information Management System (GHIMS) raise critical questions about ethics, ownership, privacy, and national security in the digital and cyber security age.
The LHIMS Breakdown: Lessons in Dependence and Disruption
The LHIMS was introduced to digitize Ghana’s patient records, improve hospital efficiency, and connect facilities nationwide. It promised faster service delivery, better medical history tracking, and stronger public health data management.
However, in late 2024, the LHIMS contract between the Ministry of Health and private vendor Lightwave eHealthcare Solutions Ltd collapsed. The fallout was immediate and painful:
-
Hospitals reverted to manual record-keeping, delaying patient care and increasing error risks.
-
The Health Minister accused the contractor of holding Ghanaians to ransom, citing a project shortfall and unaccounted funds.
- While the Minister stated the vendor was paid US $77 million out of a US $100 million contract for an incomplete job (connecting only 450 out of the 950 facilities), the vendor disputes these figures, claiming they completed installations for a higher percentage of the project value.
The disruption created not only service bottlenecks but also a national debate about who truly owns Ghana’s health data and who should.
Why Data Ownership Matters More Than Ever
Health information is the new currency of governance. It shapes disease control, informs funding, and guides public policy.
Under a private vendor model, Ghana essentially outsourced custody of its citizens’ medical histories. When the relationship soured, the country risked being locked out of its own data, a clear warning about hacker ransoms and vendor dependency in critical public infrastructure.
Recommended: Rethinking Health Leadership in Ghana: Wisdom Bani Calls for Competence Over Titles
In response, the Ministry of Health has begun developing a fully government-owned platform, GHIMS, designed to bring health data storage, management, and protection under public control.
The goal is simple yet profound:
“To protect national health data as a strategic public asset and ensure continuity beyond private contracts.” — Ministry of Health, Ghana
Comparing Models: Private vs Government Ownership
| Dimension | Private Vendor System (LHIMS) | Government-Owned System (GHIMS) |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Controlled by vendor; limited state access | Fully owned by government |
| Continuity | Ends when contracts lapse | Sustainable with policy continuity |
| Data Privacy | Subject to private terms & hosting | Protected by national law (Act 843) |
| Security Risks | Vendor shutdown, hacking, ransom | Public infrastructure but needs investment |
| Cost Over Time | High maintenance & renewal fees | High startup cost but long-term savings |
| Public Trust | Lower (private gatekeeping) | Higher (state accountability) |
Data Privacy, Ethics, and National Security
Ghana’s Data Protection Act (2012) classifies health data as “special personal information”, requiring strict safeguards. Yet LHIMS’s architecture reportedly allowed a third party to store or control data access — a red flag under any ethical or security lens.
A government-owned system like GHIMS must therefore ensure:
-
Data encryption in storage and transmission.
-
Role-based access — clinicians see patient care data; administrators see reports, not medical details.
-
Consent and transparency, letting patients know who accesses their records.
-
Redundant backups and disaster recovery plans to prevent loss or blackouts.
-
Regular cybersecurity audits to guard against hacking or sabotage.
In the modern world, data sovereignty equals national sovereignty. Countries such as Estonia, Rwanda, and India have demonstrated that protecting citizen data through government-controlled digital infrastructure strengthens public trust and reduces cyber-risk exposure.
Recommended: Wisdom Bani: The Case for Inclusive Leadership in Ghana
Global Context: Lessons from Other Nations
-
Rwanda: Adopted a state-owned digital health exchange integrating hospitals nationwide, prioritizing local developers and open-source software.
-
Estonia: Runs one of the world’s most secure e-health systems, with full citizen transparency — every Estonian can see who viewed their health records.
-
Kenya: Built its “National Digital Health Blueprint” around interoperability and hybrid ownership, ensuring neither government nor vendors can monopolize access.
-
Nigeria: Suffered stalled projects after private tech firms withdrew due to funding disputes — a cautionary tale echoing Ghana’s LHIMS story.
Long-Term View: Beyond Technology
The LHIMS collapse is not just a technical glitch; it’s a leadership challenge — one that tests governance maturity, transparency, and foresight.
Building GHIMS should be more than creating a new app. It must be about institutional trust, capacity-building, and inclusive governance. The new system must connect:
-
Hospitals and clinics (for real-time patient records)
-
NHIS databases (for billing and claims)
-
Public health surveillance (for disease tracking)
-
Research institutions (for anonymized, ethical data analysis)
To achieve this, Ghana must:
-
Audit the LHIMS contract and publish key findings.
-
Train local developers and data managers to sustain GHIMS.
-
Invest in infrastructure, especially internet and power stability in rural health facilities.
-
Mandate compliance with data-protection laws.
-
Ensure interoperability with existing systems like DHIMS2, e-Tracker, and GiLHMIS.
Sustainability: Making GHIMS Work for Generations
A successful digital health ecosystem requires three pillars:
-
Technology – robust, secure, interoperable.
-
People – trained, accountable, motivated.
-
Policy – consistent funding, legal clarity, long-term vision.
Ghana’s earlier challenges with DHIMS2 — from poor connectivity to limited user training — show that sustainability must be planned from day one. Without that, GHIMS could repeat LHIMS’s mistakes under a new name.
The Bigger Picture: Health, Trust, and Leadership
When a hospital clerk reverts to paper files, a patient suffers. When a system crash erases vaccination data, public health suffers. And when citizens lose faith in data protection, the entire healthcare system loses legitimacy.
This moment calls for inclusive leadership — the same kind that empowers local voices, listens to health workers, and makes transparency a national standard. The technology matters, but the trust behind it matters more.
Conclusion: Building a Secure, Sovereign Future
The LHIMS breakdown is a costly lesson, but not a defeat. If managed wisely, it can be Ghana’s turning point toward true digital health independence.
GHIMS must not only be a technological platform — it must symbolize a new era of ethical governance, data security, and citizen trust.
As Ghana rebuilds its digital health foundation, one principle should guide the journey:
“Our data, our health, our responsibility.”
Because in the long run, secure and inclusive systems aren’t just about computers — they’re about people, policy, and purpose.
Writer: Wisdom Bani (RN)
Chief Executive Officer
DIL Healthcare and Medical Consultancy
Health & Policy Advocate
