By Daniel Bampoe
The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has mounted fresh pressure on Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa over the expenditure of nearly GH¢50 million on the evacuation of Ghanaians fleeing xenophobic violence in South Africa, accusing him of offering public explanations without providing sufficient documentary evidence to reconcile the spending.
The party is also drawing comparisons between the minister’s current handling of the controversy and his previous record of demanding accountability from governments he criticised while in opposition.
The controversy surrounding Ghana’s evacuation of citizens from South Africa has taken a more politically charged turn, with the NPP demanding comprehensive financial records for the GH¢49,721,786 expenditure associated with bringing home 1,964 Ghanaians who fled xenophobic violence.
In a statement read at a press conference by its National Communications Director, Dennis Miracles Aboagye, on October 18, 2026, the opposition party questioned whether the documentation released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs adequately accounts for the money spent on the emergency operation.
Although the NPP acknowledged the importance of rescuing Ghanaian citizens from danger, it argued that the humanitarian nature of the exercise should not exempt the government from scrutiny over the use of public funds.
The party also paid tribute to Bashiru Issahaq, Kwadwo Antwi, Amoonu Jailor Nash and Ebenezer Ayi Tawiah, whom it identified as Ghanaians who did not return home alive, while expressing appreciation to individuals, churches, companies and institutions that supported those affected by the violence.
However, the party insisted that the central issue was no longer the necessity of the evacuation but the adequacy of the financial records explaining how the operation was funded and executed. It maintained that its Minority representatives in Parliament, led in the questioning by the Member of Parliament for Bosome Freho, Asafo-Adjei, had sought specific information from Ablakwa about the expenditure, but that the minister’s subsequent television appearances, social media communications and presentations had not resolved the discrepancies the opposition says it had identified.
The NPP’s central accusation is that the minister has provided explanations and assurances without producing a complete set of supporting documents that would allow Parliament, auditors and the public to reconcile the amounts reported with the payments allegedly made. The party argues that invoices, contracts, payment vouchers, passenger registers and signed acknowledgements are necessary to establish whether the expenditure corresponds with the services delivered and the people who received financial assistance.
GH¢49.7 Million Evacuation Expenditure Comes Under Scrutiny
According to the NPP statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported total expenditure of GH¢49,721,786 in connection with the evacuation and related support for 1,964 Ghanaians. The opposition claims that the ministry’s own documents contain discrepancies that require detailed clarification from the minister.
The largest issue raised concerns the reported GH¢27,183,700 expenditure on chartered flights, which the party says represents approximately 55 per cent of the total amount. According to the statement, the documents made available did not include the invoices, contracts or the name of the charter operator necessary to verify the payments.
The NPP further alleged that information available to it suggested that the first three charter flights were operated by Ethiopian Airlines and arranged through an individual identified as Vanderpuye. The party questioned the reported cost of US$750,000 per flight, arguing that its own industry checks suggested chartering a flight through EthiopianAirlines or Air Tanzania could cost between US$180,000 and US$300,000.
On that basis, the opposition questioned whether the state had paid an excessive amount for the flights. It estimated that the three aircraft transported approximately 900 passengers and argued that the reported charges amounted to about US$2,500 per passenger seat.
The NPP has called on Ablakwa to publish the original invoices for the three flights and disclose the identity of the operator, the procurement arrangements and the basis on which the prices were agreed. It also questioned whether the Ministry’s Chief Director had asked for fresh invoices for the flights after they had already taken place, demanding clarification about why such documents would need to be reissued.
The party additionally raised questions about an alleged US$10,000 involving the minister’s bodyguard, asking whether the money formed part of the evacuation arrangements and whether the officer had been dismissed over the matter. The statement does not establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged payment or independently verify the allegation of dismissal.
These questions have added to the pressure on the Foreign Affairs Ministry to provide a detailed account of the evacuation expenditure, particularly because charter flights reportedly accounted for more than half of the overall cost.
Missing Signatures and GH¢6.27 Million Questioned
Beyond the flight costs, the NPP has challenged the ministry’s records concerning financial assistance allegedly provided to the evacuees.
The opposition statement says the minister reported that all 1,964 returnees received GH¢5,000 and an additional GH¢500, bringing the total support to GH¢5,500 per person. However, the party claims the payment sheets supplied by the ministry contain approximately 1,001 signatures for the GH¢500 allowance and 1,508 recorded acknowledgements for the GH¢5,000 payment.
According to the NPP’s analysis, only 824 individuals appear on both lists when the names are matched. The party argues that this leaves 1,140 evacuees for whom it has not been provided with matching signed evidence covering both payments.
Applying the reported GH¢5,500 support package to those 1,140 individuals, the opposition identified GH¢6.27 million as an amount requiring further explanation.
The distinction is important: the NPP’s claim is that the documentation supplied does not adequately establish that every reported payment was received by the intended beneficiary. That is not, by itself, proof that the money was stolen, diverted or never paid. Missing signatures may require further investigation into the payment procedures, the nature of the records maintained and whether alternative evidence of payment exists.
Nevertheless, the opposition argues that the government should be able to demonstrate, recipient by recipient, how much was paid, when it was paid and what evidence supports each transaction.The party has therefore demanded the complete list of the 1,964 evacuees, together with verifiable evidence of the payments attributed to every individual.
Reintegration Payments and the Mathematics of Accountability
Another concern raised in the NPP statement relates to the GH¢10,802,000 reportedly recorded for reintegration and transportation.The opposition says this figure is exactly equivalent to multiplying the 1,964 evacuees by GH¢5,500. It argues that such a calculation does not, on its own, establish that the amount was actually disbursed to beneficiaries.
The party’s objection centres on the difference between calculating an expected expenditure from a stated payment rate and demonstrating that the money was genuinely paid out. In its view, a financial report should show the transactions that occurred rather than simply multiplying the number of beneficiaries by an announced amount.
The ministry’s underlying payment records would be necessary to establish whether the reported figure represents completed payments, an allocation, a calculation based on the approved assistance package or another accounting treatment.
The NPP wants the minister to clarify this distinction and provide supporting documentation that allows the figures to be independently checked.
ASKY Documents Raise Further Questions
The opposition also pointed to documents it says were attached to the ministry’s disclosures concerning ASKY Airlines.According to the NPP statement, an ASKY document described as an invoice and another described as a receipt carried the same reference number, KP/GO9/05/09/26/001, and the same date, September 5, 2026.
The party says the invoice recorded US$79,727, while the receipt recorded US$89,918, leaving a difference of US$10,191.The NPP has asked the ministry to explain the discrepancy and establish what the two amounts represent. It also questioned a reported US$13,000 payment associated with 50 passengers who allegedly did not board the flight.
The existence of different figures on documents relating to the same reference is a legitimate matter for reconciliation, but the documents alone, as described in the statement, do not establish why the figures differ or whether the discrepancy resulted from an error, an additional charge, a revised amount or another transaction.
The opposition wants the original airline records and an explanation of the payment arrangements to be made public so that the matter can be independently assessed.
GH¢16 Million Donation or Direct Purchases?
The handling of GH¢16 million associated with Engineers & Planners has also become a major part of the dispute.
The NPP says a letter from Ablakwa’s ministry thanked the company for a cash donation of GH¢16 million. However, the party claims that the ministry’s response to a Right to Information request described the company’s contribution as the direct purchase of airline tickets and reintegration support.
The opposition argues that these descriptions require clarification because a cash contribution and direct purchases are different forms of support, with different implications for how the transactions should be documented.
If the contribution was paid in cash, the NPP wants the ministry to identify the government account into which the funds were deposited and provide records showing how the money was used. If the company instead purchased tickets and other services directly, the party wants the ministry to disclose the relevant receipts and reconcile them with the total contribution.
The statement claims that the airline receipts available to the opposition account for approximately GH¢9.4 million, leaving a further GH¢6.6 million that it says requires clarification.
A complete assessment would depend on the original correspondence, the company’s records, the ministry’s accounting entries and any documentation establishing whether the contribution involved cash, direct procurement or a combination of the two.
The NPP has demanded a comprehensive explanation of the arrangement, insisting that the government must demonstrate how the contribution was received and applied.
