By Daniel Bampoe
The government’s reported expenditure of almost GH¢50 million to evacuate and reintegrate 1,964 Ghanaians from South Africa has triggered fresh demands for financial accountability, with the Minority in Parliament insisting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs publish a detailed, itemised account of how the money was spent.
The Minority says it supports the government’s decision to protect Ghanaian nationals caught up in security threats and xenophobic attacks in South Africa, but argues that support for the evacuation cannot be interpreted as approval of unexplained expenditure.
The Ranking Member of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee and Member of Parliament for Damongo, Samuel Abu Jinapor, said Parliament and the Ghanaian public deserve to know precisely how the funds were utilised.
His demand follows an announcement by Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa that government spent a total of GH¢49,721,786 on the evacuation and reintegration exercise.
The disclosure has raised questions about the cost of the operation, particularly because the total expenditure translates into an average cost of approximately GH¢25,000 per evacuee.
According to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the government spent GH¢49.7 million to facilitate the return and reintegration of 1,964 Ghanaians from South Africa.
Of that amount, GH¢38,835,512 was reportedly spent on a range of evacuation-related services.
The expenditure covered chartered flights, air tickets, ground transportation, feeding, hotel accommodation, medical care and hospitalisation in South Africa, among other associated costs.
However, the figures disclosed so far do not provide the detailed breakdown the Minority says is necessary to establish whether the expenditure represented value for money.
Jinapor argues that a single aggregate figure does not sufficiently demonstrate how public funds were used.
The Damongo MP stressed that the Minority had supported the government’s decision from the beginning, particularly given the circumstances that necessitated the evacuation.
But he insisted that the government’s responsibility to protect citizens must go hand in hand with responsibility for managing public funds.
“Transparency is absolutely important. Value for money is important,” Jinapor said.
He pointed to the size of the expenditure and the number of people evacuated as reasons for greater scrutiny.
“If you take the figures the Ministry has put out, they are suggesting that they spent close to GH¢50 million to evacuate about 2,000 Ghanaians. If you do the arithmetic, it means the government spent GH¢25,000 per evacuee,” he said.
The MP emphasised that the calculation should not necessarily be interpreted as proof of financial wrongdoing, but argued that it makes a detailed expenditure statement even more necessary.
Jinapor disclosed that the Minority’s demand for information did not arise only after the latest public disclosure.
According to him, the Minority had already taken formal steps to obtain the financial details approximately a month and a half ago, including invoking provisions of Ghana’s Right to Information Act.
He said the Minority formally requested information on the expenditure, including an itemised bill, and had also filed questions in Parliament.
“We, the Minority, as far back as a month and a half ago, acted pursuant to the provisions of the Right to Information Act and requested the details of this expenditure, including an itemised bill. We have even filed questions in Parliament,” he stated.
The revelation means the latest public demand is part of an ongoing parliamentary effort to obtain the financial records rather than a new political response to the Minister’s disclosure.
The evacuation exercise followed security concerns involving Ghanaian nationals in South Africa, including reports of xenophobic attacks and threats to the safety of foreigners.
The situation generated concerns over the welfare of Ghanaian nationals and increased pressure on the government to take steps to protect citizens living and working in South Africa.
The government subsequently undertook the evacuation process, bringing affected Ghanaians back to Ghana while also making arrangements relating to their transportation, accommodation, feeding and medical needs.
The Minority says it recognised the government’s constitutional and moral responsibility to intervene when Ghanaian citizens abroad face serious threats.
Jinapor therefore stressed that the call for financial details should not be misconstrued as opposition to the evacuation itself.
The Minority’s position is that there are two separate issues at stake: the government’s decision to evacuate vulnerable citizens and the financial management of that operation.
The first, according to Jinapor, was a decision the Minority supported.
The second, however, must be subjected to parliamentary and public scrutiny because the exercise involved tens of millions of Ghana cedis in public funds.
The lawmaker said transparency was necessary not only to satisfy Parliament but also to protect the credibility of the government and strengthen public confidence in the management of state resources.
“It will be useful for the Ministry to put out the details. It is very much in the interest of transparency, good governance and national interest for us to know what went into the expenditure,” he said.
The Minority is seeking a comprehensive breakdown showing how the reported GH¢49.7 million was allocated.
The Minority also wants clarity on the relationship between the GH¢38.8 million reportedly spent on specified evacuation services and the remaining amount contained in the overall GH¢49.7 million expenditure.
