The evacuation of Ghanaian nationals from South Africa has sparked an important conversation that goes beyond political rivalry: how much accountability should the government provide when public resources are used to respond to an emergency involving citizens abroad?
The Minority in Parliament’s demand for detailed accounts of the evacuation may, at first glance, appear politically motivated to some. However, at the heart of the matter lies a legitimate question that deserves serious consideration — when taxpayers’ money is spent, shouldn’t Parliament and the Ghanaian public be told exactly how much was spent, how it was spent and who benefited from the expenditure?
The answer, in principle, should be yes.
Accountability should not be confused with opposition
In a democracy, the role of the opposition is not merely to criticise government policies. Parliament, particularly through its oversight responsibilities, has a duty to scrutinise government expenditure and decisions.
Therefore, asking for a detailed account of an evacuation exercise should not automatically be interpreted as an attempt to undermine the government.
If the exercise involved the use of public funds, there is a reasonable basis for asking questions about the total cost, transportation arrangements, accommodation, logistics, security, medical support and other related expenses.
These questions become even more important when the government undertakes such an operation in the name of protecting Ghanaian citizens.
The Public Deserves To Know
For many ordinary Ghanaians, the issue is not necessarily about which political party organised the evacuation. It is about their money.
Every cedi spent by the state ultimately comes from public resources. Citizens therefore have a legitimate interest in understanding how those resources are deployed.
A transparent account could provide answers to straightforward questions: How many people were evacuated? What was the total cost of the exercise? Which institutions were involved? Were private companies or contractors engaged? How were contracts awarded? Were there any emergency procurement arrangements?
Providing such information does not necessarily weaken the government’s position. In fact, it could strengthen public confidence in the exercise. Emergencies require action — but accountability must follow. There is also an important counterargument.
Evacuation exercises, particularly those undertaken in response to an emergency or rapidly developing situation, may require government officials to act quickly. Such circumstances do not always allow for the lengthy administrative processes associated with ordinary government expenditure. The urgency of protecting citizens should therefore be recognised.
However, emergency action should not mean permanent secrecy.
Even where government is compelled to make immediate decisions, there should be an opportunity afterwards for the relevant authorities to account for those decisions. In other words, urgency can justify speed, but it should not eliminate accountability.
The Minority’s demand should be judged on substance. The most important question, therefore, should not be whether the request comes from the Minority or Majority.
The better question is: Is the information being requested relevant to public accountability? If the Minority is asking for documentation that can reasonably demonstrate how public funds were used and how the evacuation was conducted, then the request falls squarely within the broader principles of parliamentary oversight.
At the same time, the demand should be pursued responsibly. Parliamentarians should avoid turning a humanitarian exercise into a partisan spectacle. The welfare and dignity of the evacuated citizens should remain central to the discussion. The fact is, transparency can protect government too and detailed disclosure can benefit the government as much as it benefits the opposition.
If the evacuation was properly organised, funds were responsibly used and the government acted in the national interest, then a clear account would help establish that fact. Rather than allowing speculation, rumours and political accusations to dominate the conversation, documented figures and official records can provide clarity.
Good governance is not simply about doing the right thing. It is also about being able to show the public what was done and why. The debate over the South Africa evacuation should therefore be viewed as part of a larger national conversation about transparency.
Ghana cannot build strong democratic institutions if accountability becomes something demanded only when one political party is in opposition and resisted when that same party is in government.
To “Press Down” Corruption, MPs Should Be Paid Well— Suhuyini
This message is directed at both major political parties—the NPP and the NDC. They must make accountability to the citizens a priority. For far too long, Ghanaians have been taken for granted, and that must change. The people deserve transparency, responsibility, and leaders who are answerable for their actions.
The principle should be consistent: Whether the NDC or NPP is in government, Parliament should be able to scrutinise public expenditure. Whether an operation is popular or controversial, citizens should be able to ask legitimate questions about public money. That is not hostility towards government. It is democracy working as it should.
Ultimately, the evacuation of Ghanaian citizens should be remembered first as a matter involving the safety and welfare of Ghanaians. But humanitarian responsibility and financial accountability are not mutually exclusive.
The government can be commended for responding to citizens in distress while still being asked to account for the resources used in doing so. Also, the Minority can demand transparency without politicising the suffering of the people who were evacuated.
The strongest position may therefore be a simple one: protect citizens when they are in danger, spend public money responsibly, and be prepared to account for every significant expenditure.
If the evacuation was conducted properly, a detailed account should not be something to fear. It should be an opportunity to demonstrate that public resources were used responsibly and that, even in moments of crisis, the principles of transparency and accountability remain firmly at the heart of Ghana’s democracy.