VIDEO: Ablakwa details GH¢49.7m SA evacuation spending, rejects Minority’s claims of unaccounted funds

The dispute concerns whether the government properly accounted for GH¢49.72 million spent bringing Ghanaians home from South Africa. The Minority claims more than GH¢16 million is unaccounted for. Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa rejects that allegation and says the ministry’s records explain the operation.

The ministry reports spending GH¢38,835,512 on flights, tickets, ground transport, feeding, hotel accommodation, and medical and hospitalisation costs. It reports another GH¢10,802,000 in reintegration and transport allowances, plus GH¢84,274 for repatriating two bodies and conducting autopsies. The total was funded by government and a GH¢16 million donation from Engineers and Planners.

The disagreement remains unresolved by a completed independent audit. The minister has requested a special audit of government evacuation exercises since 2017, while presenting passenger lists, airline receipts, boarding passes and acknowledgement sheets to support his account. The Minority’s calculations also contain different disputed figures, according to his presentation.

The evacuation brought 1,964 Ghanaians back from South Africa between 27 May and 4 September 2026. The reported total expenditure was GH¢49,721,786, usually described in the presentation as GH¢49.72 million. This figure matters because it is the basis of the dispute between the minister and the Minority.

Of the returnees, 956 travelled on three chartered flights. Another 1,008 returned on commercial services. Each evacuee, including children and infants, reportedly received GH¢5,000 as a reintegration allowance and GH¢500 for transport. The two payments together amounted to GH¢10,802,000.

The operation was funded with GH¢33,721,786 from government and a GH¢16 million donation from Engineers and Planners. The minister says the ministry voluntarily accounted for the exercise on 7 September, three days after it ended. He also says the government declined a separate GH¢20 million offer from MTN.

The largest allocation was GH¢38,835,512. It covered chartered flights, commercial tickets, ground transport, feeding, hotel accommodation in South Africa, and medical and hospitalisation costs. The article groups these services together rather than giving a separate amount for each one.

Reintegration and transport allowances accounted for GH¢10,802,000. This equals GH¢5,500 for each of the 1,964 evacuees: GH¢5,000 for reintegration and GH¢500 for transport. A further GH¢84,274 covered repatriating two bodies and paying autopsy costs. Together, these categories total GH¢49,721,786.

The spending was funded through GH¢33,721,786 from government and a GH¢16 million donation from Engineers and Planners. The minister says the donation was disclosed, not concealed. He also cites the government’s decision to reject a separate GH¢20 million offer from MTN as part of his defence of the operation.

The minister’s central evidence is a set of acknowledgement sheets attached to the ministry’s report. He says these records show that all 1,964 returnees received both the GH¢5,000 reintegration payment and the GH¢500 transport payment. The presentation includes photographed payment sheets, with some entries highlighted.

The presentation also addresses minors and infants directly. It states that every evacuee received both payments, because children were included in the government’s announced support arrangement. The minister argues that the allowance total, GH¢10,802,000, matches GH¢5,500 multiplied by 1,964 people.

He further says no evacuated Ghanaian has denied receiving the allowances and proposes contacting randomly selected beneficiaries to verify the records. This evidence supports his position, but it does not replace an independent audit. The article states that no completed independent audit has established a final finding on the disputed expenditure.

An independent audit is a systematic examination of public money by reviewers who are separate from the officials who arranged the spending. Its purpose is to test whether transactions were authorised, accurately recorded, supported by evidence and connected to the stated operation. Independence helps reduce conflicts of interest.

Auditors could reconcile the GH¢49,721,786 total with bank transfers, airline receipts, passenger lists, boarding passes, hotel invoices, medical bills and allowance acknowledgement sheets. They could verify whether 1,964 people travelled, whether the listed airlines carried the reported passengers, and whether each allowance payment reached its named recipient. They could also trace the government funding and Engineers and Planners donation.

Any gap between approved spending, source documents and actual payments would require explanation. Unsupported transactions could be classified as unresolved or irregular, while matching records would strengthen the ministry’s account. The article states that a special audit was requested, but no completed independent audit has issued a final finding.

If an audit confirmed that funds were missing, improperly spent or unsupported, the first consequence would be a formal finding about the transactions involved. Officials or contractors might be required to explain the gaps, return money, or correct incomplete records. The precise response would depend on the audit’s evidence and applicable rules.

For example, an unsupported airline charge could be challenged, while a payment recorded without proof of receipt could require beneficiary verification. Deliberate misuse could lead to administrative discipline, investigation or prosecution where the evidence and law support it. A documentation failure without proven theft might instead lead to corrective action and tighter controls.

The findings could also affect public confidence in the evacuation and the ministry’s accounting. Parliament or other oversight bodies could demand follow-up reports, recoveries or procurement reviews. In this case, the article states that a special audit of evacuation exercises since 2017 was requested, but it does not report any confirmed missing funds or completed audit conclusion.

Governments should prepare emergency plans before crises occur. Those plans can define who approves spending, how suppliers are selected, which prices need comparison, and what minimum records must be retained. Emergency rules may be faster than normal procurement, but they should still require written reasons, conflict checks and spending limits.

During an evacuation, officials should maintain a live passenger register and match it with tickets, boarding passes, invoices, contracts, delivery confirmations and payment acknowledgements. Digital copies should be backed up, while changes should be dated and attributable. Allowance payments should use named lists and, where practical, beneficiary verification. These steps preserve speed while creating an evidence trail.

Afterward, officials should publish a spending summary and invite an independent audit. In the reported case, the ministry supplied passenger lists, airline receipts and payment sheets, but the dispute remains unsettled. A timely audit, clear procurement file and random beneficiary checks could reduce uncertainty and strengthen future emergency operations.