Financial economist and academic Dr Razak Kojo Opoku has defended Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa following criticism from some Ghanaian nationals evacuated from South Africa, arguing that beneficiaries of government interventions are not necessarily obliged to support the political administration that assists them.
The debate follows complaints by some returnees about the financial and economic assistance provided after their evacuation to Ghana. Some have questioned whether the reintegration package was sufficient to meet their immediate needs and help them rebuild their livelihoods.
The concerns have centred particularly on the GH¢5,000 reintegration allowance and GH¢500 transport stipend provided to the returnees.
Some evacuees have argued that the support was inadequate given the cost of restarting their lives in Ghana, while others have raised concerns about limited employment opportunities after returning to the country.
A few returnees have reportedly gone further to publicly express regret over their return, comparing their economic circumstances in Ghana with the livelihoods they had established in South Africa.
The complaints have triggered a broader discussion about the government’s responsibilities towards citizens evacuated from potentially dangerous situations, particularly whether an emergency evacuation should also be accompanied by more extensive and sustained economic assistance.
Responding to the controversy, Dr Opoku said Mr Ablakwa should not be overly concerned by the dissatisfaction expressed by some of the returnees.
He drew a comparison with the Akufo-Addo administration’s Free Senior High School (Free SHS) programme, arguing that receiving assistance from a government does not automatically determine a person’s political allegiance.
According to Dr Opoku, the Free SHS programme had benefited an estimated 3.5 million students, but the beneficiaries did not necessarily vote for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2024 general election.
He further claimed that some Free SHS beneficiaries and their parents actively campaigned against the NPP during the election, including in the North Tongu Constituency.
“Not all of the 3.5 million beneficiaries of Akufo-Addo’s Free SHS Policy voted for the NPP in 2024, including many students in the North Tongu Constituency,” Dr Opoku stated.
“Some Free SHS beneficiaries, together with their parents, even campaigned massively against the NPP in 2024.”
Using the example, he argued that government interventions should not be viewed as transactions in which beneficiaries are expected to repay assistance through political loyalty or electoral support.
He therefore urged Mr Ablakwa not to take the criticism from some of the evacuees personally.
“Therefore, respectfully, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa should not be offended at all if some evacuees from South Africa are expressing acts of ingratitude towards Mahama’s government after successfully evacuating them from South Africa,” Dr Opoku added.
Mr Ablakwa has, meanwhile, defended the government’s decision to evacuate the affected Ghanaians, stressing that the immediate priority was to protect citizens facing potential threats in South Africa.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in the United States, the Foreign Affairs Minister said the evacuation was undertaken in response to security concerns and was intended to prevent Ghanaian nationals from being exposed to violence, lynching or imprisonment during xenophobic unrest.
He questioned whether the returnees would have preferred to remain in South Africa despite the risks.
“Would you rather have been lynched in South Africa… than coming back home to peace and safety? If that is the thank you we get, no problem,” Mr Ablakwa said.
His response reflects the government’s position that the evacuation should primarily be understood as a humanitarian and security intervention, rather than as a programme designed to guarantee returnees long-term economic prosperity.
The government evacuated 1,964 Ghanaians from South Africa between May 27 and September 4, 2026.
The exercise reportedly cost the government GH¢49.72 million and involved more than transporting the returnees to Ghana.
The support package included medical assistance, psychosocial support and reintegration measures intended to facilitate the returnees’ transition into their communities.
The government’s intervention has therefore involved both the immediate evacuation of citizens from a potentially unsafe environment and measures intended to assist them following their return.
However, the concerns raised by some returnees have shifted attention towards the adequacy of the reintegration component, particularly whether the financial support provided can enable people who had established livelihoods abroad to restart their lives in Ghana.
Dr Opoku’s intervention has introduced a political dimension to the debate by distinguishing between government assistance and the political choices of those who receive it.
His Free SHS comparison is intended to demonstrate that beneficiaries of state programmes can appreciate or utilise government interventions while retaining the freedom to support a different political party.
The controversy over the South Africa evacuees therefore involves two separate questions: the government’s decision to evacuate citizens facing security concerns, and whether the assistance provided after their return is adequate to address their longer-term economic needs.
While the government has highlighted the resources committed to the evacuation and reintegration exercise, some returnees have called for greater economic opportunities and support to help them rebuild their livelihoods.
By 1960news.com
