Financial economist and academic Dr Razak Kojo Opoku has questioned the focus of the ongoing accountability debate over the GH¢49.72 million spent on the evacuation of 1,964 Ghanaians from South Africa, arguing that attention should be directed towards verifying actual payments rather than typographical or data-entry errors in the documents released.
Dr Opoku said the central issue should be whether public funds allocated to the evacuation exercise were properly disbursed and accounted for, stressing that the public would be more interested in establishing how the money was spent than in discrepancies arising from the preparation or recording of documents.
In a social media post, he questioned whether the accountability demands surrounding the expenditure are based primarily on errors in the documentation or on the actual amounts paid to the beneficiaries of the exercise.
“Is the accountability being demanded based on typographical or data entry errors in the documents provided, or on the actual amounts paid to the beneficiaries of the SA Evacuation Exercise?” he asked.
He described the emphasis on data-entry and typographical errors as “infantile” and maintained that the more important task was to verify the payments made to the returnees and determine whether the expenditure could be fully accounted for.
According to Dr Opoku, the focus of the debate should be on establishing whether the funds were disbursed to the intended beneficiaries and whether the reported expenditure accurately reflects the amounts paid during the evacuation and reintegration process.
Dr Opoku’s comments come amid public debate over the GH¢49.72 million reported expenditure on the evacuation of 1,964 Ghanaian citizens from South Africa between May 27 and September 4, 2026.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has denied allegations of missing funds or misappropriation in connection with the exercise.
According to the Ministry’s reported breakdown, GH¢38.84 million was spent on flights, transportation, feeding, accommodation and medical care, while approximately GH¢10.8 million was allocated to reintegration support and transport allowances for the returnees.
The reported funding arrangements indicate that the government contributed GH¢33.72 million towards the exercise, while businessman Ibrahim Mahama, through Engineers and Planners, donated GH¢16 million.
The Ministry’s figures place the total expenditure at GH¢49.72 million, making the management and documentation of the funds a subject of public interest.
Under the reported support arrangements, each returnee was allocated GH¢5,000 as reintegration assistance and GH¢500 for transportation.
The allowances were intended to assist the returnees as they returned to Ghana and began the process of reintegrating into their communities.
The expenditure has attracted scrutiny from the Minority in Parliament and the New Patriotic Party (NPP), which have raised questions about discrepancies identified in documents relating to the evacuation exercise.
Among the issues highlighted are differences between the number of people recorded in the documentation and the number of beneficiaries who reportedly signed for the allowances.
The discrepancies have prompted calls for an independent audit to establish the accuracy of the records and provide a clearer account of how the funds were disbursed.
However, ranking members of the Minority have clarified that they have not formally accused the Foreign Affairs Minister of embezzlement or direct wrongdoing.
Their concerns have centred on the need for clarification of the figures and independent verification of the expenditure.
The demand for an audit is intended to establish whether the reported payments correspond with the amounts received by the intended beneficiaries and whether the supporting documentation adequately accounts for the funds.
Dr Opoku’s intervention places emphasis on the distinction between errors in financial documentation and substantive questions about the management of public funds.
While discrepancies in records may require explanation and correction, his argument is that the more consequential question is whether the money was actually paid to the intended recipients and whether the expenditure can be verified.
He maintained that public scrutiny should concentrate on the actual amounts disbursed to the returnees rather than allowing disputes over typographical or data-entry errors to dominate the debate.
His position suggests that a comprehensive examination of the evacuation expenditure should establish the number of beneficiaries who received the allowances, the amounts paid to each recipient and whether the total disbursements reconcile with the reported expenditure.
Such verification could also help determine whether the documentation accurately reflects the financial transactions undertaken during the exercise.
The controversy has renewed attention on the management of public funds, particularly where government expenditure involves emergency assistance, humanitarian support and the reintegration of citizens returning from abroad.
The evacuation exercise was undertaken to bring home Ghanaians from South Africa, while the associated allowances were intended to provide financial assistance to those returning.
However, the scale of the reported expenditure and the questions raised about the accompanying records have placed the exercise under public scrutiny.
Dr Opoku’s comments add another perspective to the debate by urging stakeholders to prioritise verification of the actual payments made to beneficiaries.
For the Foreign Affairs Ministry, a detailed reconciliation of the expenditure, supported by verifiable payment records and beneficiary documentation, could help address the concerns raised by the opposition and other interested parties.
The central question remains whether the GH¢49.72 million reported as the total cost of the evacuation exercise can be fully accounted for, including the amounts spent on operational arrangements and the allowances allocated to the returnees.
For Dr Opoku, that is the issue that should take precedence over disputes about typographical and data-entry errors.
By 1960news.com
