The decision by the Government of Ghana to reject a GH¢20 million donation from MTN Ghana to support Ghanaians affected by xenophobic attacks in South Africa is difficult to justify and ought to be reconsidered in the interest of the very people the money is intended to help.
The Government has explained that it declined the offer because adequate financial arrangements had already been secured to fund the evacuation and reintegration of affected Ghanaians.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement, said the Government appreciated MTN Ghana’s offer but could not accept it because funding for the ongoing humanitarian exercise had already been secured.
While the Government is entitled to determine how it finances an evacuation programme, the decision to reject additional private-sector support intended specifically for the returnees raises important questions about whose interest should take precedence.
In this case, the most important consideration should be the welfare and economic recovery of the affected Ghanaians.
If GH¢20 million is genuinely available to support approximately 1,600 returnees who have lost businesses, property, livelihoods and, in some cases, loved ones, rejecting the money appears difficult to reconcile with the Government’s stated commitment that “the welfare of all Ghanaians remains our utmost priority.”
The money is for returnees, not govt
The fundamental issue appears to have been lost in the debate over the Government’s rejection of the donation.
MTN Ghana is not offering the GH¢20 million as reimbursement to the Government for the cost of evacuating Ghanaians from South Africa. It is not asking the Government to refund the money it has spent on the exercise.
The proposed donation is humanitarian assistance intended to help the affected Ghanaians rebuild their lives after returning home.
That distinction is critical. The Government has already spent taxpayers’ money to evacuate the distressed Ghanaians.
It has also reportedly provided each returnee with GH¢5,000 in cash, food items and GH¢500 for transportation to their final destinations.
Those interventions are commendable and demonstrate the Government’s responsibility towards citizens in distress.
But they do not make additional assistance unnecessary.
Indeed, the fact that taxpayers’ money has already been spent on the evacuation strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for accepting legitimate private-sector support to help the returnees rebuild their livelihoods.
The GH¢20 million donation would be additional assistance. It would not cancel, reimburse or undermine the support already provided by the state.
GH¢5,000 is welcome but inadequate
The Government’s GH¢5,000 payment to each returnee should be acknowledged as a positive intervention.
However, it is difficult to argue that GH¢5,000 is sufficient to enable a person who has potentially lost a business, stock, accommodation, employment and other assets in a foreign country to start again in Ghana.
The returnees are not merely travellers who have arrived home after an ordinary trip.
Many have been forced to leave their livelihoods behind because of attacks and insecurity.
Some may need capital to restart businesses, while others may require assistance with accommodation, education, transportation, healthcare or other basic needs.
This is precisely why additional support from the private sector should be welcomed.
With about 1,600 returnees, GH¢20 million would amount to an average of approximately GH¢12,500 per person if distributed equally.
That would be in addition to the GH¢5,000 already provided by the Government, meaning an individual returnee could potentially receive around GH¢17,500 in direct financial support, excluding the other assistance provided by the state.
For someone trying to establish a small business, purchase tools or stock, pay rent, support a family or begin a new livelihood, GH¢12,500 is not insignificant. It could make a tangible difference.
Self-respect must be measured by outcomes
Some arguments in favour of rejecting the money have centred on national self-respect and dignity.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Ghana demanding respect for its citizens abroad and taking a firm position against xenophobia.
Ghana must protect its nationals, and the deaths of two Ghanaians in the attacks make the matter even more serious.
But national dignity should not be confused with refusing humanitarian assistance that directly benefits vulnerable citizens. Ghana has already demonstrated its self-respect by intervening to bring its citizens home using public resources.
The Government has also provided financial and logistical assistance to the returnees. Accepting a voluntary donation from a private company does not diminish Ghana’s sovereignty or dignity.
Rather, it could demonstrate that the Government is sufficiently confident in its own national standing to accept legitimate assistance when that assistance directly improves the welfare of its citizens.
Any concept of self-respect that leaves vulnerable returnees with less support when additional legitimate assistance is available deserves reconsideration.
MTN is not responsible for xenophobia
Another important issue is the identity of the donor. MTN Group has South African roots, and MTN Ghana is part of the wider MTN Group. But the company should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who perpetrated xenophobic attacks.
MTN Group Chairman, Mcebisi Jonas, has publicly condemned the attacks and argued that the removal of foreigners would not address South Africa’s underlying socioeconomic problems.
MTN Ghana’s Board Chairman, Dr Ishmael Yamson, has similarly condemned the attacks and made clear that the company does not support the actions that resulted in the deaths of two Ghanaians. MTN Ghana therefore has no obligation to compensate the victims.
The GH¢20 million offer is a voluntary humanitarian gesture. That distinction should matter.
Rejecting the money because the company has South African roots risks punishing a company that has actually taken a public position against the very conduct that caused the suffering.
It is also worth noting that about 30 per cent of MTN Ghana is owned by Ghanaians.
MTN Ghana is a significant corporate presence in the Ghanaian economy and employs and serves Ghanaians across the country.
The source of the money should therefore not obscure its intended purpose.
Govt should turn donation into a broader fund
Instead of rejecting the GH¢20 million, the Government could have used it as the foundation for a broader Returnees Reintegration Fund.
The Government could invite other companies, particularly businesses with significant commercial links to South Africa, to contribute to the fund.
Such a mechanism could mobilise substantially more resources for the affected Ghanaians.
The fund could finance small-business restart packages, vocational training, educational support, housing assistance and other reintegration programmes.
It could also be managed transparently, with clear eligibility criteria, independent oversight and public reporting on disbursements.
That would transform MTN Ghana’s proposed donation from a one-off intervention into the beginning of a structured private-sector partnership for rebuilding the lives of the returnees.
Rejection without consulting beneficiaries is problematic
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the decision is that the money is intended for the returnees, yet the Government appears to have made the decision to reject it without first consulting them.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says it has the database of Ghanaians who registered with the Ghana High Commission in Pretoria and who are being evacuated. That database reportedly includes contact details for the returnees.
If the beneficiaries themselves were given the opportunity to decide whether they wanted additional legitimate assistance, their views would be highly relevant. After all, it is their livelihoods that have been disrupted.
The Government’s responsibility should be to protect their interests, ensure transparency and prevent abuse—not to deprive them of additional support based on an argument about dignity that may not reflect their immediate needs.
Reconsider the decision
The Government has said it remains committed to the welfare of the returnees and has promised to provide a comprehensive account of the total cost of the evacuation exercise after its completion.
That commitment to transparency is welcome. But transparency should also extend to the handling of private-sector assistance intended for vulnerable citizens.
The Government should therefore reconsider its decision and accept MTN Ghana’s GH¢20 million donation under a transparent and accountable framework specifically designed for the returnees.
There is no contradiction between protecting Ghana’s dignity and accepting humanitarian assistance.
There is no contradiction between spending taxpayers’ money on evacuation and accepting additional private-sector support.
And there is no contradiction between condemning xenophobia and accepting assistance from a company that has itself condemned the attacks.
If the Government remains unwilling to receive the funds directly, then it should facilitate a mechanism through which MTN Ghana can reach the beneficiaries directly, subject to appropriate safeguards and verification.
The Foreign Ministry could, with the necessary consent and data-protection safeguards, work with MTN Ghana to contact the verified returnees and enable the company to provide the support directly.
The overriding consideration should be simple: what option leaves the affected Ghanaians better off?
If accepting GH¢20 million means hundreds of vulnerable citizens receive additional capital to rebuild their lives, it is difficult to see how rejecting it serves their interest.
National pride is important. Sovereignty is important. Accountability is important. But the dignity of a nation is also reflected in how effectively it helps its citizens recover from hardship.
READ ALSO:Financial Inclusion and Strategic Banking Innovation: Reimagining Access in Ghana
For the returnees, GH¢20 million could mean business capital, food, accommodation, school fees, tools, stock and a fresh start. The Government should not stand between them and that opportunity.
It should reconsider its decision, accept the donation under a transparent framework and ensure that every cedi goes to its intended beneficiaries. The welfare of the returnees must come before symbolism.
By ELVIS DARKO, Accra
