Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has sought to distance himself from the financial arrangements surrounding the controversial evacuation of Ghanaians from South Africa, pointing to the role of officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in handling the exercise.

His explanation, however, has sparked anger among members of the Ghanaian diaspora in Canada, with the minister facing a barrage of criticism, hoots and demands for accountability during a meeting in Ottawa on Sunday, October 25.

Ablakwa, who is in Canada on an official visit, was scheduled to meet members of the Ghanaian community following an invitation circulated by the Ghana High Commission.

The meeting, which brought together Ghanaians who had travelled from different parts of the country, turned tense as participants confronted the minister over alleged financial irregularities surrounding the evacuation exercise.

Addressing their concerns, Ablakwa indicated that he was not personally involved in every financial arrangement relating to the operation.

He also defended public servants at the ministry, explaining that he had a responsibility to protect hardworking officials.

His response, however, failed to ease tensions, as many participants appeared dissatisfied with what they considered an attempt to deflect responsibility for the controversy.

The minister was met with loud hoots and shouts as angry participants demanded a comprehensive account of the money spent on the evacuation exercise. Some demonstrators displayed placards bearing the words “Yɛgye Yɛn Sika” and “Bring Back Our Money”, underscoring their demands for transparency and accountability.

The heated encounter has reignited debate over Ablakwa’s record of scrutinising public expenditure under the previous administration of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, particularly his criticism of presidential travel expenses.

Critics argue that the minister, who was vocal in demanding accountability from the previous government, must now be prepared to face similar scrutiny over expenditure incurred under his watch.

The central question confronting the Foreign Affairs Minister is whether distancing himself from individual financial transactions is sufficient to address concerns about his supervisory responsibilities and the ministry’s handling of the evacuation exercise.

For the Ghanaians who confronted him in Ottawa, the explanation that he was not personally involved in every transaction did little to resolve their concerns. They demanded clear answers, documentary evidence and a transparent breakdown of the expenditure.

Their concerns also extended to the number of people evacuated, the total cost of the operation, the companies or individuals involved in facilitating the exercise, and the procedures used to authorise and account for the expenditure.

Members of the diaspora called for relevant documents and financial records to be made available so the public could independently assess how the funds were used.

Ablakwa’s position has therefore done little to end the debate. Instead, it has intensified calls for a detailed institutional account identifying who authorised the payments, which officials supervised the arrangements, and what checks were in place to ensure that public funds were properly managed.

While the minister’s assertion that he was not directly involved in every financial transaction clarifies his stated position, questions remain about the extent of his oversight and the ministry’s responsibility for the exercise.

The confrontation in Ottawa highlights the mounting pressure on the Foreign Affairs Ministry to provide a comprehensive explanation of the evacuation arrangements and address the allegations of financial impropriety.

For the aggrieved Ghanaians, the demand remains straightforward: transparency, accountability and credible answers about how public funds were spent.