The Communications Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dennis Miracles Aboagye, has questioned discrepancies in records covering payments to Ghanaians evacuated from South Africa, arguing that the figures raise doubts about whether all beneficiaries received the full GH¢5,500 allowance.

Speaking at a press briefing on Sunday, October 18, 2026, Aboagye said a line-by-line analysis of documents provided by Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa had revealed inconsistencies between the lists of beneficiaries who signed for the payments.

According to him, although Ablakwa maintains that all 1,964 evacuees received GH¢5,500 each, the records show that only 1,001 people signed for the GH¢500 transport allowance.

“The signatures do not match the headcounts. The minister says all 1,964 evacuees received GH¢5,500. His own signed sheet, which is submitted, carried only about 1,001 signatures for the GH¢500 transport allowance, and 1,508 recorded as receiving only for just the GH¢500,” he said.

Aboagye further claimed that a comparison of the two payment lists showed that only 824 names appeared on both.

He explained that under the payment arrangement described, evacuees were expected to sign at two separate desks: one for the GH¢5,000 allowance and another for the GH¢500 transport component.

However, he argued that the documents provided by the minister did not establish that every evacuee received both payments.

“When you analyse the data line by line, we realised that the people who signed for and collected the GH¢500 are 1,001 people. It means that about 963 of the 1,964 did not receive GH¢500,” he said.

Aboagye's comments raise questions about the completeness of the payment records and whether all the evacuees received the full amount announced by the government.

The NPP communications director's remarks follow a challenge by Ablakwa to the Minority in Parliament to identify any Ghanaian evacuated from South Africa who did not receive the GH¢5,500 allowance.

The minister has dismissed allegations of unaccounted funds, describing them as an attempt to create a scandal.

The disagreement centres on whether the available payment records adequately account for the allowances distributed to all 1,964 evacuees. The discrepancies cited by Aboagye, however, do not by themselves establish that the affected individuals did not receive the payments, and the competing claims remain in dispute.