Manasseh Azure Awuni calls out ingratitude among evacuated Ghanaians from South Africa

Investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni has intensified the debate around government assistance for Ghanaians evacuated from South Africa, arguing that complaints about the scale of resettlement support reflect an unhealthy sense of entitlement rather than justified grievance.

In a pointed social media intervention, Awuni defended the government's decision to charter aircraft and fund the return of citizens who faced xenophobic threats in South Africa, suggesting that beneficiaries should prioritise gratitude over criticism of the financial packages offered.

The core argument: State sacrifice versus individual expectation

Awuni emphasised that many nations faced similar crises but chose not to intervene, either due to financial constraints or indifference to their citizens' safety. Ghana's decision to deploy resources for evacuation, he argued, deserves recognition rather than complaint. He highlighted the opportunity cost of the evacuation effort, noting that the substantial sums spent could have addressed other pressing national needs.

The journalist drew a contrast between evacuees and other vulnerable Ghanaians who receive no state support. He pointed out that some citizens require minimal capital—as little as 2,000 cedis—to establish a livelihood but have received nothing from government. Similarly, he noted that working Ghanaians who remained in the country and paid taxes have not benefited from state largesse, making complaints from evacuees seem particularly jarring.

Understanding the frustration—but context matters

Awuni acknowledged that the psychological toll of losing economic opportunities abroad is genuine and understandable. However, he stressed that the evacuation was a life-saving measure, not a forced repatriation. Those evacuated faced real threats and could have suffered serious harm had the government remained inactive. In this light, the government's intervention should be viewed as a protective action centred on citizen safety rather than a promise of economic rehabilitation.

Why it matters for Ghana: Political weaponisation and national unity

Beyond the immediate issue of evacuation support, Awuni's intervention flags a broader concern about how grievances can be exploited in Ghana's political environment. He warned that complaints from evacuees provide ammunition to political actors seeking to amplify negativity and score partisan points. This dynamic risks undermining public confidence in government crisis response and discouraging future interventions when Ghanaians face emergencies abroad.

The exchange also touches on deeper questions about state responsibility, individual resilience and the limits of government welfare. Ghana, like many African nations, operates with constrained fiscal resources. The debate over whether resettlement packages are adequate reflects genuine tensions between citizen expectations and government capacity.

For evacuees attempting to rebuild their lives at home, the modest financial support available may indeed feel insufficient after years building livelihoods abroad. Yet Awuni's framing invites reflection on whether the benchmark for gratitude should be adequacy of support or recognition of state effort under difficult circumstances.

The journalist's intervention is unlikely to settle the matter but serves as a reminder that public discourse around government assistance benefits from distinguishing between legitimate policy critique and what he characterised as performative dissatisfaction.