Nana B Fires Back at Ablakwa: Denies Passport Request, Escalates GH¢16.4m Evacuation Question

Henry Nana Boakye, National Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, has firmly denied requesting Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa to allow him to retain his service passport, instead accusing parliamentary leadership of using the row as cover for unanswered questions about GH¢16.4 million spent evacuating Ghanaians from South Africa.

In a statement on 13 October, Nana B rejected what he called a "weak, diversionary" claim by the Majority that Deputy Ranking Member Nana Asafo-Adjei was pursuing a personal grudge against the Minister. According to Nana B, he only held a service passport—not a diplomatic one—and surrendered it in line with presidential directive.

What Nana B Actually Asked For

Nana B clarified that his sole request to Ablakwa was for a formal letter to notify overseas embassies that visas in his service passport needed transferring to his ordinary one. He stated that the Minister himself then asked him to have Asafo-Adjei follow up on the letter. After one visit and learning the letter was not ready, Nana B said he abandoned the pursuit and applied for new visas instead.

"I never requested to retain the passport because doing so would have been unreasonable as a national executive of the opposition party," Nana B emphasised. He also questioned how the Majority obtained and publicly displayed the biographical data page of his service passport, which should remain in Foreign Affairs custody.

Nana B's statement emphasises that Asafo-Adjei was acting at the Minister's own request, not on behalf of any personal favour-seeking by the NPP figure.

The Real Issue: The GH¢16.4 Million Question

Nana B shifted focus to what he argues is the genuine matter of public concern: alleged inconsistencies in how the evacuation funds were accounted for. He urged the Majority to stop deflecting and demand clarity from Ablakwa, stressing that President Mahama campaigned on accountability.

"The majority should not take discerning Ghanaians for fools by suggesting that a member of Parliament's exposition on possible corruption to the tune of GHS16.4 million, based on data submitted by Okudzeto himself, is a personal vendetta," he said.

Nana B's challenge exposes a widening gap between the government's parliamentary allies and sections of the opposition-controlled Foreign Affairs Committee, which has been scrutinising the evacuation expenditure since it came to light.

Why This Matters for Ghana

This dispute sits at the intersection of two important governance concerns. First, it raises questions about accountability for significant public funds at a time when Ghanaians are watching closely how the Mahama administration handles state resources. Second, it reflects tensions within Parliament's oversight role and whether legitimate queries about expenditure are being conflated with personal disputes to avoid serious scrutiny.

The evacuation operation itself—intended to bring Ghanaians to safety during unrest in South Africa—was a legitimate state function. However, if documents submitted by the Ministry show inconsistencies, those inconsistencies demand public explanation regardless of which MP raises them. Nana B's challenge to the Majority is essentially calling on government-aligned MPs to fulfil their constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable, rather than shield a Minister from reasonable questions.

The passport row, whether genuine or exaggerated, risks becoming noise that obscures the substantive issue: whether GH¢16.4 million in taxpayer funds was spent and accounted for properly. Ghanaians have a right to answers on both counts.