Nana B hits back at Ablakwa row critics; demands GH¢16.4m evacuation account

Ghana's political spotlight has intensified as National Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Henry Nana Boakye, popularly known as Nana B, has firmly rejected claims he sought passport favours from Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, instead turning the tables to demand accountability for a controversial GH¢16.4 million evacuation expenditure.

In a statement released on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, Nana B hit out at the Parliamentary Majority, which had alleged that Deputy Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee Nana Asafo-Adjei was pursuing a personal vendetta against Ablakwa over passport matters. Nana B characterised the Majority's allegations as "weak, diversionary, unreasonable and a red herring" designed to deflect from serious questions about possible corruption.

Clarifying the passport controversy

Nana B clarified that he had only ever held a service passport—not a diplomatic one—and that he had already surrendered it in line with a presidential directive. He explained that his actual request to Ablakwa was straightforward: a formal letter to notify embassies that visas held in his service passport needed to be transferred to his ordinary passport.

According to Nana B's account, Ablakwa himself asked him to have Asafo-Adjei follow up on obtaining the letter. "Okudzeto Ablakwa personally requested that I inform Hon. Asafo Adjei to follow up on the letter, which I did, but after one visit, Hon. Asafo Adjei was informed the letter was not ready; hence, I abandoned it and applied for new visas," Nana B stated.

He stressed that neither he nor Asafo-Adjei sought any special favours, and that pursuing a request initiated by the Minister himself was not evidence of a vendetta. "I never requested to retain the passport because doing so would have been unreasonable as a national executive of the opposition party," he added.

Nana B also expressed concern that the Majority had publicly displayed the biographical data page of his service passport, which remains in the custody of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—raising potential questions about how the document was disclosed.

The real issue: accountability on evacuation funds

Beyond the passport dispute, Nana B has redirected focus to what he views as the substantive issue: unexplained spending during Ghana's evacuation of citizens from South Africa. He accused the Majority of attempting to shield Ablakwa from scrutiny over the GH¢16.4 million figure.

Critically, Nana B noted that the concerns raised by Asafo-Adjei were based on data submitted by Ablakwa himself, making them a matter of public accountability rather than partisan gamesmanship. "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.

He called directly on the Majority to demand that Ablakwa provide detailed explanations for what Nana B described as "serious inconsistencies" in the evacuation expenditure documents. He invoked President Mahama's campaign promise of accountability, stating: "President Mahama promised Ghanaians accountability, and the majority should call Okudzeto Ablakwa to answer the serious inconsistencies in the documents submitted regarding the expenditure on the evacuation of citizens."

Why it matters for Ghana

This dispute touches two critical issues for Ghanaians: government accountability and fiscal transparency. The alleged GH¢16.4 million expenditure represents public funds, and citizens have a legitimate right to understand how taxpayer money was used during the South Africa evacuation. The Majority's attempt to reframe the matter as a personal dispute risks undermining broader calls for transparency within government.

The incident also illustrates how parliamentary oversight can become entangled with partisan tensions. If Asafo-Adjei's scrutiny was indeed prompted by legitimate discrepancies in evacuation spending data, then it represents Parliament doing its job. Conversely, if the Majority's allegations have merit, it raises questions about whether opposition criticism is evidence-based or motivated by faction.

For ordinary Ghanaians, the underlying principle is straightforward: public officials must account for public resources, regardless of which party is in power. The passport row may fade, but the demand for clarity on GH¢16.4 million in spending ought to remain centre stage.