By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi & Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
November 3, 2026
Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has filed a defamation lawsuit against New Patriotic Party (NPP) communicator Benjamin Gyewu-Appiah, popularly known as Benghazi, and Media General Ghana Limited over allegations linking him to the alleged diversion of public funds earmarked for the evacuation of Ghanaians from South Africa.
The legal action follows comments made by Gyewu-Appiah during a discussion on Onua FM on October 14, 2026, in which he accused the minister of misappropriating money intended to support Ghanaian nationals returning home amid renewed xenophobic attacks in South Africa.
According to reports on the lawsuit, a writ of summons was filed at the High Court in Accra on October 30, 2026, naming Gyewu-Appiah and Media General, the media organisation that operates Onua FM and Onua TV, as defendants.
The allegations included claims that Ablakwa had diverted approximately GH¢16.4 million from the evacuation exercise and given the money to musician Fantana, whom the communicator also described as the minister’s romantic partner.
The minister has rejected allegations of financial wrongdoing and is now seeking legal redress over the statements.
What did Benjamin Gyewu-Appiah allege?
The controversy arose during a political discussion on Onua FM, where Gyewu-Appiah made accusations against the Foreign Affairs Minister concerning the management of public funds used in the South Africa evacuation exercise.
He alleged that Ablakwa had taken money meant for the evacuation and spent it on Fantana.
He also made claims about the minister’s personal relationship with the musician and suggested that Ablakwa and his wife could face imprisonment over the alleged conduct.
The remarks attracted public attention because they went beyond questions about government expenditure and directly accused a sitting cabinet minister of criminal wrongdoing.
Fantana also reportedly threatened legal action against Gyewu-Appiah over the allegations connecting her to the alleged misuse of public funds.
Ablakwa’s decision to sue the communicator and Media General has now moved the dispute into the legal arena.
Media General reportedly issues retraction and apology
The media organization’s involvement in the lawsuit has also attracted attention.
Media General, which operates Onua FM and Onua TV, was named alongside Gyewu-Appiah as a defendant in the case.
However, following the filing of the suit, Media General reportedly issued a retraction and apology through Onua FM, the station on which the disputed remarks were broadcast.
The development raises questions about the responsibility of media organisations when serious allegations are made during political discussions and the extent to which broadcasters must ensure that claims aired on their platforms are properly supported.
The retraction and apology are also significant developments in the dispute, although their legal implications and whether they affect the proceedings will be matters for the parties and the court.
Background: The GH¢49.72 million South Africa evacuation controversy
The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of growing political and public scrutiny over the government’s evacuation of Ghanaian nationals from South Africa following renewed xenophobic attacks and intimidation against foreign nationals.
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a total of 1,964 Ghanaians were brought home between May 27 and September 4, 2026, at a reported cost of GH¢49,721,786.
The evacuation exercise included chartered flights and support arrangements for returning nationals, including reintegration and transportation allowances.
However, the expenditure has generated questions from the opposition New Patriotic Party and its representatives in Parliament.
The Minority has raised concerns about alleged discrepancies in payment records, duplicate entries, missing supporting receipts and claims by some evacuees that they did not receive the full allowances recorded against their names.
It has also questioned the cost of the chartered flights and demanded further documentation to establish how public funds were spent.
On October 27, 2026, the Minority in Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee called on Ablakwa to resign, arguing that an independent investigation was necessary to establish the facts surrounding the expenditure.
The group also called for a comprehensive independent audit of the evacuation exercise.
Ablakwa denies financial impropriety
The Foreign Affairs Minister has consistently rejected allegations that money allocated to the evacuation exercise was misappropriated.
He has maintained that not a cedi or pesewa is missing from the funds used for the operation.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on October 17, Ablakwa said the allegations against him were unfair and amounted to an attempt to damage his reputation and the image of the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
He also defended officials responsible for managing the evacuation expenditure, insisting that the ministry was prepared to subject its records to scrutiny.
At a subsequent press conference on October 26, the minister reiterated his confidence in the officials who handled the financial and administrative aspects of the exercise.
The ministry has also maintained that it is open to accountability and has welcomed scrutiny of its records.
The competing positions have intensified calls for an independent examination of the expenditure to establish whether the concerns raised by the opposition and other commentators have merit.
What happens next in the defamation case?
The writ of summons reportedly gives the defendants eight days from the date of service to enter an appearance in the case.
Failure to respond within the stipulated period could expose a defendant to the possibility of judgment being entered in their absence, subject to the applicable court procedures.
The case places the Foreign Affairs Minister in a legal dispute with an opposition communicator and a major media organisation over statements made during a political broadcast.
While the wider controversy surrounding the South Africa evacuation continues to generate political debate, the defamation proceedings will focus on the disputed statements and the legal questions raised by their publication and broadcast.
The court process is expected to provide an opportunity for the parties to present their respective positions.
For now, the lawsuit represents a new development in the controversy, which has evolved from questions about public expenditure into a dispute involving alleged defamation, media responsibility and the accountability of public officials.
The case remains before the legal process, and the allegations against the minister should not be treated as established facts unless proven through the appropriate proceedings.
