Ghana High Commission Admits Clerical Errors in Records of 15 South Africa Evacuees

By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi & Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
20 OCTOBER 2026

Ghana’s High Commission in Pretoria, South Africa, has admitted clerical errors in the records of 15 Ghanaians evacuated from the country, following questions about discrepancies in their personal details and the payment of reintegration and transportation allowances.

In a statement dated October 19, 2026, the Commission explained that passport expiry dates had mistakenly been recorded as dates of birth during the transcription of passport information. The errors affected 15 people out of the 1,964 Ghanaians who were evacuated from South Africa.

The admission comes amid growing public scrutiny of the government’s evacuation programme, which was organised following renewed xenophobic attacks and intimidation against foreign nationals in parts of South Africa.

Although the Commission has described the errors as minor administrative mistakes, the controversy has raised broader questions about the accuracy of official records, the verification of beneficiaries and the documentation supporting public expenditure.

The High Commission says it has supplied corrected information for the affected individuals and maintains that all evacuees underwent the required identification, data-processing and departure procedures before returning to Ghana.

What caused the errors?

According to the High Commission, the discrepancies arose when officials transcribed passport information into the evacuation records.

Some dates that appeared to be future dates of birth were, in fact, passport expiry dates that had been entered in the wrong field.

The Commission acknowledged responsibility for the mistakes, which affected 15 people among the 1,964 evacuees.

It stressed that the errors did not mean the individuals were fictitious or that they had not participated in the evacuation exercise.

The mission also maintained that the discrepancies did not invalidate the approved reintegration and transportation allowances paid to the affected individuals.

The Commission subsequently provided corrected information to facilitate updates to the records and ensure that the public had access to accurate details.

While the explanation addresses the apparent date-of-birth discrepancies, the wider questions surrounding the evacuation’s financial documentation remain a separate matter requiring verification.

Commission defends the evacuation process

The High Commission said every Ghanaian evacuated from South Africa completed the necessary identification, data-processing and departure formalities before leaving the country.

It also clarified that the Jibril family, comprising a mother and five children, travelled using Emergency Travel Certificates, as reflected in the amended records.

The clarification was intended to address questions about the travel documents associated with the family.

The Commission said it respected the media’s role in promoting transparency and accountability and encouraged journalists to verify apparent discrepancies with the appropriate official sources.

It reaffirmed its commitment to the evacuation exercise, describing the operation as an effort to protect Ghanaians facing distressing and potentially dangerous circumstances abroad.

The mission also expressed pride in the work undertaken to bring the affected citizens home safely.

Why the GH¢49.72 million evacuation is under scrutiny

The record-keeping admission comes after questions were raised about the expenditure and supporting documents for the evacuation programme.

Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has disclosed that the exercise cost approximately GH¢49.72 million.

The reported funding comprised GH¢33.72 million in direct government funding and GH¢16 million contributed by Engineers and Planners, a company owned by businessman Ibrahim Mahama.

Under the programme, each evacuee was entitled to a GH¢5,000 reintegration grant and a GH¢500 transportation allowance.

The Minority Caucus in Parliament has questioned inconsistencies it says it identified in payment registers and flight records. It has called for an independent audit to establish whether the expenditure and beneficiary records can be fully reconciled.

The Minority has alleged that only 824 names could be matched across the registers for reintegration and transportation allowances and estimated that GH¢16.42 million required further reconciliation.

The Majority Caucus on Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee has rejected the allegations, insisting that the expenditure was documented and that all 1,964 evacuees were accounted for.

These are competing political claims. The admission of clerical errors by the High Commission does not, on its own, establish that money was misappropriated or that any evacuee received an improper payment.

Determining whether the public funds were properly disbursed requires a separate examination of the complete beneficiary lists, payment records, travel documents and other supporting evidence.

The difference between an administrative error and financial irregularity

The controversy highlights an important distinction between incorrect personal information in official records and evidence of wrongdoing involving public money.

A passport expiry date entered incorrectly as a date of birth may indicate a data-processing failure. However, it does not automatically prove that a person was ineligible for evacuation or that a payment was improper.

Similarly, correcting the dates does not automatically resolve every question about the overall expenditure.

To establish whether the programme was properly administered, auditors would need to examine whether each beneficiary can be verified, whether the relevant travel and payment records correspond, and whether the total expenditure is supported by reliable documentation.

The High Commission maintains that the 15 affected individuals are genuine evacuees and that the mistakes did not invalidate their participation or their approved allowances.

The wider audit questions, however, must be assessed on the basis of complete records rather than inferred from the date discrepancies alone.

Calls for accountability and better record verification

The admission has renewed debate about the quality of administrative checks used during emergency operations involving large numbers of people.

Emergency evacuations can require rapid coordination among diplomatic missions, border authorities, transport providers and government agencies. Even under difficult circumstances, accurate records remain important because they help establish who travelled, which documents were used and whether public funds reached the intended beneficiaries.

The Commission’s acknowledgement of responsibility is therefore significant, but the incident also points to the need for stronger verification before information is submitted to other government institutions or released publicly.

The mission has said the corrected details have been provided to facilitate updates to the records. Further scrutiny of the evacuation’s financial documentation could help clarify whether the discrepancies were confined to data entry or whether other administrative weaknesses need to be addressed.

What happens next?

The immediate task is to ensure that the records of the 15 affected individuals are corrected and that the documentation for the full evacuation can be independently reconciled.

The High Commission has maintained that the evacuees’ identities and approved allowances remain valid despite the mistakes.

Meanwhile, the questions raised by the Minority concerning payment registers and flight records have placed pressure on the relevant authorities to provide clear evidence of how the reported GH¢49.72 million was spent.

A comprehensive review would help distinguish administrative mistakes from any substantiated financial irregularities and provide the public with a clearer account of the exercise.

For now, the Commission has admitted the clerical errors but rejected the implication that they invalidate the evacuation or the payments made to those affected. The broader financial questions remain a matter for documentary verification and, if necessary, an independent audit.