Vice President Prof. Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang’s recent decision to seek medical treatment abroad has generated considerable public debate, with many accusing the government of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
The controversy has intensified due to the involvement of Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, who, only a few years ago, was an outspoken critic of government officials traveling overseas for medical care.
In the past, Okudzeto Ablakwa was a prominent voice opposing the practice of government representatives seeking medical treatment outside Ghana.
However, with his current role in facilitating the Vice President’s medical trip, he has come under scrutiny for what some perceive as a contradiction of his previous stance.
This situation has brought to light the double standards evident in the political landscape. Kofi Asare, a well-known NDC supporter, was one of the vocal critics when former Vice President Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia sought medical care abroad in 2017.
At the time, Asare argued that it was unacceptable for Bawumia to receive treatment outside the country, claiming that Ghana’s healthcare system was sufficient.
Despite this strong opposition, Asare has remained silent on Prof. Naana Jane’s medical trip, which has led to accusations of political inconsistency.
Similarly, in 2020, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa was a fierce critic of government officials who sought medical treatment abroad.
He insisted, “Government appointees must be stopped from seeking medical treatment outside. All politicians must use the same facilities as Ghanaians.” Yet, as the current Foreign Minister, he now plays a role in facilitating the very practice he once vehemently opposed, raising questions about his credibility and commitment to his former ideals.
Professor Ransford Yaw Gyampo, an academic who also criticized Bawumia’s medical leave abroad, questioned why Ghana’s leaders should travel for medical treatment when the country boasts adequate healthcare facilities.
Despite his earlier comments, Gyampo has remained quiet on the current issue, leading to further claims of hypocrisy.
Perhaps the most notable contradiction comes from former President John Mahama. During his tenure, Mahama advocated for the establishment of the University of Ghana Medical Centre (UGMC), which he claimed would ensure that government officials no longer needed to travel abroad for medical care.
He emphasized that the UGMC should serve as the final destination for medical treatment. However, now that Mahama has returned to the presidency, his administration is confronted with the reality of facilitating the Vice President’s medical trip, calling into question the principles he once championed.
While this controversy underscores the political inconsistencies of government officials, it also brings to the forefront significant concerns regarding Ghana’s healthcare infrastructure.
The reality is that not all medical conditions can be treated domestically, and it is not uncommon for leaders, like ordinary citizens, to require specialized treatment abroad.
Nonetheless, the central issue in this debate lies not in the Vice President’s need for medical care abroad but in the apparent lack of accountability for the politicians who once opposed such practices and are now endorsing them.
The hypocrisy on display raises questions about the authenticity of political leaders’ positions when they are in power.
