Ras Mubarak: Open letter to the President of the Republic of Ghana

The President of The Republic of Ghana
Flagstaff House,
Accra.

7th June 2025.

Dear Mr. President,

FOCUS ON THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Given the bleak economic situation your government inherited and the burden of such challenges on households around the country, cuts in government spending have become exceedingly crucial.

Even though you have cut spending, starting from the Presidency and reduced the number of Ministries and Ministers amongst a raft of measures, there are a considerable number of areas where savings could be made.

This open letter is the first in a series of recommendations for revenue generation to address critical sectors like health, education, infrastructure, etc.

I wish to focus today on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to propose the downgrading and or scrapping of Ghana’s embassies in the following countries.

1. Algeria
2. Austria
3. Benin
4. Burkina Faso
5. Congo
6. Czech Republic
7. Equatorial Guinea
8. Guinea
9. Israel
10. Ivory Coast
11. Kuwait
12. Liberia
13. Libya
14. Malta
15. Namibia
16. Norway
17. Niger
18. Rwanda
19. Serbia
20. Sierra Leone
21. Trinidad & Tobago
22. United Arab Emirates.

In an era where even the richest countries are struggling to meet the most pressing needs of their people, we, a developing country, cannot afford to spend beyond our means. Difficult and painful decisions ought to be made to give the Ghanaian people the dignity they deserve.

JUSTIFICATION FOR SCRAPPING
These diplomatic missions and embassies have been selected based on a combination of factors, including:

I Low Trade Volumes. Many of these countries do not have significant trade relationships with Ghana, making the maintenance of diplomatic missions less critical.

II Limited Diplomatic Engagement. Some of these missions are not actively engaged in substantial diplomatic activities that benefit Ghana’s national interests.

III. Cost Savings. Maintaining diplomatic missions is very costly. The cost of maintaining embassies in the above countries costs the Ghanaian taxpayer several million dollars yearly.

Even though a handful of Chancery buildings in places like Namibia were given to Ghana for free, there are other costs that make no economic sense.

We can’t keep paying for high rent costs while kids in schools up and down the country sit on the floor. Keeping these embassies cannot be justified when clinics in rural Ghana are an eyesore.

By scrapping these missions, Ghana can save on operational costs, including rent, utilities, salaries, and other expenses.

The cost savings from scrapping these diplomatic missions and embassies can be substantial. Based on average costs, the estimated savings range in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These funds can be redirected to more pressing areas such as:

(A) Healthcare: We have to improve our healthcare infrastructure, fund medical research, and enhance access to quality healthcare for all Ghanaians.

(B) Education: Investing in educational facilities, teacher training programs, and scholarships to improve the quality of education and increase access to education for disadvantaged groups.

(C) Infrastructure: Developing critical infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and public transportation systems to support economic growth and improve the quality of life for our citizens.

(D) Housing: The concept of basic human needs is food, clothing and shelter. Our countrymen and women need affordable homes. Shelter, like food and clothing, is so fundamental to human survival and wellbeing. Implementing affordable housing projects to address the housing deficit and provide decent living conditions for low and middle-income earners.

WHAT TO DO WITH STAFF FROM EMBASSIES IN THE ABOVE COUNTRIES.

Critics of my proposal may raise issues with job losses. But there will be little or no Ghanaian job losses.
Staff from the scrapped missions and embassies can be redeployed to more critical diplomatic missions where Ghana’s interests are more substantial. This will not only optimise the use of human resources but also ensure that our diplomatic efforts are focused on areas that yield the greatest benefits for the country.

The 21st century requires governments and public institutions to be smaller, without compromising efficiency. A typical example would be what Australia, a country more advanced and prosperous than Ghana, is doing. Ms. Owen-Jones, the Australian High Commissioner, oversees her country’s diplomatic relations in Burkina Faso, Côte D’ d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. That is prudence. Even with bigger embassies in places like London and Washington, we can downsize without compromising efficiency.

An economically struggling country cannot justify keeping an embassy in Prague and Vienna when the Ambassador In Berlin cannot easily have additional responsibilities of overseeing not just Prague and Vienna, but also The Hague and Copenhagen.

What Ghana may need in these countries, I have suggested, should the proposal be acceptable to your government, is the appointment of Consul Generals in these countries. Where we have many diplomatic and economic activities, the ambassadors should be given additional responsibilities to oversee areas with little activity.

Given the current economic challenges facing our country, it is imperative that we adopt prudent measures to manage our resources effectively to meet the critical and urgent challenges in health, education, infrastructure, housing, security and so on.

With prudent management and strategic decision-making, Ghana can navigate its economic challenges and achieve sustainable development.

I hope that you will consider this first of several proposals to come, and explore ways to optimise the operations of our diplomatic missions to better serve the interests of Ghana.

Sincerely,

Ras Mubarak.
Accra