A disagreement has emerged between Ghana’s diplomatic mission in South Africa and South African immigration authorities over the legal status of Ghanaians recently evacuated from the country.
At the centre of the dispute are conflicting accounts about whether most of the evacuees were living in South Africa legally before their return to Ghana.
South African officials, speaking through the Head of Immigration and Law Enforcement at the Department of Home Affairs, Stephen van Neel, claim a large proportion of those processed during the evacuation exercise were found to be in breach of immigration rules.
According to him, only a small fraction of the group had valid documentation.
“Of the 300 individuals that were on that list, we only found 10 of them being legal in the country,” Mr Van Neel stated.
He added that many of the individuals were either undocumented or had overstayed their permitted stay, while others were not compliant with immigration requirements.
However, Ghana’s High Commissioner to South Africa, Benjamin Quashie, has strongly pushed back against that account, insisting the figures being circulated do not reflect the reality of the situation.
He argues that a majority of the evacuees were in fact legally resident in South Africa and engaged in legitimate work or residency arrangements.
“It is absolutely not true, out of the 300 people that came to Ghana, 80 per cent (were legal migrants).”
Quashie says he has engaged South African authorities directly to challenge the claim and has called for a correction of what he describes as inaccurate information.
“I have told him (van Neel) that it is either he retracts the statement or I put out the fact,” he noted.
The disagreement comes amid ongoing evacuation arrangements involving Ghanaian nationals in South Africa, with officials indicating that the process is not yet complete.
According to Quashie, additional groups of evacuees are expected to return to Ghana in the coming days, with more than 400 people anticipated over the weekend or shortly thereafter.
The contrasting accounts have raised diplomatic tension over how the status of affected nationals is being assessed and communicated publicly.

