Dr. Ras Acolatse’s article is nicely written and laden with a healthy supply of a collection of individually inarguable phrases.
The volume of these one-liners appears calculated to soften the reader, foster ‘his’ agreeability, and make ‘her’ receptive to the arguments that follow. Clever, I must say, but it misses the whole overriding argument in favor of the Dual Citizenship Amendment Bill.
I seek here not to argue each point raised, but to first preface my arguments with an important note that dismantling exclusion does not automatically translate into selection.
I, thus begin by emphasizing that amending the Bill will not automatically flood sensitive public offices with dual citizens; they still must meet all other levels of scrutiny, like everyone else – either by appointing bodies or by voters, who are presumed to be judicious with their choices – before they can assume those recently opened positions.
Dual citizens are not asking to jump the queue or be given any preferential treatment; they have never seriously claimed superiority. They simply ask to be allowed to join the queue and not continue to be on the outside looking in on matters of national development, especially when they are part of the estimated 10% of the population that contributes an estimated 25% of Ghana’s GDP. If that is romance, then I have been doing something entirely wrong with my relationship.
It is important that I establish my agreement with Dr. Acolatse that until and unless we commit to strengthening our institutions, with law enforcement being at the top of the list, nothing else can move the needle.
Next, I applaud Dr. Acolatse for broadening the debate with several arguments, which I will attempt to also address. But it is noteworthy that opponents of the Bill are rather the ones who have cheapened the debate by reducing it to two main arguments – allegiance, and accountability evasion. Indeed, there are many other components of the debate.
The myth of the transnational savior
Dr. Acolatse writes: “One of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment is that dual citizens, especially those shaped by education or professional experience in advanced democracies or well-functioning administrative systems, will bring with them a superior administrative culture and a stronger work ethic.”
I highlighted “superior” because no serious argument in support of the amendment has hinged on superiority. Rather, proponents and serious supporters of the Bill emphasize the word “different,” which even some opponents of the Bill concede that a long exposure to more functional systems equips one with a much-needed different set of eyes, whether they are sole or dual citizens.
Let me be clear. Dual citizens are not, and do not arrogate to themselves, the title of saviors; they simply want Ghana’s statutory recognition of dual citizens to be accompanied by a wholesome acceptance and inclusion of dual citizens.
Symbolism and Sovereignty
Dr. Acolatse writes: “A state can embrace its diaspora as partners, investors, advisers, cultural ambassadors, and intellectual contributors without therefore conferring a right to occupy the command centers of the republic.” He further writes: “If we mistake symbolic integration for constitutional realism, we begin to build policy on sentiment rather than principle.”
First, the reference, which some would characterize as admission, to symbolic integration is not missed here. While Dr. Acolatse does not speak for the government, he is not alone in seeing the token policy overtures as “symbolic integration” unless they are institutionalized, serious national policies should transcend tokenism and symbolism.
The estimated ten percent of the country’s population that lives outside Ghana’s borders commands significant overall resources, and they deserve constitutional realism.
The collective Diaspora GDP, estimated to be almost $300 billion, is more than the overall GDP of Ghana. This is an educated estimate considering that the $15 billion remitted home last year is merely 5% of their earnings, according to survey results.
While not all of the Ghanaians resident abroad have acquired another or additional citizenship, is this a group to be taken seriously, or to be subjected to policy tokenism and symbolism?
Now to the use of the term “command center.” It suggests an aspiration on the part of dual citizens to take over or take control. If that was the argument of the proponents of the Bill, it would be nothing short of arrogant.
Recognition must be accompanied by wholesome inclusion because the status quo embracing without any statutory realism has subjected Diaspora returnees to a disproportionate set of treatment that leaves much to be desired.
Partners and investors have become victims of fraud and scams because social perceptions of Diaspora exclusion have evolved into institutional indifference when it comes to cases involving the Ghanaian Diaspora.
Advice and intellectual contributions have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears because of a this-is-how-we-have-always-done-it-here mentality – a syndrome that can be cured by the advisor being in the position of the actor or doer.
And if dual citizens became actual doers, it is hard to imagine how they can possibly outdo the sole citizens in the area of sovereign betrayal. It is inarguable that the sole citizens have done extremely well betraying Ghana since Independence. Like Dr. Arthur Kennedy rightfully said, those who have destroyed Ghana up to this point are not dual citizens.
Why the judicial analogy fails
Dr. Acolatse writes: “This is not a question of ranking one branch above another in dignity,” but he ends up doing exactly that. Do the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary perform different functions? Without a question. But it takes a Whodini to successfully justify why one coequal branch of government’s level of significance or sensitivity makes it less dangerous for Dual citizens to fully participate therein.
Next, he writes: “It is a question of distinguishing the nature of the trust involved. The bench requires scholarship and interpretive discipline. The legislature and executive require political judgment, public accountability, and an undivided constitutional loyalty to the republic.”
Meaning: Ghana needs help with scholarship and interpretative discipline, or at least those are not as important, so let’s bring in those darn Dual Citizens to shut them up.
As for the legislature and the executive, sole citizens have done an excellent job on political judgement, despite confrontationalizing the system and turning political opponents into permanent enemies; public accountability, despite a free-for-all corruption that each new government levels against the just departed government; and undivided constitutional loyalty, despite an endemic culture of placing individual pockets and interests above those of the nation. How can dual citizens beat that?
Citizenship and sovereign trust
Aah, finally, Dr. Acolatse touches on the almighty allegiance argument by stating: “The issue is not whether dual citizens love Ghana. Many do, deeply. The issue is whether the Constitution should insist that those who occupy the most powerful offices of state do so without any competing legal allegiance.”
First, I am glad that he concedes that some dual citizens deeply love, and are loyal to, Ghana. By extension, I would like to believe he further concedes that some sole citizens would sell Ghana for five cedis when they have the opportunity.
If that is the case, should the constitution categorically paint dual and sole citizens with one broad brush per group, or leave the task of judging who is or is not loyal to Ghana in the hands of humans, aka appointing persons or voters who can properly make that determination?
Then there is this: available evidence shows that every major state has had cases where individual sole citizens violated laws related to espionage, corruption, or national security.
Sole citizens have repeatedly sold their country for money at the highest levels. Further, there is no noticeable or documented difference in how often citizens “betray sovereign trust” between countries that allow dual citizenship and those that prohibit it.
Bottom line: in both sole and dual citizens, there are loyalists, intellectuals, and all kinds of people. That is why a country seeking to feature the best of its human resources should not allow a piece of paper to shut out 10% of its resources but leave their individual ability to serve to a comprehensive evaluation system manned by humans.
False analogies in public debate
Dr. Acolatse writes: “A person may send money home, fund family projects, build houses, support relatives, or invest in businesses and still not be suited for the strategic responsibilities of Parliament or Cabinet.”
I could not have constructed a better sentence. But I will try. “A person (sole citizen or dual citizen) may send money home, fund family projects, build houses, support relatives, or invest in businesses and still not be suited for the strategic responsibilities of Parliament or Cabinet.” How about that? So why is one group eligible to serve but another is ineligible to serve?
A piece of paper and a passport do not serve as a reliable X-ray photography into a person’s heart. In some cases, dual citizens may have uttered the words “I renounce my citizenship of Ghana…” But there are two problems here.
The constitution has already acknowledged that it does not matter if they made those utterances. Secondly, if words accurately measured the human heart, then the phrase “I love you” would have turned all of us into Romeos and Juliets.
It is not a false analogy when, after “renouncing” one’s citizenship (a vital prerequisite to obtaining an advantageous immigration status in another country), one decides to “send money home, fund family projects, and build houses” nowhere else but in Ghana, where one’s umbilical cord was cut.
The real problem: institutions
No debate here.
Diaspora and development
About other countries, Dr. Acolatse writes: “Their diasporas helped shape policy ideas, bring capital, transfer expertise, strengthen professional networks, and build bridges between home and global systems… Diaspora communities can be transformative without being inserted into the top political machinery of the state as a shortcut to reform.”
Look, Ghana, like many developing countries have serious problems with institutional development. To worsen matters, we have obstinately refused to develop the private sector and allowed the government to dominate the economy.
This may explain why control of the government has become a do-or-die affair, which one politician described with the famous “all-die-be-die” slogan. Further, the proven corporate adage, “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu,” is apt here.
Why would any group of people be expected to do all that Dr. Acolatse suggests they do, but be excluded when it comes to the crucial execution part in a system where execution itself is where the deficiency exists?
By the way, dual citizens are already shaping policy ideas, bringing capital, transferring expertise, strengthening professional networks, and building bridges between home and global systems. Have all those been enough?
Yet, by Dr. Acolatse’s own admission, institutional development is really where the problem is, and thus, where help is most needed. And we know institutions are not developed from the private sector, or from an advisory position in a country where advice that differs from the norm is always greeted with “that will not work in Ghana.” How did Albert Einstein define “insanity” again?
Accountability and exit options
Dr. Acolatse writes: “Critics of the restriction argue that sole citizens can also flee justice, exploit loopholes, or live abroad when things go wrong. A dual citizen who holds high office may always retain a second jurisdiction, a second legal identity, and a possible external fallback.”
First, holding wrongdoers accountable in Ghana has been a joke, regardless of whether they flee the country or choose to stay put. If all those who have sinned against Ghana have been held accountable except those who flee the country, this argument would be potent.
Second, those who find it expedient to flee justice have never needed to be dual citizens. With their diplomatic or service passports, obtaining a visa to flee the country to a desired destination to evade justice has never been a problem – if they choose that option.
Throw in the fact that 53% of African countries have visa-free or visa-on-arrival for all Africans, and it becomes indisputable that one does not need to be a dual citizen to flee the country to evade accountability.
The Council of State’s caution
I am not aware if the Council of State issued any formal set of arguments to support its advice against the passage of the Dual Citizenship Amendment Bill, so I will allow the preceding arguments to stand against the advice.
Fixing the vessel
Finally, Dr. Acolatse writes: “That is why the dual citizenship debate should not be framed as a contest between inclusiveness and exclusion.”
A constitution that recognizes dual citizens as Ghanaians, but excludes them from eligibility to certain levels of participation in national development, is essentially saying some Ghanaians are more “Ghanaian” than others. It is hard to frame that double standard any other way than an inclusiveness and exclusion argument.
In conclusion, I will latch onto the “vessel” analogy to Ghana’s well-being. The vessel is sinking. In Accra, that is literally speaking, with the recent floods serving as a worrying reminder. The country’s coffers are empty. Opportunities for young graduates are nonexistent.
The problems are simply too numerous to enumerate here. The dire situation in which Ghana finds herself calls for an all-hands-on-deck approach, which has never meant taking control of the captain’s job, but has always meant bringing in all capable hands to save the vessel from sinking.
Yet, some would have us believe that some Ghanaians must be barred from helping to save the vessel because they have acquired another passport.
But there is no conclusive empirical research showing that people with dual citizenship systematically demonstrate stronger or weaker political allegiance to their country of origin.
Existing scholarship does discuss concerns about divided loyalty, but the evidence remains mixed, indirect, and often theoretical rather than causal.
The author, Jermaine Nkrrumah is the Chairman of the Ghlobal Diaspora Council, a non-partisan roundtable of Ghanaians living outside the country with a strong sense of duty to the nation, patriotism, and an unwavering allegiance to the Black Star.
