Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa’s outspoken approach raises concerns about potential implications for national security and diplomatic sensitivity
Ghana’s glory-seeking Minister for Foreign Affairs, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has defied conventional wisdom in diplomatic circles by engaging in what has been described by many as ‘okro-mouth’ disclosure of security details.
He sparked controversy by publicly revealing Ghana’s alleged role in a recent US-led counter-terrorism operation in Nigeria.
Speaking at the plush podium of Chatham House in London, on March 9, 2026, Mr Ablakwa chose to trade Ghana’s shield of invisibility for a moment of international applause.
He revealed that Ghana assisted the US in its Christmas Day bombing of ISIS targets in Sokoto, Nigeria in 2025.
By this loud-mouth revelation, security analysts argue that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, did not just share what he perceived to be a success story, but he also signalled a dangerous departure from the very stealth that has kept Ghana safe.
This singular act of indiscretion and diplomatic blunder, has raised concerns about compromising Ghana’s security strategy, which relied on “strategic ambiguity” to stay under the radar.
Critics argue that the Minister’s disclosure might have exposed the country to risks, undermining the quiet cooperation with international partners that kept Ghana safe.
Golden rule in counter-terrorism
In the shadow world of counter-terrorism, there is a golden rule that has historically governed Ghana’s security architecture, ‘Strategic Ambiguity.’
For many years, while the Sahelian flames licked at Ghana’s northern borders, the country remained an island of relative peace.
This, according to security experts, was not a stroke of luck; it was the result of quiet competence, a deliberate policy of cooperating with international partners like the United States and Nigeria under a cloak of total discretion.
Operational own-goal
The first casualty of the Minister’s disclosure is Operational Security (OPSEC).
As pointed out by security experts recently, extremist groups like the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP) and JNIM thrive on narratives of foreign interference.
These groups seek symbolic targets to justify their expansion into the Gulf of Guinea.
Experts argue that by exposing Ghana as a kinetic partner in a drone or missile strike, Mr Ablakwa has effectively moved the country from the logistical periphery to the operational centre in the eyes of these terror cells.
According to them, the country has moved from being a neighbour watching the fire to being the one that helped throw the match.
They questioned why in this era of lone wolf attacks and border infiltrations, a sovereign state through its praise-seeking Foreign Affairs Minister, will voluntarily paint a bullseye on its own back at a public forum in London.
Constitutional crisis cloaked in diplomacy
Beyond the physical risk, political watchers argue there is the matter of Ghana’s democratic foundation.
The Minority in Parliament, led by Ranking Member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Samuel Abu Jinapor, has raised a chilling question of the legality of the Minister’s revelation.
“This is a matter of grave national concern with far-reaching implications for the foreign policy position of our country and the national security of Ghana,” he stated.
He questioned the legal and policy framework under which the government is said to have allowed such a military operation to be conducted from Ghanaian territory.
Parliament, according to Mr Jinapor who is also the Member of Parliament (MP) for Damongo, was kept in the dark on this crucial matter.
The Minority, he stated, will want to know whether there is any formal agreement between Ghana and the United States authorising the use of Ghanaian territory to launch military attacks in another country.
Mr. Jinapor noted that the nation’s constitution requires international agreements of such nature to receive parliamentary approval before they can take effect, quoting Article 181 of the 1992 Constitution, which stipulates that international business or security agreements with significant implications must be ratified by the representatives of the people.
“If there was any such agreement, why has the government not tabled it before Parliament for ratification or otherwise?” he asked.
The Minority also raised concerns about the possible national security implications of the alleged collaboration.
Mr. Jinapor warned that allowing Ghana to be used as a base for military action against terrorist groups could expose the country to retaliatory attacks.
“Does Ghana become a target for ISIS or other terrorist organisations? What measures have been put in place to ensure that our citizens are protected?” he queried.
Giving further explanation, former Minister for Defence and MP for Bimbilla, Mr Dominic Nitiwul, disclosed that previous defence cooperation agreements between Ghana and the United States did not permit the use of Ghanaian territory as a launch pad for attacks against other countries.
He explained that agreements signed in the past between 1998 and 2018, including the Defence Cooperation Agreement governing the status of United States forces in Ghana, did not authorise such military operations.
“In all these agreements, at no point was the United States or any other country allowed to use the territory of Ghana as a launch pad to attack any individual, nation, group or organisation,” he maintained.
Mr. Nitiwul added that even the deployment of armed military aircraft in Ghana would require explicit approval from the government.
He cautioned that if the alleged arrangement was indeed authorised without a formal agreement, it could place Ghana at risk, especially at a time when terrorist groups remain active in several West African countries.
The former Defence Minister noted that extremist groups currently operate in countries such as Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo, making it critical for Ghana to avoid actions that could draw unwanted attention from such organisations.
The Minority therefore called on the Foreign Affairs Minister to appear before Parliament immediately to brief the House on the circumstances surrounding the alleged collaboration with the United States.
The caucus also want the government to provide assurances that Ghana has not been unnecessarily exposed to security threats as a result of the reported military operation.