Keypoints:
- Telegraph column misrepresents UK–Ghana debt deal
- Mahama’s policy is pragmatic, not pro-Russia
- Ofori-Atta’s own MPs demanded his removal
A RECENT column in the right-wing UK newspaper, The Telegraph, by Mat Whatley titled Why is Britain funding Ghana’s Leftist, Russia-sympathising government?, paints a lurid picture of British taxpayers bankrolling an ideologically hostile regime in Accra. Ghana under President John Dramani Mahama is cast as a bad bet, supposedly soft on Russia and defined by the sins of former finance minister Ken Ofori-Atta.
Strip away the polemic and the question looks very different. Britain is not showering free money on an enemy camp; it is restructuring existing debt with a key West African partner, and engaging a democracy that has just voted in a government on a mainstream social-democratic platform.
What Britain is really ‘funding’ in Ghana
The column’s punchline is a bilateral deal under which the UK has agreed to extend by 15 years the repayment period on about $256 million that Ghana owes Britain.
But the Ghana–UK agreement, signed in September 2025 under the G20 Common Framework, is a debt restructuring, not a gift. It covers around $256 million owed largely to UK Export Finance and reschedules payments over 15 years, helping restore debt sustainability and unlock five stalled infrastructure projects.
Ghana’s Ministry of Finance describes it as the country’s third major bilateral restructuring, after France and China, and as part of a broader plan to stabilise the economy following default and an IMF-backed overhaul.
From Britain’s point of view, this is not soft-hearted charity. It is a way of:
- making it more likely that London ultimately gets its money back
- shoring up a partner whose collapse would be costlier for the UK in security, migration and commercial terms
- aligning with wider G20 and IMF efforts to prevent another full-blown debt crisis in West Africa.
Calling this ‘funding a Leftist, Russia-sympathising government’ isn’t analysis; it is spin.
A cartoon ‘Russia-sympathising’ label
The column slaps ‘Russia-sympathising’ on Mahama’s government, as if Ghana had pivoted firmly into Moscow’s camp. The record is more complicated.
Ghana has long pursued a non-aligned, multi-vector foreign policy, courting investment and security cooperation from Europe, the US, China, India and the Gulf while also seeking pragmatic ties with Russia.
At the United Nations, Ghana has at times abstained on votes targeting Moscow, but it also voted in favour of the 2022 General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s attempted annexation of four Ukrainian regions and demanding full withdrawal – the same way Britain voted.
You can criticise that balancing act if you want. What you cannot honestly do is pretend that an elected government which has backed key resolutions defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity is simply ‘Russia-sympathising’ in the crude sense implied.
Ken Ofori-Atta and selective outrage
One of the more striking lines circulating from the Telegraph piece is its treatment of former finance minister Ken Ofori-Atta:
‘Ofori-Atta is nothing if not a Western man. Educated at Yale and …’
The insinuation is that even Ghana’s supposed ‘poster boy’ for Western respectability has failed, so why should Britain trust anything Accra does now? That line deserves a very firm rebuttal.
First, the facts of Ofori-Atta’s situation today are barely acknowledged.
- Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has identified Ofori-Atta as a suspect in five major corruption-related investigations, including revenue-assurance contracts, the National Cathedral project, ambulance procurement and tax refund disbursements.
- In 2025 he was declared a fugitive after repeatedly failing to honour OSP summonses, prompting Ghana to request an INTERPOL Red Notice.
- INTERPOL issued that Red Notice in June 2025 for alleged misuse of public office for personal gain.
- International outlets from AP to the Financial Times now describe him as a fugitive ex-minister at the centre of President Mahama’s anti-corruption drive, not as a pillar of Western probity.
- Whatever one thinks of the OSP’s handling of the case, these developments completely undercut the Telegraph’s romanticised framing of Ofori-Atta as simply a ‘Western man’. His Yale degree and Wall Street background did not prevent Ghana sliding into debt distress – nor did they insulate him from serious allegations of corruption.
Second, the column blurs past and present.
Ofori-Atta served as finance minister from 2017 to 2024 under the New Patriotic Party government that was voted out in December 2024. Britain’s $256 million restructuring deal, by contrast, was signed in September 2025 with Mahama’s new administration, represented by current finance minister Cassiel Ato Forson.
To suggest that the UK is now ‘funding’ Ghana in order to indulge the legacy of Ofori-Atta is simply wrong on the timeline. The deal is explicitly part of a clean-up and recovery effort after his era, not a reward for it.
Third, it weaponises Western education as a moral alibi.
By stressing that Ofori-Atta is ‘Western’, the column implies that Western-educated elites are inherently safer partners – yet the live investigations and Red Notice show that Western credentials are no guarantee of integrity. If anything, Ghana’s own institutions and media, not London columnists, have been the ones forcing accountability.
London can reasonably worry about Ghana’s past fiscal management. But using Ofori-Atta as a prop while ignoring the actual legal record is selective outrage, not serious argument.
Ghana’s voters chose social democracy, not revolution
The Telegraph piece leans heavily on the word ‘Leftist’, as though Mahama were leading a radical experiment that should disqualify Ghana from support. In reality, his programme reads like mainstream European social democracy.
Finance minister Ato Forson promised to, and has scrapped, regressive levies such as the e-levy and Covid-19 taxes, rationalised VAT, and is pursuing what he has openly called ‘shock therapy’ to restore credibility while cushioning the poorest. These are contested choices, but hardly revolutionary.
Ghanaians knew this agenda and voted for it. Britain is not dealing with a junta here; it is dealing with a government elected on a platform of progressive taxation, debt restructuring and anti-corruption – including action against figures like Ofori-Atta.
Why Britain still has skin in the game
Ghana remains one of the few relatively stable democracies in a region rattled by coups and militant violence. The UK is among 25 creditor nations supporting Ghana’s debt workout under an IMF programme precisely because failure would be far more expensive than restructuring.
If Britain were to walk away now on ideological grounds, it would:
- increase the risk of renewed default and economic crisis in Ghana
- weaken a democratic partner just as it is trying to repair the damage of the past eight years
- push Accra further towards non-Western lenders who will still be there long after the Telegraph’s outrage cycle has moved on.
Seen in that light, the question is not ‘Why is Britain funding Ghana?’, but why parts of the British commentariat are more interested in scoring culture-war points about ‘Leftists’ and ‘Russia-sympathisers’ than in confronting the real trade-offs of debt diplomacy.
- Claim vs reality
- Claim: Britain is ‘funding’ Ghana’s Leftist, Russia-sympathising government.
Reality: London has restructured $256 million of existing debt over 15 years under a G20-backed framework, alongside 24 other creditor nations, to stabilise a key partner and protect its own exposure.
- Claim: Ghana is essentially in Russia’s camp.
Reality: Ghana’s foreign policy is non-aligned; it has abstained on some UN votes but also backed resolutions condemning Russia’s attempted annexations in Ukraine – the opposite of a simple pro-Moscow line.
- Claim: Ken Ofori-Atta, a ‘Western man’, shows how untrustworthy Ghana’s leadership is.
Reality: Ofori-Atta is no longer in office and is now under multiple corruption investigations, facing an INTERPOL Red Notice at the request of Ghana’s own prosecutors, as part of Mahama’s anti-corruption campaign.
- Claim: Britain’s decision looks like naive charity.
Reality: The restructuring is a contractual adjustment designed to make repayment possible and unlock stalled projects, in line with IMF and G20 efforts to prevent disorderly defaults. It is a hard-headed risk-management move, not a blank cheque.
