Keypoints:
- Ghana declined a proposed US-backed health data agreement, according to the minister
- Government raised concerns about control and ownership of health information
- Decision reflects a broader push for stronger data governance and protection
GHANA declined to sign a proposed health agreement with the United States because of concerns about national control over citizens’ health data, Communications, Digital Technology and Innovations Minister Samuel Nartey George said on Thursday.
Speaking at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Accra, George said the Mahama administration rejected the proposal after determining that it raised significant questions about data ownership, sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
‘I said that is not a health agreement. It’s a data agreement,’ George told delegates, describing what he said was his assessment after reviewing the proposal.
Why it matters
George’s disclosure comes as governments across Africa, Europe and Asia move to tighten controls over strategic datasets, particularly health information that is increasingly used to develop artificial intelligence systems, pharmaceutical products and digital health technologies.
As African countries accelerate digitalisation, policymakers are confronting difficult questions about who owns citizens’ data, where it should be stored and who benefits from its use. The issue sits at the heart of a growing global debate over data governance and national control of strategic information.
Minister raises concerns over health data access
According to George, the proposed agreement was presented as a health partnership but contained provisions that his ministry believed extended beyond conventional healthcare cooperation.
The minister said the proposal reached Cabinet, where concerns emerged over provisions relating to access to health-related data.
George said one of the government’s principal objections was the proposal’s treatment of data ownership, legal jurisdiction and long-term access to Ghanaian health information.
‘A US-mandated health agreement that asked us to submit Ghanaian health data to the US government for the next 30 years gave us no control over our own citizens’ health data and said that any dispute we had will be settled by US law and not Ghanaian law.’
Mahama administration opted not to proceed
According to George, his assessment was submitted to President John Mahama, after which Ghana decided not to proceed with the agreement.
Recounting the government’s response, George said President Mahama rejected the proposal outright.
‘Take your money. Ghana will keep our data. We will not sign that agreement,’ George said, describing the President’s position on the matter.
The minister said the government chose to prioritise national control over health information rather than accept an arrangement that it believed could weaken Ghana’s authority over sensitive datasets.
George’s comments offered new details about the government’s concerns over data ownership, legal jurisdiction and long-term access to health information, adding context to Ghana’s previously reported opposition to the proposed arrangement. Earlier reporting by Africa Briefing highlighted the government’s decision to reject the proposal amid wider debates over sovereignty and data governance.
Health data increasingly seen as a strategic asset
George linked the issue to the growing importance of health data in the global technology and pharmaceutical industries.
He argued that large health datasets have become increasingly valuable as companies develop AI-powered diagnostics, healthcare tools and medical research platforms.
George framed the issue as both a sovereignty and economic challenge.
‘The estimated value of African data that is being mined externally is $40bn a year,’ he said, questioning how much of that value returns to the continent.
George argued that Africa receives little direct economic return from that value despite generating the underlying data that powers global technology, research and health innovation.
According to the minister, foreign organisations could derive significant commercial and research value from African health datasets while much of the resulting economic benefit remains outside the continent.
Ghana is not alone in reassessing international health-data arrangements. Zimbabwe and Zambia have both raised objections to elements of similar US-backed initiatives, citing concerns over sovereignty, data governance and long-term control of strategic national resources. As reported by Africa Briefing, Zimbabwe’s rejection of a proposed $350m health arrangement highlighted wider tensions emerging across the continent.
The concerns reflect a wider debate over who benefits from Africa’s rapidly expanding digital economy. Similar discussions have emerged around data infrastructure and cloud computing, including Cassava Technologies’ sovereign AI cloud initiative, which aims to help governments retain control over critical national datasets while deploying advanced digital services.
Digital sovereignty gains momentum across Africa
George used the conference to urge African governments to strengthen domestic data protection laws and carefully examine international agreements involving access to national data.
He argued that governments must increasingly treat health, financial and biometric information as strategic national assets rather than routine administrative records.
The minister’s remarks also align with a broader movement advocating greater African control over digital infrastructure and emerging technologies. As Africa Briefing recently noted in an analysis on Africa’s push to develop its own AI ecosystem, policymakers and technology leaders are increasingly calling for locally controlled data systems and AI development frameworks.
Questions remain over the proposed agreement
While George’s comments provide new insight into the government’s thinking on data sovereignty, significant questions remain unanswered.
George did not publicly disclose the full terms of the proposed agreement. However, the concerns he outlined echo objections raised elsewhere on the continent. Zambia and Zimbabwe have both resisted elements of similar US-backed arrangements, citing concerns over sovereignty, access to strategic national data and provisions they believed could affect long-term control of critical resources and information systems. For additional context, see Africa Briefing’s analysis of Africa’s response to the new era of US health aid.
Nevertheless, the remarks underscore how health information is increasingly being viewed not merely as a public-health resource but as a strategic asset with implications for economic development, technological innovation and national security.
Whether other African governments adopt a similar approach remains unclear, but Ghana’s decision, alongside similar reservations expressed by Zambia and Zimbabwe, suggests that control of strategic data is rapidly becoming a new frontier in Africa’s sovereignty debate.
As George told delegates: ‘African data must remain African.’
