President John Dramani Mahama’s comments on Ghana’s rejection of a proposed United States health compact have generated considerable discussion, particularly over whether the language he used was appropriate for a sitting president discussing a longstanding bilateral relationship.
Mr Mahama made the comments during a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York on September 25, 2026 while explaining why his government rejected the proposed agreement.
According to the President, the Ministry of Health reviewed the document before presenting an Information Paper to Cabinet, where several provisions were flagged. He said the proposed arrangement required Ghana to provide its pathogen profile and medical records, contribute counterpart funding and accept restrictions relating to the inspection of certain medicines and medical products by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA).
President Mahama described the conditions as “humiliating” and said the compact was “thrown out in record time” by Cabinet.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Ghana rejecting an international agreement if its terms are considered inconsistent with the country’s laws, regulatory framework, national interests or policy objectives. As a sovereign state, Ghana has every right to scrutinise an agreement and decline to sign it.
The issue, however, is whether the manner in which such a rejection is communicated matters, particularly when it concerns a major bilateral partner.
Ghana and the United States established diplomatic relations in 1957 and their relationship has developed over the decades to encompass health, education, trade, science, security and extensive people-to-people links.
The United States has also provided substantial support to Ghana’s health sector over many years. The Ag Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Ghana, Rolf Olson said recently that the United States invested $82.5 million in Ghana during the first year of the new U.S. administration and a further $53 million in fiscal year 2026. He said the proposed MoU was intended to gradually reduce external assistance while increasing Ghanaian ownership and responsibility for financing health programmes.
That position does not invalidate Ghana’s objections to the proposed agreement. Nor should Ghana accept terms it considers unsuitable simply to preserve cordial relations. But The Chronicle believes diplomacy is also about language. The word “humiliating” is unusually strong in diplomatic discourse. So is the Mahama’s description of the Cabinet’s rejection as something “thrown out in record time”.
Although Mr Mahama was explaining why Ghana rejected the proposal, such language could reasonably be interpreted as a public rebuke rather than a technical explanation of why the terms were unacceptable.
We are of the view that there is a distinction between defending Ghana’s sovereignty and unnecessarily escalating rhetoric. The government could have made the same substantive argument by saying that the proposed provisions raised concerns over health-data governance, counterpart financing and the regulatory authority of Ghana’s institutions. That would have conveyed the seriousness of the objections without attaching an emotive characterisation to the proposal.
This is especially important because Washington has said the proposed arrangement was part of a broader policy shift towards country ownership and greater domestic financing of health systems. Mr Olson said the details of such agreements were negotiated at country level and that negotiations with Ghana had been conducted over several months. He also stressed that the door remained open for further discussions.
Ghana, therefore, must be able to say no when necessary. But saying no does not require burning bridges. The Chronicle believes President Mahama’s substantive objections to the proposed health compact deserve serious consideration. Issues concerning Ghana’s health data, regulatory authority and the financing of national health programmes are legitimate matters for public discussion.
However, we are of the view that the choice of words matters, especially when the President is speaking on an international platform in no country than the United States.
Mr Mahama is an experienced communicator and statesman and could have expressed Ghana’s concerns firmly without describing the proposal as “humiliating” or boasting about how quickly it was rejected.
Ghana and the United States have enjoyed nearly seven decades of diplomatic relations. Differences will inevitably arise between sovereign states, but those differences should be managed with firmness, clarity and restraint.
Ghana’s sovereignty must be protected. At the same time, diplomacy must leave room for engagement. A strong relationship does not require Ghana to accept every proposal from Washington. Neither does rejecting a proposal require unnecessary confrontation.
President Mahama must, therefore, ensure that the cordial relations between Ghana and the United States, which he inherited when he assumed office, are strengthened rather than weakened.
Ghana’s national interests must be defended, but diplomacy demands that disagreements are handled with wisdom and restraint. As the saying goes, “a word to the wise is enough.”
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
