Photo: Prof Agyeman Badu Akosa
I came across a 2-minute, 6-second video of the esteemed Professor Agyemang Badu Akosa passionately advocating for the cancellation or restriction of public servants from seeking international medical care—a position he extended to foreign education as well.
To him, this practice is a disrespect to Ghanaians.
Let me begin by welcoming the CPP activist back from wherever he has been over the past years under the governance of William Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
As compelling as his argument sounded, it lacks legal merit and, therefore, cannot withstand the scrutiny of any competent court. At best, his stance falls into the realm of populist rhetoric.
I find it puzzling that Prof. Akorsah chose to ignore the legal and human rights of individuals regarding medical care, personal choice, and non-discrimination. What happens if a Ghanaian hospital refers a patient to a specialized facility abroad? Would such a patient be denied treatment simply because they work in public service?
His position—eloquently articulated as it was—remains malnourished and legally deficient when tested against fundamental human rights.
The Legal Reality
Restricting public service workers from accessing international medical care runs afoul of both domestic and international legal protections, particularly regarding health rights, freedom of choice, and non-discrimination.
1. Right to Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 25 & ICESCR – Article 12). Every individual has the right to access the highest attainable standard of health. A policy restricting access to international healthcare could violate this right, especially if local facilities are inadequate for certain conditions.
2. Freedom of Choice & Personal Liberty
Any law or policy that compels individuals to use only state-provided healthcare could be seen as an infringement on personal liberty and medical autonomy.
Individuals have the right to make decisions about where and how they receive medical treatment, provided they can afford it.
3. Non-Discrimination & Equal Treatment
If politicians, government elites, and private citizens can freely seek international medical care, then restricting only public servants would likely be deemed discriminatory and unjust.
A fairer approach would focus on improving local healthcare rather than imposing restrictions.
A More Sensible Argument
If Prof. Akorsah had framed his argument around public funds not being used for overseas treatment when domestic healthcare options exist, that would have been a more tenable stance.
While I acknowledge that limiting foreign treatment could incentivize investment in local healthcare, such restrictions must be proportionate, non-discriminatory, and consistent with constitutional and human rights protections.
The Way Forward
If a policy forcibly restricts public servants from seeking international medical care, it could violate their fundamental rights. A more legally sound approach would be to:
1. Ensure that local healthcare meets international standards
2. Allow exceptions for life-threatening conditions requiring specialized treatment
3. Avoid double standards where politicians can access foreign healthcare, but lower-ranking public servants cannot.
Until these issues are addressed, Prof. Akorsa’s argument remains a well-meaning but legally shaky proposition.
About The Author
