Dr. Emmanuel Fianu is a lecturer at De Montfort university
Like many Ghanaians, I appreciate the emotional and historical weight of this discussion. My contribution is to add a policy and resource-allocation perspective to the debate. Indeed, this debate has rightly attracted strong and diverse opinions. Some emphasise historical correction, others continuity and identity. My contribution is a policy-focused one: whether the financial and administrative cost of renaming a major international airport represents the best use of limited public resources at this time for a country going through a trajectory.
The debate over the proposed renaming of Kotoka International Airport is not simply about history or sentiment. It is fundamentally a policy question: how Ghana chooses to balance symbolism, historical memory, and the responsible use of scarce public resources. “Never again” is a powerful phrase in Ghana’s national journey.
It represents a clear point of reference, that is, a period of political disruption and military intervention that we consciously chose to move beyond. In this sense, the existing name already functions as a historical marker, reminding us of where we once stood and how far our democratic institutions have progressed. I argue that history does not need to be repeatedly re-inscribed at great cost to remain relevant.
For example, renaming a major international airport is not a cosmetic exercise. It carries significant financial implications: changes to aviation records, international registrations, signage, branding, digital systems, legal documents, and institutional coordination across multiple agencies. These costs, though often understated, are ultimately borne by the public.
At a time when Ghana faces pressing needs, strained healthcare facilities, transport infrastructure gaps, educational resourcing challenges, and youth unemployment, it is reasonable to ask whether this
is the most effective allocation of national resources. Public policy is as much about opportunity cost as it is about ideals. Every cedi spent on rebranding is a cedi not spent on services that directly improve citizens’ welfare.
This does not mean history should be erased or ignored. On the contrary, history must be preserved, studied, and taught through several media such as museums, archives, education, and open national dialogue. But public honours are not neutral historical records; they are active symbols. Retaining a historical reference does not endorse a return
to that past. Rather, it reinforces why the nation resolved never to repeat it.
Ghana’s progress is best demonstrated not through symbolic changes alone, but through prudent governance and development-oriented choices. The true measure of “how far we have come” lies in institutional stability, democratic continuity, and the ability to prioritise national needs over political or symbolic gestures.
If “never again” is to retain its meaning, then this debate must be guided by evidence, cost-benefit analysis, and national priorities, and perhaps not emotion alone. This, in its entirety, is a sign of a maturing democracy.
Source:
www.ghanaweb.com