Dual Allegiance and National Security: Examining the Implications of Elite Birth Tourism in Ghana's Public Sector

Introduction: The Crossroads of Citizenship, Allegiance, and National Security

In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of citizenship has evolved beyond singular national affiliation, with dual nationality becoming a common reality for many individuals. This global phenomenon, however, introduces complexities, particularly when it intersects with national security interests and the integrity of public service.

The Ghanaian context presents a compelling case study, marked by a noticeable trend among its elite – including top government officials, politicians, and wealthy individuals – to facilitate the birth of their children in foreign countries, predominantly in the Global North. This practice, often termed “birth tourism,” is driven by the perceived advantages these children will accrue through foreign citizenship, such as enhanced mobility and access to opportunities. A significant concern articulated by the Ghanaian populace is that this trend may lead to a divergence of interests, where public officials, whose children hold foreign nationalities, might make decisions that do not fully align with Ghana’s national interest. This concern is particularly acute in sensitive areas such as security, foreign policy, and the judiciary, where the question arises as to where the ultimate allegiance of these officials, or their children in strategic roles, truly lie.

Defining Allegiance and Citizenship

To thoroughly examine the security implications of dual nationality, it is essential to establish a clear conceptual framework for allegiance and citizenship, distinguishing them from related terms like loyalty.

Allegiance: A Multifaceted Concept

Allegiance is a foundational concept in the relationship between an individual and a state. Legally and politically, it is defined as “the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government”.¹ This obligation of “fidelity and obedience” is rendered by an individual in return for the protection received from the governing authority.² For a citizen, this obligation is typically considered “absolute and permanent,” at least until explicitly renounced. For an alien residing in a country, the allegiance owed is “local and temporary,” continuing only for the duration of their residence.²

Beyond its strict legal definition, allegiance also encompasses broader sociological and moral dimensions. It signifies “devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause”.¹ Synonyms such as commitment, dedication, devotion, and fidelity highlight its deeper, often emotional and psychological, aspects. While often used interchangeably, loyalty implies a “faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray,” whereas allegiance specifically “suggests an adherence like that of citizens to their country”.¹

The ideal of singular, undivided allegiance is vividly illustrated in oaths of citizenship. For instance, the U.S. Oath of Allegiance requires naturalising citizens to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” and to bear “true faith and allegiance” solely to the United States.³ This reflects a desire by states for an unambiguous commitment from their citizens. However, the very existence and increasing acceptance of dual citizenship inherently challenge this ideal, suggesting that, in practice, allegiance can be a complex and multi-layered concept. This creates an inherent tension: while states may aspire to singular allegiance, legal frameworks increasingly accommodate plural allegiances, a dynamic at the core of the security concerns explored in this article.

Citizenship and Dual Nationality

Citizenship is a formal legal status that defines an individual’s membership in a state. A citizen is a person who “owes allegiance to a government and who is entitled to government protection in exchange for that allegiance”.⁴ This relationship is often viewed as a “contract or agreement” where the citizen provides loyalty, and the government provides protection and guarantees rights. Citizens also possess specific rights and responsibilities, such as the right to vote and hold public office, which are generally not afforded to non-citizens.⁴

Citizenship can be acquired through various principles:

Jus Soli (Right of Soil): This principle grants citizenship based on birth within a country’s territory, regardless of the nationality of the parents.⁵

Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood): This principle grants citizenship based on the nationality of one’s parents, regardless of the place of birth.⁷ Ghana primarily operates on the jus sanguinis principle, where a person born in or outside Ghana becomes a citizen at birth if either of their parents or grandparents is or was a Ghanaian citizen.⁷

Dual nationality arises when an individual is recognized as a citizen by two or more countries simultaneously. This can occur through birth (e.g., born in a jus soli country to parents from a jus sanguinis country), descent, marriage, or naturalisation.⁷ Ghana’s Citizenship Act (Act 591 of 2000) explicitly permits dual citizenship, requiring citizens who acquire another nationality to notify the Minister.¹⁰

The definition of allegiance moves from a strict legal obligation of fidelity to a sovereign, broader and more personal concept of devotion. However, the existence and acceptance of dual citizenship inherently challenge this ideal, suggesting that, in practice, allegiance can be complex and multi-layered. This creates a fundamental tension: states demand singular allegiance, yet legal frameworks increasingly accommodate plural allegiances. This tension is at the heart of the security implications.

Citizenship is presented as a reciprocal contract or agreement where the citizen provides loyalty (allegiance) and the government provides protection and guarantees rights. This reciprocal nature implies that if one party perceives the other is not upholding their end (e.g., government not providing perceived advantages, or citizens not showing full allegiance), the “contract” is strained. This forms the basis for public criticism when elites are seen to be seeking external protection or advantages for their children.

The concept of “dual loyalty” is sometimes dismissed as a “meaningless bromide” in academic circles, with theories of transnationalism suggesting that migration and global communication produce new forms of identity that transcend traditional national notions.¹³ This implies that expecting singular allegiance in a deeply interconnected world might be an outdated concept. However, this academic view contrasts sharply with the persistent concerns of national security agencies, which assess foreign relationships for potential “divided loyalties and opportunities for inducement or coercion”.¹⁴ This indicates a gap between theoretical understanding of identity and practical security adjudication.

4. The Ghanaian Context: Elite Birth Tourism and Dual Citizenship

This article is rooted in a specific phenomenon observed in Ghana, where the intersection of dual citizenship laws and elite behaviour creates unique security considerations.

Ghana’s Dual Citizenship Framework

Ghana’s legal stance on dual citizenship is relatively progressive within the African context. The Citizenship Act (Act 591 of 2000) explicitly permits a Ghanaian citizen to hold citizenship of another country in addition to their Ghanaian citizenship.¹⁰ This Act requires individuals to notify the Minister in writing upon acquiring additional citizenship.¹⁰ A Supreme Court ruling in the case of Asare Vs Attorney General (2012) further clarified that dual nationals are no longer mandatorily required to apply for a Dual Citizenship Certificate or Card, though they may do so for personal benefit. This ruling also allows dual nationals to use their Ghanaian passport for entry into Ghana and their foreign passport for exit.¹⁷ This legal framework reflects an attempt to embrace the diaspora and its potential contributions to national development. Despite this openness, the Ghanaian Constitution, specifically Article 8(2) (as amended), and the Citizenship Act (Act 591, Section 16(2)), impose significant restrictions on dual citizens holding certain high-level public offices.¹⁰ These include positions critical to national security, foreign policy, and the judiciary, such as Chief Justice, Ambassador, Chief of Defence Staff, and Inspector-General of Police. The rationale behind these prohibitions is to mitigate the perceived risk of divided loyalties in roles where national interest and security are paramount. The law implicitly acknowledges that holding citizenship in another country could create a conflict of interest, particularly in sensitive governmental functions, and is seen by some as “counter to the notion of national identity, loyalty and cohesion”.¹⁰

The Phenomenon of Birth Tourism

The observation in the trend among Ghanaian elites: the practice of “birth tourism,” where pregnant women travel to countries, typically in the Global North, that adhere to the jus soli principle (birthright citizenship).⁵ The primary motivation for this trend is the “global appeal” and “global status associated with foreign citizenship” ⁵, which offers perceived advantages for their children. These advantages include easier mobility (e.g., not needing a visa for travel to the country of second citizenship), access to better educational opportunities, and improved long-term economic futures.⁵ The travel to have a foreign-born citizen is often an “open secret” among Ghanaians, with positive feedback from co-nationals reinforcing the practice.⁵

The motivation for birth tourism, rooted in the perceived advantages offered by Global North citizenships, suggests that a segment of the Ghanaian elite, despite their influence and affluence within Ghana, implicitly lacks full confidence in Ghana’s ability to provide these opportunities and security for their children. Their actions, therefore, can be interpreted not merely as individual choices but as a collective statement of distrust in the long-term stability and prosperity of their own nation, prompting them to seek external “insurance” for their offspring. This underlying sentiment can subtly erode the very foundation of national development and self-reliance.

Elite birth tourism ensures that the children of influential Ghanaians gain access to the benefits of global north citizenships. This creates an intergenerational transfer of privilege that can perpetuate socio-economic disparities within Ghana. These children, by virtue of their foreign citizenship, may later access strategic roles in Ghana while retaining an “exit option” that is unavailable to the majority of the population. This circumstance can exacerbate feelings of inequality and resentment among lower-class Ghanaians, who perceive that the elite are not fully invested in the nation’s future because their children have alternative secure pathways abroad. This has significant implications for social cohesion and trust in governance.

Ghana’s Citizenship Act (Act 591 of 2000) is progressive in allowing dual citizenship. However, this openness is immediately curtailed by significant restrictions on public office for dual citizens. This paradox indicates a governmental attempt to balance the benefits of diaspora engagement with the perceived need to protect national security and loyalty at the highest levels. The ongoing debate in Parliament about removing these restrictions highlights the internal tension between inclusivity and security concerns, reflecting a struggle to define what constitutes “true” citizenship and commitment to the nation.²⁴

5. Security Implications of Dual Allegiance for Public Officials

Conflict of Interest and Divided Loyalties

Dual loyalty is precisely defined as “loyalty to two separate interests that potentially conflict with each other, leading to a conflict of interest”.¹³ This concept is a central consideration in national security clearance decisions, where foreign relationships, including family ties, are rigorously evaluated for potential “divided loyalties and opportunities for inducement or coercion”.¹⁴ While accusations of dual loyalty can sometimes be used as a “bigoted trope” to unfairly target certain groups ²⁶, they also reflect genuine concerns about trustworthiness and the potential for individuals to undermine national interests.¹³ Nevertheless, the perception of divided loyalties, even without documented instances of actual conflict, can be profoundly damaging, eroding public trust in institutions and leadership.

Family ties, particularly those extending across national borders, are recognised as a potential vector for foreign influence. Foreign contacts, including immediate family members, are considered a national security concern if they “result in divided allegiance or create situations in which an individual may be manipulated, pressured, coerced, or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is inconsistent with U.S. interests”.¹⁵ This principle directly applies to the Ghanaian context, where public officials’ children holding foreign citizenship could be seen as a vulnerability, potentially exposing the official to subtle or overt pressures.

Restrictions from Public Office

Ghana’s legal framework explicitly attempts to mitigate risks associated with dual nationality by imposing prohibitions on dual citizens holding specific high-level public offices. Article 8(2) of the Constitution (as amended) and Section 16(2) of the Citizenship Act (Act 591) disqualify individuals who hold citizenship of another country from being appointed to a range of sensitive positions.¹⁰ These offices are critical to the effective functioning and security of the state:

Table 2: Public Offices Restricted for Dual Citizens in Ghana

Office Name	Relevant Constitutional/Act Provision	Rationale (Implied/Explicit)
Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	High National Security/Policy Sensitivity; Risk of Divided Loyalty in Judicial Rulings
Ambassador or High Commissioner	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Direct Representation of National Interest Abroad; Foreign Policy Sensitivity
Secretary to the Cabinet	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Access to Sensitive Government Information; Central Role in Policy Coordination
Chief of Defence Staff or any Service Chief	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Direct Command over National Defence; Highest Level of Military Allegiance Required
Inspector-General of Police	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Head of Domestic Law Enforcement; Critical for Internal Security
Commissioner, Customs, Excise and Preventive Service	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Border Security and Economic Control; Revenue Protection
Director of Immigration Service	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Border Control and National Entry/Exit Security
Minister or Deputy Minister	Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁷	Direct Policy-Making and Executive Authority
Chief Director of a Ministry	Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Senior Administrative Role with Policy Implementation Influence
Rank of Colonel in the Army or equivalent in other security services	Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Significant Command and Operational Responsibilities in Security Forces
Any other public office specified by an Act of Parliament or prescribed by the Minister by Legislative Instrument	Article 8(2), Act 591, S. 16(2) ¹⁰	Flexibility to Address Evolving Security Concerns and Sensitive Roles

The rationale behind these prohibitions is to mitigate the risk of divided loyalties in positions where national interest and security are paramount. The law implicitly acknowledges that holding citizenship in another country could create a conflict of interest, particularly in roles involving sensitive information, foreign relations, or national defence. This reflects the understanding that “dual nationality requires the impossible or unreasonable that people should owe allegiance to more than one country” and is “counter to the notion of national identity, loyalty and cohesion”.¹⁰

Vulnerability to Foreign Influence

While the officials themselves may not hold dual citizenship in restricted roles, their children’s foreign citizenship introduces a potential avenue for indirect foreign influence. This could manifest as pressure or coercion, where foreign entities might leverage the children’s status, assets, or well-being abroad to influence the official’s decisions. For example, the U.S. security clearance guidelines explicitly state that foreign contacts, including family members, are assessed for potential manipulation or coercion that could lead to “divided allegiance”.¹⁵ This suggests that the public’s concern, while speculative, aligns with established national security risk assessment principles. The perception of this vulnerability, even without documented cases, significantly erodes public trust and the legitimacy of governance.

Research, though specific to the US context, suggests that dual citizenship can be “associated with lower levels of US national identity”.¹⁴ This finding raises a broader concern that holding or facilitating foreign citizenship for one’s children might subtly dilute a family’s primary identification with Ghana, potentially impacting the long-term commitment of future generations to the nation. This phenomenon also highlights a potential incompleteness of current restrictions in addressing indirect influence. Ghana’s constitutional restrictions on dual citizens holding specific high offices are a direct attempt to mitigate conflict of interest. However, these restrictions primarily target the official holding dual citizenship. They do not explicitly address the scenario where the official’s children hold foreign citizenship. This implies a potential loophole or an area where policy has not fully adapted to the evolving nature of transnational family ties and their potential for indirect influence. The current framework may be insufficient to address the subtle pressures or biases that could arise from a parent’s desire to protect or advance their children’s foreign interests.

The public outcry about elite children having foreign citizenship points to a deeper societal issue beyond direct security threats. It signifies a perceived disinvestment by the elite in Ghana’s long-term future. If those in power are seen to be securing “escape routes” for their families, it undermines the collective national effort and trust required for development. This perception can foster cynicism, reduce civic participation, and create a narrative of a two-tiered citizenship, where the elite are insulated from the consequences of their decisions, unlike the general population. This has profound implications for national cohesion and stability.

6. Policy Considerations and Recommendations

Enhancing Transparency and Public Trust

Increasing transparency around the dual citizenship status of public officials’ families and engaging in public education campaigns are vital steps to foster a more nuanced understanding of dual nationality. Public outcry and distrust often stem from a lack of information and a perception of unfairness. Transparency can help rebuild trust, while education can counter simplistic accusations of disloyalty.¹³

Actionable Steps:

Publish Anonymized Aggregate Data: Publish anonymized aggregate data on dual citizenship among public officials’ families (without revealing personal identities) to inform public discourse and demonstrate governmental awareness and commitment to transparency.
Launch Public Awareness Campaigns: Initiate public awareness campaigns to explain Ghana’s dual citizenship laws, their intended benefits (e.g., diaspora engagement ²³), and the existing restrictions, while also openly addressing the concerns about divided loyalties.
Encourage Open Dialogue: Foster platforms for open dialogue between government, civil society organisations, and the public on the complexities of dual nationality and its implications for national identity and security.

Reassessing and Adapting Dual Citizenship Policy

A comprehensive review of the Citizenship Act (Act 591 of 2000) and related constitutional provisions is necessary to assess their adequacy in addressing contemporary challenges posed by transnational family ties. The current restrictions primarily target the dual citizen themselves, not their family, indicating a potential gap in policy. The ongoing political debate surrounding dual citizenship ²⁵ also signals a need for a more inclusive yet secure framework.

Actionable Steps:

Convene a Multi-Stakeholder Commission: Establish a multi-stakeholder commission comprising legal experts, security analysts, civil society representatives, and diaspora representatives to undertake a thorough review of the dual citizenship framework.
Explore Policy Options: Investigate policy options that effectively balance the rights of dual nationals and their families with national security interests. This could include exploring new categories of sensitive roles or enhanced vetting processes for officials with foreign-citizen family members, rather than imposing outright bans.
Address Underlying Motivations: Develop and implement policies that address the underlying motivations for birth tourism, such as improving domestic opportunities and reducing the perceived need for an “exit strategy” for the elite.⁵ This involves strengthening Ghana’s socio-economic environment to make it more attractive for all citizens, including the elite, to fully invest their futures within the country.

Promoting National Identity and Cohesion

Investing in initiatives that strengthen national identity, patriotism, and a shared sense of “Oneness” among all Ghanaians, regardless of their family’s international connections, is paramount. The public perception of “true” citizenship and concerns about national cohesion are critical issues that can be mitigated by fostering a strong, inclusive national identity.²⁴

Actionable Steps:

Integrate Comprehensive Citizenship Education: Incorporate comprehensive citizenship education into national curricula, emphasizing Ghana’s history, values, and the responsibilities of citizenship, including the concept of “Oneness” and Pan-African identity.²⁸
Promote National Service and Civic Engagement: Create and promote national service and civic engagement opportunities that unite diverse segments of society, including those with international ties, fostering a shared commitment to Ghana’s future.
Address Systemic Issues: Continue efforts to address systemic issues such as corruption and economic inequality.³² These issues fuel public cynicism and contribute to the elite’s desire for foreign “insurance” for their children, directly impacting national trust and cohesion.

9. Conclusion

The analysis presented in this article underscores the complex and multi-layered implications of dual allegiance, particularly as it pertains to the trend of elite birth tourism in Ghana. While Ghana’s legal framework permits dual citizenship, the practice of influential individuals securing foreign nationalities for their children raises legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest, vulnerability to foreign influence, and, most significantly, the erosion of public trust and national cohesion.

The perceived “exit strategy” for the elite, coupled with the potential for subtle biases in decision-making, challenges the fundamental principles of accountability and shared national destiny. The public’s outcry reflects a deep-seated concern about the integrity of governance and the very definition of what it means to be a “true” Ghanaian.

Addressing these issues requires a nuanced and multi-faceted approach that extends beyond simple legal prohibitions. It necessitates a commitment to strengthening ethical governance, enhancing transparency, and fostering a robust and inclusive national identity that embraces all Ghanaians while mitigating risks of divided loyalties. Ultimately, ensuring Ghana’s long-term security and stability depends on cultivating a shared sense of allegiance and a collective commitment to the nation’s future, where all citizens, including the elite, are perceived to be fully invested in its success and prosperity.