Development Discourse with Amos Safo: A bold stand against United States’ health deal

On April 28, 2026, Ghana’s cabinet chaired by President John Mahama boldly rejected a US proposed healthcare agreement which would have compelled the current government and subsequent ones to surrender the health statistics of Ghanaians to the United States for 25 years.

The government cited concerns over potential data breaches and sharing sensitive health data of Ghanaians as the main reason for rejecting the deal. For this, I salute President John Mahama and his cabinet.

Negotiations

The US-proposed deals involved significant funding to combat diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria and improve epidemic preparedness. Under its “America First Global Health Strategy Ghana was expected to earn a $109 million initially and $300 million health package with time.

The negotiations between the Donald Trump and John Mahama’s administrations started in November 2025 and ended without agreement due to increasing pressure and requirements for data access.

At least for now our government has shrugged off pressure by the Trump administration to surrender our health for a paltry $109 million. What is unclear is whether our government can survive the diplomatic pressure behind the scenes. Ghanaians should not tolerate a reversal of the deal under any circumstances.

We should use local resources and homegrown solutions to our health care. Initiatives like the vaccine production and agenda 111 hospitals and STEM schools started by the Akufo-Addo government should be sustained. Besides, government should train more medical researchers and build the capacity of existing professionals to stand up to the challenge.

Western countries did not achieve scientific breakthroughs out of the blue, they invested in science and research over years to attain their status. On the contrary, African governments usually use the little resources of their countries to buy four-wheel drives for ministers and political cronies.

Key reasons for the rejection include:

• Data Privacy Concerns: Ghanaian officials objected to terms requiring them to share sensitive, personal, and population-level health information with the United States.
• Sovereignty and Control: The agreement would have required Ghana to give up control over health decisions, resources, and data, which was seen as a threat to national health sovereignty.
• Procedural Concerns: The deal demanded that Ghana bypass parliamentary ratification, which is a required process for international agreements in Ghana.
• Pressure and Unacceptable Terms: Reports indicate that U.S. negotiators pressured Ghana to accept these terms, prompting a rejection of the 5-year deal.

Ghana’s rejection of the offer follows similar decisions by Zambia and Zimbabwe, which cited the potential of the deal to undermine their sovereignty and national interest. The deal was part of a shift by the U.S. to compel poorer nations to take more financial responsibility for their health systems, aiming for a transition from aid to self-reliance. The deal emphasizes using health aid to secure strategic access to African minerals. This is evident in negotiations with Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Eighteen African countries have signed these deals. They are Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Uganda. At the end of February 2026, deals worth US$19.8 billion had been signed in new health funding. Of this amount, the US has committed US$12.2 billion and African countries US$7.5 billion.

Criticisms

However, the deals have come under a barrage of criticisms by Africans and Africans in the Diaspora. Critics argue that requirements for long-term access to national health data and pathogens resemble “neo-colonial” extraction. If the duration of the initial agreement is five years, why should African countries sign on sharing data and pathogens for another 20 years?

Moreover, the deal comprises individual lop-sided bilateral agreements, designed for the benefit of the donor. Ideally, the Africa Union should be leading such negotiations to secure a better deal for the continent, if necessary.

Others have described the countries that signed the deal as traitors of Africa’s struggle for total emancipation and human dignity. Surprisingly Burkina Faso, which together with Mali and Niger are leading the fight for emancipation has signed the deal.

Many analysts had thought Burkina Faso would have rejected the deal, given its leading role in the Alliance of Sahel States and its stance on the promotion of African dignity. As for the other leaders that signed, the least said about them the better. Such presidents and their cabinets lack scruples. These are leaders whose sole mandate is to sell anything that belongs to Africa to US and Europe for mere diplomatic recognition.

They are also mostly in power to serve personal interest and make money by trading Africa off to western powers.  Analysts revealed that the deal was designed to compel poorer nations to take more financial responsibility for their health systems, aiming for a transition from aid to self-reliance.

Market for US pharmaceuticals

The most controversial of the conditions is the requirement for countries to rapidly share sensitive health data and precious pathogen samples with the US (sometimes for up to 25 years). Pathogen samples are invaluable assets for public health, clinical management and research. They are useful in identifying diseases and developing vaccines and treatments.

The strategy aims to open new markets for U.S. companies in the health sector, including logistics (e.g., Zipline), biotech (e.g., Ginkgo Bioworks), and pharmaceutical products. The fear is that by giving U.S. Ghana’s pathogen samples, U.S. pharmaceutical companies can manufacture medicine or vaccines solely for the African market.

One troubling condition is that the Food and Drugs Authority of Ghana has no power to scrutinize any vaccines or drugs entering Ghana, once the US FDA has approved them. This is a very dangerous provision to say the least. What if vaccines and drugs contain deadly components meant to sterilize men and to make women infertile.

Historically, Europe and US have had sleepless nights over Africa’s rapid population growth. As of early 2026, Africa’s population is estimated to be over 1.5 billion people, representing approximately 18-20% of the global population.

The continent has the world’s youngest population and fastest growth rate, with projections indicating it will exceed 2.4 billion by 2050. On the contrary, the continents have lower fertility rates and aging populations. This is what constitutes a threat to western countries.

Analysts say, a reduced African population will enable the west to continue to exploit the continent’s natural resources to sustain the lifestyles of their populations. This is why the governments that signed the deal simply refused to think outside the box. Why will Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Rwanda etc sign such a deadly deal designed to expose their populations to unforeseen health conditions?

Red flags

Many well-meaning people argue that African leaders must not sell their health data and pathogens for donor funding. Rather, local funding should be mobilised to create and sustain the enabling environment for African healthcare workers to manage data locally, instead of sharing raw data globally.

In addition, locally funds should be used to create the environment to support and enhance the capacity of local scientists and researchers to develop innovations from indigenous pathogens for global benefits.

Another red flag in the agreements is linked to certain economic, social and political issues that could hamper their implementation. For example, in Zambia, the health agreement has been linked to a separate agreement with the U.S. on “collaboration in the mining sector”. Although the deal has yet to be finalized, it is a bad condition for aid. A director of the HIV advocacy organisation Health Gap has reportedly accused the U.S. of “conditioning life-saving health services on plundering the mineral wealth of the country”. He described this as “shameless exploitation, which is immoral”.

Lastly, it is argued that the bilateral agreements were designed to undermine World Health Organization systems that promote fairness in any future pandemic response.  Rather, the “America First Global Health Strategy” focuses on direct bilateral cooperation agreements. This poses significant risks to the ongoing negotiations on the WHO Pathogen Access and benefits sharing mechanism under the Pandemic Agreement adopted in 2025.

Therefore, African nations need to be very careful about what they sign. For instance, under the current agreement the U.S. can unilaterally terminate any deal that may leave African countries unprepared to sustain their health services.

The clause gives the US the right to pause or terminate any programmes which do not align with the interests of the US government and/or the interests of the current administration. This is the same United States that abstained from voting to condemn slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity.

Short showing any remorse, U.S. and EU states argued that the laws in their countries at the time legalized slave trade. Why then will African leaders have partnerships with countries that treat their populations as subhuman?

Given the above red flags, under no condition should Africa give raw data or pathogens for any amount of money or donation. We should use our resources to create an enabling environment for our well-trained African researchers to function effectively. We have a well-trained workforce (health research data scientists) who, if given the enabling environment, can process our data and analyse our pathogens, locally.

America first

In fairness to the Americans, they emphasized that the deal is about putting America FIRST and Africa second. It is therefore unthinkable that many African governments are signing these agreements without considering the health and human implications for their people.

Undoubtedly, linking health funding agreements with access to minerals and natural resources demonstrates that Africans will be the losers. Do such African leaders care about the sovereignty of their countries and the overall impact of the agreements on their populations?

Why do you sign an agreement which opens your markets to vaccines and medicines that cannot be vetted? For instance, the deal demanded that Ghana bypass parliamentary ratification, which is a required process for international agreements in Ghana. Why do you sign an agreement that gives your partner broader constitutional powers over the legislature? African leaders, why? When will you wake up from your slumber?

References

Business Insider. 2026. Ghana may have just joined the short list of African countries to reject a US health deal.

[O]https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/ghana-may-

The Correspondent. 2026. African countries are signing bilateral health deals with the US: virologist identifies the ‘red flags’

[O]: https://theconversation.com/african-countries-are-signing-bilateral-health-deals-with-the-us-

Post Views: 32