Ghana’s ambassador to Washington says American officials summoned and angrily questioned him after President Mahama criticised the Trump administration’s treatment of Black history at the UN. His account reveals a reported diplomatic confrontation over reparations that Washington has yet to acknowledge publicly, reports Jon Offei-Ansah
Keypoints:
- Victor Smith says US officials summoned him over Mahama’s remarks
- Ambassador alleges heated questioning by senior State Department officials
- Washington opposed Ghana’s UN resolution but has not publicly confirmed the meeting
GHANA’S Ambassador to the United States, Victor Smith, says he was summoned to the State Department and confronted by angry American officials after President John Dramani Mahama accused the Trump administration of attempting to erase Black history.
Smith described a heated meeting in Washington during which officials challenged the president’s remarks at the United Nations. He said he defended Mahama’s position and subsequently informed Accra of the encounter.
The disclosure adds a new dimension to the disagreement between Ghana and the United States over slavery reparations. Washington opposed a Ghana-led UN resolution in March, but Smith’s account suggests the dispute also led to a confrontation behind closed doors. The State Department has not publicly confirmed that meeting.
‘There was shouting’
Speaking during an interview with Ghanaian news channel Channel One TV on November 2, Smith said he was summoned to the State Department following the adoption of Ghana’s resolution on reparatory justice by the UN General Assembly.
‘I was summoned to the State Department because an aspect of the president’s speech did not sit well with the US administration,’ he said.
Smith said he faced a panel of officials led by someone he identified as the Deputy Secretary of State. He did not name the official, and the claim about who chaired the meeting has not been independently verified.
According to the ambassador, the Americans objected to Mahama’s allegation that the US government was removing Black history from school curricula and attempting to obscure aspects of the country’s past.
Smith said he offered to provide evidence supporting the president’s assertions.
He also defended Mahama’s decision to raise the issue at the UN, arguing that the president would not have made such accusations without grounds for doing so.
The exchanges, he recalled, became heated.
‘They were not very happy,’ Smith said, describing shouting during the meeting.
He claimed that officials were particularly offended that Mahama had criticised American policies while attending a UN event in New York.
Smith said he reminded them that the United Nations was an international institution, even though its headquarters were located on American soil.
After leaving the meeting, he said, he telephoned Mahama and Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa to report what had happened.
He also suggested that Ablakwa subsequently summoned the American ambassador in Accra. However, Smith said he believed this had occurred, rather than confirming it as a completed diplomatic action.
He did not disclose the date of his own meeting.
The US State Department has yet to respond publicly to Smith’s account, including his description of the officials involved and the alleged confrontation.
What Mahama actually said
While the diplomatic encounter remains unconfirmed, Mahama’s criticism of American policies is documented.
In a March 24 address on reparatory justice at the United Nations, the Ghanaian president accused the United States of allowing Black history to disappear from educational and cultural institutions.
Speaking as the African Union’s champion on reparations, Mahama alleged that schools were being prevented from teaching aspects of slavery, segregation and racism, while books and museum exhibitions dealing with those subjects faced restrictions.
He warned that such policies risked encouraging other governments and institutions to follow similar approaches.
The remarks, previously examined in Africa Briefing’s coverage of Mahama’s warning over Black history erasure, formed part of his wider argument that reparatory justice requires an honest acknowledgement of historical wrongdoing.
The Trump administration has pursued changes to how American history is presented in federally supported institutions.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on American history, directing authorities to challenge what the White House considers divisive ideological interpretations, including at the Smithsonian Institution.
The order is a matter of public record. Whether the administration’s broader policies amount to an attempt to erase Black history, as Mahama alleged, remains contested.
The White House maintains that its approach is intended to restore historical accuracy and national unity. Critics argue that the measures could weaken recognition of slavery, segregation and racial discrimination.
Washington opposed Ghana’s resolution
The disagreement over Ghana’s reparations campaign is also documented in the UN voting record.
On March 25, the General Assembly adopted a Ghana-led resolution declaring the transatlantic trafficking and racialised enslavement of Africans the ‘gravest crime against humanity’.
The measure received 123 votes in favour. The United States, Israel and Argentina voted against it, while 52 countries abstained, including Britain and European Union member states.
Washington raised objections to the resolution’s legal framing and the implications of assigning contemporary responsibility for historical injustices.
The declaration is not legally binding and creates no automatic obligation to pay compensation. Its adoption nevertheless strengthened the diplomatic basis for African and Caribbean demands for formal apologies, restitution and other forms of redress.
The US vote establishes Washington’s opposition to the resolution. It does not, however, independently substantiate Smith’s account of the subsequent State Department meeting.
Ghana continues reparations campaign
Mahama has continued to promote reparatory justice despite opposition from Washington.
At the Financial Times Africa Summit in London on October 21, he disclosed that France and Germany had approached Ghana about reparations discussions.
Those approaches were announced by Mahama; they do not, on their own, establish that either European government has accepted an obligation to pay compensation.
The president has argued that reparations should extend beyond money to include the return of stolen cultural artefacts, acknowledgement of historical wrongdoing and measures addressing economic inequality.
Ghana has also outlined priorities for discussions with Britain, including a formal apology, cultural restitution and development partnerships.
The growing campaign places Accra in a delicate diplomatic position.
The United States remains an important partner in trade, investment and security, while Ghana is pursuing an African Union-backed initiative opposed by Washington.
There is no established evidence that the confrontation described by Smith has damaged bilateral relations. Ghanaian officials have previously indicated that the US remains willing to engage on aspects of reparatory justice despite rejecting the UN resolution.
Smith’s account nevertheless raises questions about how strongly American officials objected to Mahama’s criticism and whether those objections were conveyed through a formal diplomatic protest.
For now, what happened inside the State Department rests on the ambassador’s testimony.
What is beyond dispute is the wider disagreement: Mahama has publicly criticised American policies affecting the presentation of Black history, and the Trump administration has opposed Ghana’s UN reparations resolution.
Whether those differences develop into a more serious diplomatic dispute will depend partly on how both governments choose to handle a subject that remains politically sensitive on either side of the Atlantic.