Ambassador-designate Kojo Choi: A juridico-political examination of jus soli and jus sanguinis in the context of Ghanaian citizenship

The nomination of Mr Kojo Choi as Ghana’s Ambassador to the Republic of Korea has engendered significant pub­lic discourse concerning the legitimacy of his citizenship status under Ghanaian law. This debate centres primarily on two foundational principles of na­tionality jurisprudence: jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent).

The prevailing argument among segments of the Gha­naian populace posits that Mr Choi does not qualify as a Gha­naian by either criterion—he was not born on Ghanaian soil (jus soli) and does not trace his ancestry to Ghanaian lineage (jus sanguinis). These conten­tions prompt a pertinent legal and normative inquiry: Upon what constitutional and statuto­ry grounds does Mr

Choi derive his Ghanaian cit­izenship and the attendant civic and political rights?

To interrogate this issue thor­oughly, it is imperative to con­textualise Mr Choi’s citizenship within the framework of Gha­na’s 1992 Fourth Republican Constitution. Chapter Three of the Constitution delineates the modalities of acquiring Ghanaian citizenship through birth, descent, registration, and naturalisation. Furthermore, the Constitution permits the renunciation and revocation of citizenship and guarantees full civic and political rights to all recognised citizens, irrespective of the mode of acquisition. Complementing the Constitu­tion is the Citizenship Act,

2000 (Act 591), which operationalises and elaborates the constitutional provisions governing nationality.

Central to the controversy surrounding Ambassador-des­ignate Choi is the normative question of dual allegiance and national loyalty: Does Mr Choi’s naturalisation as a Ghanaian citizen—accompanied by a for­mal renunciation of his Korean nationality—constitute a suffi­cient basis for absolute fidelity to Ghana’s national interests, particularly in scenarios where such interests may be in tension or conflict with those of his country of birth? Can his oath of allegiance to the Republic of Ghana be presumed inviolable and unreserved?

Legally, Mr Choi satisfies all constitutional and statutory prerequisites for Ghanaian cit­izenship and thus eligibility for diplomatic appointment. His prior service as Ghana’s Deputy Head of

Mission during the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeong­Chang, Republic of Korea, alongside over three decades of socio-economic contributions within Ghana, substantiates his de facto integration and nation­al commitment. Moreover, Mr. Choi has invoked the ideologi­cal ethos of Pan-Africanism in asserting his Ghanaian identity, citing Kwame Nkrumah’s iconic declaration: “I am not African because I was born in Africa, but because Africa was born in me.” He reinforces this by affirming, “Ghana may not be my birthplace, but it is my true home… I am proud to be called Ghanaian.”

Ghana has historically po­sitioned itself as a bastion of Pan-African inclusivity and cosmopolitan citizenship. In an era characterised by accelerat­ing globalization, transnational identities, and the erosion of ethnonational exclusivity, the Mahama administration’s nomi­nation of

Ambassador-designate Choi underscores a progressive com­mitment to meritocratic and inclusive governance.

Congratulations, Ambassador Choi. The burden of proof now lies in your diplomatic service.

BY OHENE OPOKU AGYEMANG, PHD