The first flight carrying around 300 Ghanaians evacuated from South Africa following anti-immigrant tensions and reported attacks on foreign nationals has arrived in Accra. Authorities welcomed returnees with reintegration support and transport assistance.
Published On 28 May 202628 May 2026
Share
Ghana’s Thomas Partey, who joined Villareal from Arsenal in 2025, has pleaded not guilty to seven rape charges in the UK.
Published On 26 May 202626 May 2026
Former Arsenal midfielder Thomas Partey has been named in Ghana’s preliminary 28-man squad for next month’s World Cup.
The 32-year-old is due to stand trial next year in the United Kingdom, where he has pleaded not guilty to seven charges of rape and one count of sexual assault.
list of 4 itemsend of list
The charges related to allegations by four different women between 2020 and 2022.
Partey currently plays for Villarreal in Spain’s La Liga, where he moved in 2025, following five seasons with Arsenal.
He was initially charged last July, just days after his Arsenal contract expired. Villarreal signed him in August, two days after he was granted bail.
Partey played a full part in World Cup qualifying games for Ghana, for whom he has made 58 appearances.
Tottenham Hotspur forward Mohammed Kudus will miss next month’s World Cup due to injury.
Kudus, who has scored 13 times in 46 international appearances, suffered a quad injury in January and was expected to return in March. However, the 25-year-old forward suffered a setback in his recovery and has not played a game since Thomas Frank was coaching Tottenham.
Kudus, who joined from West Ham United last summer, made 19 Premier League appearances for Spurs this season, scoring twice.
Veteran coach Carlos Queiroz, who announced the latest squad list on Tuesday, will rely on Manchester City’s Antoine Semenyo and Athletic Club forward Inaki Williams, while PAOK’s former Chelsea defender Abdul Rahman Baba has been recalled for the first time since 2023.
Ghana have been drawn in Group L alongside Croatia, England and Panama.
Goalkeepers: Benjamin Asare (Accra Hearts of Oak SC), Lawrence Ati-Zigi (St Gallen), Joseph Anang (St Patrick’s Athletic), Solomon Agbasi (Accra Hearts of Oak SC), Paul Reverson (Ajax).
Defenders: Baba Abdul Rahman (PAOK), Gideon Mensah (Auxerre), Marvin Senaya (Auxerre), Alidu Seidu (Rennes), Abdul Mumin (Rayo Vallecano), Jerome Opoku (Istanbul Basaksehir), Jonas Adjetey (Wolfsburg), Kojo Peprah Oppong (Nice), Alexander Djiku (Spartak Moscow), Elisha Owusu (Auxerre).
Midfielders: Thomas Partey (Villarreal), Kwasi Sibo (Real Oviedo), Augustine Boakye (Saint-Etienne), Caleb Yirenkyi (Nordsjaelland), Abdul Fatawu Issahaku (Leicester City).
Forwards: Kamaldeen Sulemana (Atalanta), Christopher Bonsu Baah (Al Qadsiah), Ernest Nuamah (Lyon), Antoine Semenyo (Manchester City), Brandon Thomas-Asante (Coventry City), Prince Kwabena Adu (Viktoria Plzen), Inaki Williams (Athletic Bilbao), Jordan Ayew (Leicester City).
Parts of the Puebla stadium for high-profile warm-up for 2026 edition were closed to spectators due to FIFA sanctions.
Published On 23 May 202623 May 2026
Mexico have beaten Ghana 2-0 in Puebla in a World Cup warm-up that offered a glimpse of the excitement building less than three weeks before the country opens the tournament.
While Puebla is not among Mexico’s World Cup host cities, fans in green shirts at Cuauhtemoc Stadium created an electric atmosphere throughout the night on Friday.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Repeated Mexican waves rolled around the stadium despite visible empty sections closed under FIFA sanctions linked to discriminatory chants at previous national team matches.
Brian Gutierrez set the tone immediately, curling home from the edge of the box after two minutes.
Teenage Liga MX sensation Gil Mora struck the post in the first half, and Alexis Vega had a header ruled out for offside before the break.
“He’s a different player, we’ve always said that,” Mexico coach Javier Aguirre said of Mora, who made his first appearance for Mexico since November after returning from injury.
“He’s brave, direct, vertical … he gives us great joy because he’s Mexican and because he’s back without pain.”
Ghana, with recently appointed coach Carlos Queiroz absent and assistants leading from the bench, threatened an equaliser early in the second half after forcing a pair of saves from the Mexican goalkeeper and hitting the crossbar.
But substitute Guillermo Martinez ended the visitors’ hopes in the 54th minute, finishing off a counterattack to double Mexico’s lead.
Coach Aguirre used the friendly to continue evaluating players ahead of naming Mexico’s final World Cup squad on June 1, with Europe-based players Luis Chavez, Edson Alvarez and Jorge Sanchez making second-half appearances after recently joining training camp.
The coach praised the effort shown by players battling for places in the final squad, saying: “The fact they tried and gave their best effort, for me, that’s already worthwhile.
“It’s not easy (to pick the team), it’s the most complex part of my job … It’s a bit about trying to see all the possible scenarios with my coaching staff.”
On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution. Proposed by Ghana, it recognised the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations. A total of 123 countries supported the resolution; three opposed it, including the United States and Israel, while 52 abstained, Britain among them, and several European Union countries.
The UN’s slavery resolution is a historic moment, but what comes next is even more important. Leading up to the resolution, the African Union urged its 55 member states to pursue slavery reparations through formal apologies, the return of stolen artefacts, financial compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition.
This raises a question the resolution does not directly ask: reparations from whom, and to whom? If the answer is simply from European governments to African governments, then the reparations movement risks ignoring the long history of European engagement with Africa, and in doing so delivering justice to the wrong people.
The contemporary framing of the reparations debate is seductive in its simplicity: Europeans arrived in Africa, Africans were enslaved, Europeans grew rich, and Africans became impoverished. Therefore, Europe owes Africa. This narrative carries moral force, but it risks flattening the complex history of European engagement with the continent.
While European actors undeniably drove the demand for enslaved labour, African political and economic elites were not passive victims. They played a significant role in capturing, transporting and selling enslaved people to European traders.
In some cases, African states, seeking to expand their treasuries and consolidate territorial power, preyed on neighbouring communities, condemning them to enslavement for profit. The Oyo Empire, a powerful Yoruba state in what is now south-western Nigeria, expanded significantly in the eighteenth century through its participation in this commerce. Across the region, African elites who had the means sustained the system by exchanging enslaved people for European goods such as alcohol, textiles and other manufactured commodities.
None of this diminishes European culpability in the slave trade. The demand was European. The ships were European. The plantation system was European. The racialised ideology constructed to justify slavery was European. But it does complicate the story.
The transatlantic slave trade was not solely a narrative of African victimhood and European perpetration. It is a story of elite collaboration, which did not end when the slave ships stopped sailing.
The historical argument: three phases, one logic
European encounter with African societies can be understood in three broad phases, each distinct in form but similar in the underlying logic of collaborative extraction.
The first phase was slavery. Europeans extracted human labour from Africa, often with the active participation of African political rulers. Britain emerged as the world’s leading slave-trading country, transporting roughly 3.4 million Africans across the Atlantic between 1640 and 1807. The abolition of the British slave trade in 1807 marked the formal end of this phase. But abolition did not disrupt the underlying logic of the elite collaboration. It reshaped it.
The second phase was colonialism. A less understood aspect of European domination in Africa is how seamlessly some African rulers transitioned from collaborators during the slave trade to intermediaries in the colonial period.
In Nigeria, for example, regional African rulers became intermediaries for British administrators. As Nigerian historian, Moses Ochonu, demonstrates in Emirs in London, a study of Northern Nigerian Muslim aristocrats who travelled to Britain between 1920 and independence in 1960, these African figures were far from passive subjects of British rule. They actively leveraged their relationship with British authorities to reinforce their own authority at home. Such sponsored travel to the imperial centre helped solidify personal ties between Nigerian elites and British administrators, reinforcing the system of indirect rule.
The third and current phase is the postcolonial era. While formal empire has ended, the structure of elite alignment endures. In countries such as Nigeria, the majority of citizens remain largely excluded from political and economic power. The institutional successors of intermediaries and collaborators during the eras of slavery and colonial rule are now running the African postcolonial states.
Rather than dismantling extractive systems, many have repurposed them. Similar patterns of exclusion and extraction that defined earlier periods have been reproduced, leaving the majority of Africans short-changed by a system that continues to serve elite interests.
Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom last month – complete with royal ceremony, photo opportunities and symbolic gestures – reflected this relationship whose origins lie in the very history the UN resolution condemns. While the majority of Nigerians face difficult socio-economic conditions, the British government announced that Nigerian companies would create hundreds of new jobs in the UK.
This is not an anomaly but a continuation of the extractive logic that shaped the slave trade and colonialism. It endures, now recast in the language of diplomacy and partnership.
Reparations are just, and Britain’s debt is undeniable. But direction matters. If compensation flows from one set of elites to another, the oppressed majority of Africans will once again be excluded. True justice must run in two directions: from European states to formerly colonised societies, and from African elites to the citizens they continue to exploit.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.