The recent appreciation of the Ghanaian cedi against major foreign currencies, particularly the US dollar, has sparked a mixed reaction, with some Ghanaians abroad expressing dissatisfaction over the development. Their discontent stems from the increased burden of having to send larger amounts of money in remittances due to the cedi’s strengthening. Award-winning Ghanaian actor, Van Vicker, has criticized this sentiment, labeling it as narcissistic and urging the public to celebrate the positive implications of the cedi’s resurgence.
Vicker’s argument centers on the broader economic benefits of a stronger cedi for Ghana. He contrasts the individual concerns of those sending remittances with the overall positive impact on the nation’s economy. He contends that a stronger national currency is a sign of economic health and stability, which ultimately benefits all citizens, including those living abroad. He emphasizes that the focus should be on the collective good rather than individual inconvenience. He poses the question of how individuals can prioritize their personal remittance burdens over the overall economic well-being of their home country.
The actor further underscores the significance of the cedi’s recovery by highlighting the Bank of Ghana Governor’s statement, indicating a substantial appreciation of approximately 24% since the beginning of 2025. Vicker describes this development as “remarkable” and emphasizes its positive contribution to the Ghanaian economy. He expresses optimism about the sustainability of this upward trend, suggesting a belief in the long-term positive implications for the nation’s financial stability. He sees this as a sign of positive economic momentum and a reason for national pride and celebration.
Furthermore, Vicker extends his commendation to President John Dramani Mahama, crediting him with overseeing the cedi’s recovery. He expresses his appreciation for the President’s efforts, regardless of the specific policies implemented, and encourages the continuation of whatever strategies have led to this positive outcome. His praise reflects a sense of national pride in the economic progress symbolized by the strengthening currency. He uses colloquial language to express his enthusiasm and encouragement for the continued implementation of effective economic policies.
The opposing viewpoint, expressed by some Ghanaians in the diaspora, focuses on the immediate financial implications of the cedi’s appreciation. For those regularly sending money back to Ghana, a stronger cedi means they need to exchange more of their foreign currency to send the same amount in cedis. This translates to a higher cost of remittances, potentially impacting their ability to support family and friends back home. Their concern, while understandable from a personal finance perspective, neglects the broader macro-economic benefits of a strong national currency.
The debate highlights the complex interplay between individual financial pressures and national economic interests. While the strengthening cedi presents challenges for those sending remittances, it also signals positive economic progress for Ghana as a whole. Vicker’s stance underscores the importance of considering the larger picture and celebrating national economic gains, even when they come with individual adjustments. He encourages a broader perspective that prioritizes the collective good over individual financial concerns tied to remittances. He effectively frames the issue as a matter of national pride and economic progress, urging Ghanaians both at home and abroad to recognize and celebrate the achievement.
