Renaming Kotoka International Airport: Weighing Symbolic Gains Against Economic Costs

Publication Note: This article analyzes a current national debate in Ghana regarding the proposed renaming of Kotoka International Airport (KIA). It examines the historical context, potential advantages, significant financial and logistical costs, and the broader question of national priorities during a period of economic restructuring. The analysis is based on public discourse, historical records, and economic principles.

Introduction: A National Debate Takes Flight

Ghana’s political and public discourse has been recently dominated by a proposal to rename its primary gateway, Kotoka International Airport (KIA), to Accra International Airport. The initiative, announced by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga in early 2024, involves tabling a parliamentary bill to effect the change. The stated rationale is to “revive the airport’s original name” and recognize the indigenous communities of Accra whose lands were acquired for the airport’s construction decades ago.

This proposal revisits a conversation that has periodically surfaced for over a decade. In 2014, this publication’s author advocated for a name change following a major renovation, suggesting that the historical narrative of the existing name might be misaligned with a modern, forward-looking national brand. Now, as Ghana navigates a critical economic reset under an International Monetary Fund (IMF) program, the debate has evolved. The central question is no longer just about historical rectification or branding, but a stark cost-benefit analysis: Do the symbolic and cultural advantages of renaming outweigh the tangible financial and administrative costs, particularly when those funds could be redirected to pressing social needs like healthcare and education?

This article provides a comprehensive, pedagogical exploration of this complex issue. We will delve into the history behind the name “Kotoka,” dissect the arguments for and against the change, quantify the probable costs, and place the proposal within the context of Ghana’s current fiscal constraints. The goal is not to advocate for a position, but to equip readers with a clear framework for evaluating the proposal’s true value to the nation.

Key Points: The Core of the Debate

Before a detailed analysis, the essential pillars of the renaming debate can be summarized as follows:

• Historical Recognition vs. Historical Erasure: Proponents argue the change restores pre-colonial identity and honors the original landowners (primarily the Ga people). Opponents contend it erases the legacy of Lt. Gen. Emmanuel Kotoka, a key figure in Ghana’s post-independence military history.
• Branding and National Image: “Accra International Airport” is seen by some as more intuitively geographic and tourist-friendly, aligning with global norms (e.g., London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle). Others argue “Kotoka” has established international recognition.
• Financial and Logistical Costs: Renaming a major international hub involves massive expenses: new signage, updated aeronautical charts and navigation systems, revised security protocols, rebranding of all official documents, marketing materials, and potential IT system overhauls. Estimates run into millions of Ghana Cedis.
• The Priority Question: In an era of debt restructuring, currency depreciation, and constrained public budgets, is this the most prudent use of public funds? Could the money yield a higher social return if invested in health or education infrastructure?
• Legal and Bureaucratic Process: The change requires parliamentary legislation, coordination with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and updates to countless bilateral air services agreements.

Background: The History Behind “Kotoka”

The Man: Lt. Gen. Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka

Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka (1926-1967) was a prominent figure in Ghana’s early post-independence history. A career soldier, he rose to become Chief of the Defence Staff. He is most famously associated with the first military coup in Ghana on February 24, 1966, which overthrew President Kwame Nkrumah. Kotoka was a leading member of the National Liberation Council (NLC) that governed thereafter. His legacy is therefore deeply intertwined with a pivotal, controversial moment in Ghanaian political history. He was killed in an attempted counter-coup on April 17, 1967. The airport was renamed in his honor in 1967. The site of his death was reportedly near the airport’s original forecourt, where a statue of him once stood.

The Place: The Land and Its Original Name

The airport is located in the Achimota/Accra area, land traditionally owned by the Ga people, the indigenous inhabitants of the Accra Plains. Historical accounts indicate that the land was compulsorily acquired by the colonial government and later the post-independence state for public use, including the airport’s construction. Advocates for the name change argue that “Kotoka” represents a colonial/post-colonial imposition that overshadows the pre-existing identity of the place. They propose that “Accra International Airport” is a neutral, geographic name that correctly identifies the city it serves, similar to how “Accra” identifies the city itself.

A Decade-Old Suggestion

As noted in the original article, the idea of renaming KIA post-renovation was floated as early as 2014. The author suggested that if a modernization project (which was completed in late 2015) was meant to project a new global image, the historical weight of the “Kotoka” name—tied to a coup and military rule—might be incongruent with a narrative of peaceful progress and development. The proposal then, as now, was to rename the entire facility “Accra International Airport” while memorializing Kotoka in other ways, such as naming specific terminals, roads, or squares within the airport complex after him.

Analysis: Weighing Advantages Against the True “Prices”

This is the crux of the matter. A superficial debate focuses on sentiment. A rigorous analysis requires quantifying and qualifying both the benefits (“advantages”) and the full spectrum of costs (“prices”).

Potential Advantages of Renaming

• Cultural and Historical Restitution: It would formally acknowledge the displacement of the indigenous Ga communities and restore a sense of place that predates the airport’s construction. This can be framed as a step toward addressing historical land grievances.
• Simplified International Branding: “Accra” is instantly recognizable as a city name to a global audience. For tourists and business travelers unfamiliar with Ghanaian history, “Accra International Airport” is self-explanatory, potentially reducing confusion.
• Neutrality and Modern Image: The name detaches the nation’s main entry point from a specific, divisive historical figure and event, allowing the airport to symbolize the entire nation and its future, not just one chapter of its past.
• Alignment with Global Trends: Many major airports are named after cities (e.g., Dubai, Singapore Changi) or neutral geographic features. While some are named after individuals (e.g., JFK, CDG), this is often reserved for figures with near-universal acclaim. The debate forces a national conversation about which historical figures meet that criterion.

The Comprehensive “Prices”: More Than Just New Signboards

This is where the proposal faces its most significant scrutiny. The costs are multifaceted and substantial.

1. Direct Financial Costs:
   • Physical Rebranding: Replacing every instance of “KIA” and “Kotoka International Airport” on signage (internal and external), road signs for miles around, vehicle liveries, staff uniforms, and printed materials.
   • Digital and IT Overhaul: Updating the airport’s website, all online booking systems (Ghana Civil Aviation Authority, airlines, travel agents), digital displays, and internal management software.
   • Aeronautical and Regulatory Updates: This is the most critical and expensive component. The new name must be submitted to and approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). All aeronautical charts, navigation databases (like those used in aircraft flight management systems), air traffic control procedures, and safety documentation must be updated globally. Airlines must be notified and their systems updated. This is not a national but an international process with significant compliance costs.
   • Legal and Documentation: Amending all national aviation laws, regulations, and bylaws. Updating bilateral Air Services Agreements with dozens of countries, which often specify airport names. Changing the airport’s certificate and all official permits.
2. Indirect and Opportunity Costs:
   • Brand Equity Loss: “KIA” is a known brand. Frequent flyers, cargo companies, and international partners associate the code with Ghana. A change causes temporary confusion and requires a costly marketing campaign to re-establish the new name.
   • Administrative Burden: Countless man-hours across government ministries (Transport, Foreign Affairs, Finance), the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA), the airport authority, and private sector entities will be diverted to manage the transition.
   • The Foregone Investment Argument: This is the most potent critique. Using a conservative estimate of GHS 5-10 million for a domestic rebranding (excluding the complex ICAO process which could be higher), one can calculate the social return on investment. For example, GHS 7 million could fund the construction of several basic health centers, provide scholarships for hundreds of students, or upgrade water and sanitation facilities in underserved communities. In an era of fiscal austerity and a need for social safety nets, this is a powerful counter-narrative.

Practical Advice: A Path Forward

For policymakers and citizens engaging with this issue, a structured approach is essential:

1. Demand a Full Cost-Benefit Report: Before any parliamentary vote, the Ministry of Transport and the GCAA must commission and publicly release a detailed, itemized cost estimate for the full renaming process, including the ICAO coordination phase. Transparency is non-negotiable.
2. Explore Compromise Solutions: The 2014 suggestion retains merit. Could the main terminal be renamed “Accra International Terminal” while maintaining “Kotoka” for the overall airport complex? Could a major square, road, or future terminal bear Kotoka’s name, achieving memorialization without the global rebranding cost? This honors both the call for historical recognition and the desire to preserve a known identity.
3. Conduct a Public Sentiment Survey: Is this a priority for the majority of Ghanaians? A credible, nationwide survey would gauge whether this is a top-of-mind issue compared to unemployment, cost of living, and healthcare.
4. Apply a “Priority Lens”: Scrutinize the proposal against Ghana’s Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework and the IMF-supported economic program. Does it directly contribute to macroeconomic stability, debt sustainability, or poverty reduction? If the answer is a distant “no,” its justification weakens significantly.
5. Consider a Phased or Symbolic Approach: Could a simple, low-cost legislative change—declaring that the airport’s official name *includes* “Accra” (e.g., Kotoka-Accra International Airport)—satisfy the recognition goal without triggering the full rebranding cascade? This would require legal review but could be a minimal-cost alternative.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: Does renaming the airport erase Lt. Gen. Kotoka’s history?

A: Not necessarily. History is recorded in archives, textbooks, and monuments. A name change on one infrastructure does not delete a person from historical records. The more pertinent question is whether a national infrastructure of this magnitude must perpetually bear the name of a single historical figure, especially one whose legacy is viewed differently across the political spectrum. History can be commemorated in multiple ways—museums, plaques, named streets—without requiring the nation’s main international gateway to carry that name exclusively.

Q2: How much would it actually cost?

A: A precise figure is unavailable without an official audit, but based on similar international cases, the cost would be substantial. The physical rebranding (signs, uniforms, documents) could cost several million Ghana Cedis. The aeronautical and regulatory update process—coordinating with ICAO and over 100 countries with bilateral air agreements—is complex and expensive, often involving technical fees and administrative costs borne by the national aviation authority. The total cost is very likely in the range of tens of millions of Ghana Cedis when all direct and administrative costs are consolidated.

Q3: What about the original landowners? Is this a land restitution issue?

A: The proposal is framed as symbolic recognition, not a literal land restitution. The original compulsory acquisition was a legal state action. A name change does not transfer land title or provide financial compensation. If the core grievance is historical land loss, a more direct and impactful solution would be a government-led program for land documentation, communal development grants, or targeted social interventions for the affected communities—measures that address the material legacy of displacement more substantively than a symbolic name change.

Q4: Have other countries renamed major airports?

A: Yes, but it is a major undertaking. Examples include:

• Turkey: Istanbul Atatürk Airport was renamed Istanbul Airport when a new mega-hub opened, but this was a new facility.
• China: Beijing Capital International Airport’s Terminal 3 is named after a historical figure, but the main airport name