Ningo Prampram MP, Sam George, has lauded government for its decision to make Covid-19 vaccination compulsory for all travellers entering and leaving the country.

Taking to Twitter handle, the Legislator said, "this is a sound public health policy and a very good step by the government. I support it and hope it is implemented vigorously."

Compulsory vaccination upon entry to the Republic? Infringement of rights or public health policy? This is sound public health policy and a very good step by govt. I support it and hope it is implemented vigorously. Public health considerations supercedes personal liberties. 🦁🇬🇭

— Sam 'Dzata' George (@samgeorgegh) December 14, 2021

The comment is in reaction to some modifications by the Ghana Health Service to existing Covid-19 protocols regarding foreign travel through the Kotoka International Airport.

Last Thursday, the Service noted that in the wake of Omicron, all persons 18 years and above arriving in Ghana from December 12 (which has been reviewed to December 14 ) must provide proof of full vaccination.

“All unvaccinated Ghanaians and residents who are currently outside the country and intend to return within 14 days from the midnight of the said date are exempted," it said.

However, it added that this group will be vaccinated on arrival at the airport.

But there are concerns over this decision as some argue that it is an infringement on the human rights of persons who may not want to take the vaccine for various reasons.

National Communications Officer for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Sammy Gyamfi, disagrees with the government's decision.

He says, "the imposition of compulsory Covid vaccination requirement on all Ghanaians traveling into and out of Ghana by the Ghana Health Service is reprehensible and an affront to the 1992 Constitution."

He added that "vaccination must be by choice and not by force."

The Ningo-Prampram MP on the other hand thinks otherwise.

But Sam George argues that public health considerations supersede personal liberties, to be left to choose between the two options (i.e infringement of rights and public health), it is only prudent to prioritise public health considerations over personal liberties.