Who Gets Left Behind? Making AI Powered Immigration Services Accessible to Every Ghanaian

An online application can take a confident computer user a few minutes to complete. For someone who struggles to read the instructions, upload a document or recover a forgotten password, the same task can become an afternoon of frustration. Add an unreliable internet connection, and a service advertised as convenient begins to feel out of reach.

This is the question Ghana must confront as it considers artificial intelligence in immigration and related public services. Who will benefit from faster digital processes, and who will need help to use them?

The appeal of AI is understandable. A digital assistant could explain application requirements, answer routine questions and help people check whether they have supplied the necessary information. Automated tools could also help staff organise enquiries and identify applications requiring attention. These possibilities deserve serious consideration.

But the quality of a public service cannot be judged only by the experience of people who are comfortable with technology. It must also work for the older applicant who has never used an online portal, the person with a visual impairment, and the family whose internet connection disappears halfway through a submission. Their ability to obtain assistance should be part of the design from the beginning.

Digital literacy is an obvious concern. Owning a smartphone does not mean knowing how to complete an official application. Sending messages and watching videos involve different skills from scanning documents, choosing the correct file format, making a payment or responding to a verification request.

An applicant may understand every question on a form and still struggle with the mechanics of submitting it. A system that repeatedly announces “upload failed” without explaining why leaves the person guessing. Clear instructions should identify the problem and show how to fix it. Applications should also save progress so that a temporary interruption does not force someone to begin again.

Where these difficulties remain unresolved, people may turn to others for help. That assistance can be useful, but it can also require applicants to hand over identity documents, passwords or personal information. Official support should be accessible enough that nobody feels compelled to surrender control of an application simply because the portal is difficult to use.

Language deserves equal attention. Administrative English can be confusing even for people who use English regularly. Terms that are familiar to officials may mean little to someone encountering the process for the first time. A digital assistant that repeats complicated wording has done very little to help.

Instructions should use plain language, with examples where necessary. A request for supporting evidence should explain what kind of document is needed and why. An applicant should not have to interpret several pages of formal language to discover a simple requirement.

Selected Ghanaian language options could make routine guidance more accessible, especially through audio. These should be developed and checked carefully with fluent speakers. A poor translation of an official instruction can create a mistake with real consequences. Where a question concerns eligibility or a disputed decision, applicants should be able to speak to a trained person rather than rely entirely on an automated answer.

Disability must also shape the design of digital services. A person who uses a screen reader needs properly labelled forms and navigation that works without visual cues. Someone who cannot use a mouse comfortably needs keyboard access. Applicants with hearing impairments need written alternatives to audio instructions, while those with limited vision may need larger text and stronger contrast.

These features should be tested with the people who depend on them. A platform can look attractive and still be difficult to use. Asking users with disabilities to complete ordinary tasks during development is more useful than discovering the barriers after the service has been launched.

Physical assistance matters too. An accessible website offers limited benefit if an applicant must later visit an office with steps they cannot manage or a counter where communication support is unavailable. The journey through the service includes every stage, from the first enquiry to the final collection or decision.

Internet access creates another set of barriers. Some applicants may have a reliable connection at home. Others may depend on prepaid mobile data, a shared phone or occasional access to a stronger signal. A portal that loads large files, demands repeated uploads or times out quickly can impose unnecessary costs.

Services should therefore work well on basic mobile devices and modest connections. Pages should load efficiently, documents should not needlessly be uploaded more than once, and applicants should be able to return to saved work. Short text notifications could communicate routine updates without requiring people to keep checking a website.

Public access points could provide additional help, but their operation would need care. Applicants should have privacy when entering personal details, and staff should be trained to assist without retaining passwords or keeping unnecessary copies of documents. Help should leave the applicant informed and in control.

The strongest protection against exclusion is a dependable human support service. There will always be cases that a chatbot cannot resolve. A person may need to explain an unusual document, correct a mistaken record or ask what an instruction means in their circumstances.

A clear route to an officer should be available through a telephone line, an assistance desk or a suitable appointment. Contact details alone are insufficient if calls go unanswered and enquiries receive no response. Human support needs staffing, supervision and reasonable response times.

Staff should also treat requests for help with patience. Someone who cannot navigate a portal has not failed a test of citizenship or competence. They are trying to obtain a service. The institution has a responsibility to make that process understandable.

Before expanding an AI supported service, Ghana should examine who completes it successfully and who abandons it. Testing should include people with different levels of digital confidence, speakers of different languages, users with disabilities and applicants relying on weak connections. Their difficulties should lead to practical changes.

Success would mean fewer unnecessary journeys, clearer instructions, affordable access and help that arrives when needed. It would also mean that people can choose a supported route without being treated as an inconvenience.

AI could make immigration services easier to use. Whether it does so will depend on decisions about language, accessibility, connectivity and staffing. For every applicant who completes a form effortlessly, there may be another staring at the screen, unsure what to do next. A good public service makes room for both.