Dr. Arthur Kennedy’s bold critique of NPP’s decline & price of political compromise

In a scathing and poignant piece, Dr. Arthur Kennedy, a former presidential candidate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has turned the spotlight on the shifting moral compass of his own party. His comments, made in response to recent statements by the NPP’s Steering Committee, mark a dramatic departure from the party’s rhetoric of the past and highlight the deepening fractures within Ghana’s political elite.

The NPP, once seen as the champion of democracy and accountability, now finds itself grappling with a storm of criticism from within its own ranks. Dr. Kennedy’s remarks come at a time when the party has called for a probe into the outcome of the 2024 election and condemned the looting of Electoral Commission (EC) offices. The irony, as Dr. Kennedy points out, is inescapable. “The party that saw nothing wrong with vigilantes entering courtrooms to free footsoldiers—or the killing of citizens in 2020 or with Ayawaso-Wugon—has found its voice against vigilantism now?” Kennedy asks, drawing attention to the inconsistency of the party’s newfound moral outrage.

Kennedy’s statement is not merely a critique of the NPP’s response to current events; it is a powerful retrospective on how the party arrived at this point. According to him, the party’s troubles are not incidental but deeply rooted in the decisions made in the past. “We lost because we spent 8 years looting public coffers, manifesting incompetence, displaying arrogance, and nurturing Galamsey,” he asserts. For Kennedy, the NPP’s downfall can be traced to what he sees as the party’s institutional failures and its complicity in the systemic corruption that plagued the country under its watch.

Kennedy’s remarks cut to the heart of the disillusionment many Ghanaians feel with the political system. By invoking the party’s handling of the Galamsey issue and the administration’s financial mismanagement, he is not only criticizing the NPP but also painting a damning picture of how greed and power have taken precedence over national progress. His choice of words—”the rot was wider than Dr. Bawumia”—suggests that the party’s problems extend beyond any one individual, even the vice president. He highlights the role of figures such as Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia, who, once seen as a pillar of economic reform, is now vilified for the worsening economic situation, particularly the depreciation of the cedi. Bawumia, once touted as a savior of the nation’s economy, is now accused of promoting policies that exacerbated the crisis.

Kennedy’s critique is also deeply personal. In his commentary, he delves into the changing nature of the party’s leadership, once founded on ideals of sacrifice, integrity, and service. He draws sharp comparisons between the likes of Donkor Fordjour and Kufuor-era leaders such as JA Kufuor and the current leadership, represented by figures like Ashanti Regional Chairman Bernard Antwi-Boasiako (Wontumi). For Kennedy, these modern leaders have lost sight of the party’s original mission and instead treat it as a vehicle for self-enrichment. “The party that was built by men who risked their liberty and spent their treasure to build it now has leaders who have not suffered and see it as a vehicle for amassing wealth,” Kennedy laments.

The personal betrayal he feels is palpable, especially as he reflects on the fate of former party figures such as Paul Afoko and Kwabena Agyapong, who were ousted under controversial circumstances. Kennedy accuses the party’s elite of standing by in silence while these figures were sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. He also alludes to the former president, JA Kufuor, who he claims chose peace over principle, refusing to defend the party when it most needed him.

Kennedy’s commentary is not merely a lamentation of the NPP’s decline; it is a call to action. The closing lines, which warn of the dangers of a nation turning a blind eye to corruption and misgovernance, carry a sobering message for Ghanaians: “An eye for an eye will leave all of us blind.” For Kennedy, the political compromises of the past cannot be swept under the rug; the party—and the nation—must reckon with the consequences of its actions.

His call for introspection within the NPP is a stark reminder that the political elites cannot afford to remain complacent. The corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement that have defined the party’s last few years are not just matters of internal party dynamics; they are issues that affect the fabric of Ghanaian democracy itself.

Dr. Kennedy’s critique is a reflection of a broader national disillusionment. As Ghana approaches the 2024 elections, the question looms large: Can the political establishment, once rife with idealism and hope, rediscover its original purpose? Or has the rot set too deeply, and are the days of idealistic leadership gone forever? Kennedy’s remarks suggest that the NPP—and the country as a whole—must confront these difficult truths before it is too late.

In the end, Kennedy’s words offer both a rebuke and a warning: The NPP, and indeed the nation, must reckon with its past before it can build a future worth fighting for.