“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” – Proverbs 18:17
As a concerned member of the New Patriotic Party, I believe John Boadu is perfectly entitled to campaign on his experience. But experience must be presented with the full record, not selected achievements detached from their institutional context. This is particularly important when many of today’s executives were not in office when some of these decisions were taken.
First, the monthly support to constituencies and regions. John Boadu presents this as an initiative he personally introduced. Fair enough, but that raises legitimate questions: What was the source of the funding? Was it his personal money or Party resources mobilised through broader government and Party structures? Why did the arrangement continue after he ceased to be General Secretary, and why did it eventually stop?
In 2021, while serving as General Secretary, John Boadu himself publicly spoke about government appointees making periodic contributions to support Party activities at the constituency, regional and national levels. That alone shows that financing the Party involved a broader institutional arrangement and several actors. Such arrangements should therefore not be repackaged years later as the personal achievement of one individual.
Second, the celebrated 169 parliamentary seats. Yes, the NPP won 169 seats in 2016. That is an undisputed fact. But another equally undisputed fact is that after the 2020 elections, the NPP returned to Parliament with 137 elected MPs, 32 fewer seats.
So, if 169 is evidence of John Boadu’s organisational success, what should delegates make of 137 four years later? You cannot personalise the rise and institutionalise the decline. If 169 forms part of the record, 137 must form part of the same record. That is not propaganda; it is arithmetic.
Third, appointments of Party officers into government institutions. The suggestion that assigning Party organisers and youth organisers to institutions such as NADMO and youth employment programmes was an innovation of John Boadu’s era deserves scrutiny. Long serving members of the NPP know that similar arrangements existed during the Kufuor administration. Institutional memory did not begin in 2017, and longstanding Party practices should not be presented to newer executives as personal inventions.
Fourth, the vehicles. If decisions regarding the purchase or leasing of Party vehicles were taken collectively through NEC or other authorised Party structures, and John Boadu was part of those structures, then a straightforward question arises; What was his position when the decision was taken? Collective decisions cannot conveniently become somebody else’s mistakes years later simply because one is now campaigning for office.
There is also the broader issue of internal operational and security arrangements. Not everything a serious political organisation does internally needs to be advertised publicly. Some arrangements work precisely because they are handled quietly and responsibly. Leadership experience should teach discretion. Maturity is not only knowing what was done; it is knowing what should be said publicly, when it should be said and what properly belongs within the Party.
None of this takes away from John Boadu’s years of service to the NPP. He has experience, and he has every right to campaign on it. But delegates deserve the whole record, not a catalogue in which every success becomes personal achievement while every setback becomes somebody else’s responsibility.
If 169 is your record, 137 is also your record. If collective Party initiatives become your achievements, collective Party decisions cannot suddenly become the failures of others.
So perhaps the real question for delegates is not simply, How experienced is John Boadu? It is, How complete and accurate is the account of that experience we are being asked to believe?
Let us campaign vigorously, but let us tell the full story.
Authored By:
Michael Aikins Amadi
(Lecturer, UPSA)
