It is often said that the true test of a person’s character is revealed when they are given wealth or power. When the restraints of scarcity or obscurity are removed, what remains is the individual’s true nature.
Over the years, Ghanaians have witnessed what can happen when immense wealth is combined with an unrestrained public platform. The conduct of Kennedy Agyapong, a prominent figure within the NPP, provides a troubling case study. His public record is marked by repeated verbal attacks on women, pastors, judges, police officers, fellow Members of Parliament, Vice Presidents, and even sitting Presidents. These incidents are not matters of private dispute, they are documented statements made openly on radio, television, and social media.
Beyond insults, he has been widely accused, through recordings and public broadcasts, of threatening and attempting to intimidate public office holders with claims of damaging exposure if they fail to submit to his demands. Journalists have also been targets of such threats, creating an atmosphere of fear that is incompatible with democratic accountability.
In one particularly disturbing chapter in Ghana’s recent history, incendiary rhetoric directed at a journalist preceded a tragic murder, an episode that continues to haunt our national conscience and raises serious questions about responsibility, restraint, and leadership.
Even more alarming are instances where entire ethnic groups have been invoked in reckless language that encourages hostility against other groups. Such rhetoric, especially in a multi-ethnic democracy like Ghana, is dangerous.
It undermines social cohesion, weakens respect for legitimate authority, and normalizes the idea that disagreement justifies intimidation or collective blame.
History offers sobering lessons. Societies that have elevated individuals with these traits into positions of political power have often paid a heavy price. Many of the world’s most destructive leaders began their rise in precisely this way, through populism, intimidation, and the erosion of respect for institutions, before leading their parties or nations into crisis.
Today, the New Patriotic Party stands at a critical crossroads. The choice before it is not merely about winning the next election, but about the kind of political tradition it seeks to uphold. The Party’s decision at this moment can either restore its founding values and moral authority or deepen the challenges it already faces.
Supporters of Kennedy Agyapong often argue that he has broad appeal among the Ghanaian electorate. But this raises a fundamental question: how different are “the Ghanaian masses” from the over 210,000 NPP delegates spread across the country? These delegates are themselves Ghanaians, teachers, farmers, traders, professionals, youth leaders, embedded in their communities and fully aware of the national mood.
The NPP’s presidential primary is not a popularity contest measured by noise or intimidation. It is a structured, democratic process in which delegates will choose the individual they consider most suitable to lead the Party at this delicate time. The decisive poll is not one conducted on radio shows or social media platforms, but the votes cast by delegates in a free, fair, and transparent election.
History will judge this choice.
Let us, therefore, be guided not by fear, bluster, or false certainties, but by sober reflection, institutional responsibility, and the long-term future of the Party and the nation.
God bless our homeland Ghana!
By Joel Forson
