The aftermath of the 2024 Ghanaian presidential and parliamentary elections has witnessed the eruption of internal discord within the New Patriotic Party (NPP), particularly concerning the establishment of an Election Review Committee. Sarah Adwoa Safo, the former Member of Parliament for Dome-Kwabenya, has vehemently denounced the committee, chaired by former Speaker of Parliament, Professor Mike Aaron Oquaye, as a “bogus” entity lacking credibility and driven by a hidden agenda. This committee, composed of 12 members, was tasked by the NPP’s National Council to dissect the party’s performance in the elections and propose recommendations for recovery within a three-month timeframe. However, Safo’s accusations have cast a shadow over the committee’s legitimacy and raised questions about its true objectives.
Safo’s central contention revolves around the alleged bias of the committee against the party’s 2024 flagbearer, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia. She argues that the committee’s formation was orchestrated with the intention of pinning the blame for the electoral defeat on Bawumia, thereby obstructing his future candidacy and paving the way for a preferred candidate. This claim of a premeditated plot to undermine Bawumia has further fueled the internal tensions within the NPP and raises concerns about the transparency and impartiality of the review process. The question of whether the committee is genuinely seeking to understand the reasons behind the NPP’s electoral setback or acting as a tool to manipulate the party’s leadership landscape remains a point of contention.
Safo’s critique extends beyond the committee’s alleged bias to encompass the selection of Professor Oquaye as its chair. She questions Oquaye’s suitability for the role, citing his personal involvement in the elections as a potential conflict of interest. Specifically, she challenges Oquaye to first explain the reasons behind his son, Mike Oquaye Jnr.’s, loss in the Dome-Kwabenya parliamentary election before scrutinizing Bawumia’s performance. This demand for Oquaye to address his own family’s electoral setback before evaluating others is a direct challenge to his impartiality and leadership of the review committee.
Safo’s demand for an explanation regarding Oquaye Jnr.’s defeat emphasizes her belief that the review process must be conducted with utmost integrity and transparency. She argues that unless the committee’s report demonstrates these qualities and remains free from biases and prejudices, any negative findings against Bawumia will be deemed unacceptable. She contends that a credible assessment must first address internal factors and individual performances, including those of prominent figures within the party, before focusing on the overall leadership. This call for self-reflection and internal accountability before assigning blame externally underscores Safo’s concerns about the committee’s potential to be used as a political weapon.
Safo’s stance reflects a broader distrust of the committee’s objectivity and raises fundamental questions about its ability to conduct a fair and impartial review. Her accusations of a predetermined agenda to target Bawumia and her challenge to Oquaye’s leadership highlight the deep divisions within the NPP following the electoral defeat. This internal strife threatens to further destabilize the party and hinder its efforts to recover and regroup for future elections. The controversy surrounding the committee’s composition and its mandate underscores the delicate balance between accountability and internal power struggles within political organizations.
The future of the Election Review Committee and the weight given to its findings remain uncertain in light of Safo’s strong objections. Her insistence on integrity, transparency, and the absence of bias as prerequisites for accepting any negative conclusions against Bawumia sets a high bar for the committee to clear. The party’s response to these allegations and the subsequent actions taken will be critical in determining whether the review process can contribute to a constructive post-election analysis or further exacerbate internal divisions. The effectiveness of the committee’s work hinges on its ability to address these concerns and restore confidence in its impartiality and commitment to a thorough and unbiased review of the NPP’s electoral performance.
