Ellen Ama Daaku, a member of the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) communications team, expressed her lack of surprise at President John Dramani Mahama’s decision not to retain Dr. George Akuffo Dampare as Inspector-General of Police (IGP). Daaku’s criticism stems from what she perceives as Dampare’s inadequate response to the post-election violence that erupted following the 2024 general elections. She contends that Dampare’s inaction during the unrest, particularly his failure to prevent damage to government property and apprehend those responsible, undermined his credibility and justified his removal. Daaku argues that maintaining Dampare would have signaled a lack of trust in his leadership and ability to maintain law and order.
Daaku’s central argument revolves around the principle of accountability and the expectation that the head of the police force should take decisive action to quell violence and protect public property. She questions Dampare’s commitment to his role and suggests that his apparent indifference to the unfolding chaos raised doubts about his ability to effectively manage the situation. By failing to arrest those involved in the post-election violence, Daaku argues, Dampare missed a crucial opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to upholding the law and maintaining peace. This perceived inaction, in her view, warranted his removal from office.
The context of Daaku’s remarks is the politically charged atmosphere following a contested election. Post-election violence, with its potential to destabilize the country, requires a swift and decisive response from law enforcement. Daaku’s criticism of Dampare reflects the NPP’s perspective on the events and their belief that a stronger response was necessary to prevent further unrest. Her comments also highlight the intense scrutiny faced by security officials in the aftermath of such incidents and the pressure on them to demonstrate their effectiveness in maintaining order.
Daaku’s statement, made during an appearance on the Angel Morning Show (AMS), also underscores the role of media in shaping public opinion and holding public officials accountable. By publicly voicing her criticism, Daaku contributes to the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of law enforcement and the responsibilities of those in positions of authority. Her comments also reflect the partisan nature of political discourse, with members of opposing parties often offering differing interpretations of events and the actions of public officials.
The controversy surrounding Dampare’s tenure highlights the complex challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in managing post-election violence. Factors such as political polarization, social unrest, and the potential for escalating violence create a volatile environment that requires careful and decisive action. Dampare’s removal suggests a lack of confidence in his ability to navigate these complexities and maintain order. The debate surrounding his performance underscores the ongoing need for effective and accountable policing, particularly during periods of heightened political tension.
Ultimately, Daaku’s comments reflect a broader concern about the role of law enforcement in maintaining stability and security in a democratic society. The expectation that those in positions of authority, particularly the head of the police force, should act decisively to prevent violence and protect public property is central to her critique. Her statements contribute to the ongoing discussion about the balance between maintaining order and respecting individual rights, a debate that is particularly relevant in the aftermath of contested elections and periods of social unrest. The case of Dr. Dampare serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in policing and the importance of accountability in ensuring public trust and confidence in law enforcement institutions.
