The political landscape in Ghana has been ignited by a recent clash between Edudzi Kudzordzi Tamakloe, Acting CEO of the National Petroleum Authority, and former Vice President Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia. The spark was Dr. Bawumia’s criticism of President John Dramani Mahama regarding recent mass dismissals in the public sector. Tamakloe, in a strongly worded social media post, challenged the moral basis of Bawumia’s critique, accusing him of hypocrisy and a selective memory regarding similar actions undertaken by the Akufo-Addo administration, in which Bawumia served as Vice President.
Tamakloe’s central argument hinges on the premise that Dr. Bawumia remained silent and complicit during the widespread dismissal of public sector employees following the 2017 change of government. He specifically highlighted the mass revocation of appointments, leaving numerous young Ghanaians unemployed. Tamakloe contends that Bawumia’s current outcry against dismissals rings hollow, lacking the credibility that would come with acknowledging and apologizing for past actions. He pointedly asked, “What is your moral basis for your call to President Mahama?” emphasizing the perceived double standard in Bawumia’s stance.
Further solidifying his argument, Tamakloe cited specific instances of dismissals under the previous administration, such as the removal of National Service Scheme (NSS) directors. He underscored the futility of legal challenges against these dismissals, leaving the affected individuals without employment for extended periods. This example served to illustrate what Tamakloe perceives as a pattern of disregard for the welfare of public sector workers under the Akufo-Addo government, a pattern he believes Bawumia was complicit in. This, Tamakloe argues, negates Bawumia’s right to criticize similar actions taken by the current administration.
Beyond Bawumia’s individual role, Tamakloe broadened his criticism to encompass what he sees as selective outrage based on political affiliation. He pointed out the silence of influential figures, including religious leaders, during the 2017 dismissals, contrasting it with the current uproar. This, he suggests, indicates a politically motivated bias in public reactions to such actions. He referenced a statement made by former Senior Minister Nana Yaw Osafo-Maafo, who allegedly said, “we will quietly lay them off,” as further evidence of a deliberate and calculated approach to dismissals, which was seemingly accepted or ignored by various sectors of society due to the perceived political affiliation of those affected.
Tamakloe’s accusations paint a picture of political maneuvering and selective memory. He portrays Bawumia’s criticism of Mahama as opportunistic and lacking genuine concern for the welfare of public sector workers. By highlighting the previous administration’s actions and the muted response they received, Tamakloe attempts to dismantle Bawumia’s moral high ground and expose what he believes to be a politically motivated attack. This public exchange underscores the deeply rooted partisan divisions within Ghanaian politics and how they influence public discourse surrounding governance and employment. The contrasting responses and perceived biases based on political affiliation raise questions about the fairness and consistency applied to evaluating government actions.
The core of this debate revolves around the ethical implications of politically motivated dismissals and the responsibility of leaders to address them consistently, regardless of political affiliation. Tamakloe’s challenge to Bawumia serves as a potent reminder of the importance of accountability and consistency in political discourse. He calls for a deeper reflection on the potential damage caused by politically driven employment decisions and the need for a more principled approach to safeguarding the rights and livelihoods of public sector workers. This exchange also highlights the role of public figures, including religious leaders, and the responsibility they bear in holding power accountable, irrespective of political leanings. The underlying message is a plea for a more objective and equitable assessment of government actions, free from the sway of partisan biases.
