Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, has expressed deep skepticism regarding President John Dramani Mahama’s recent economic pronouncements, particularly his pledge to steer Ghana out of its current economic turmoil. Nkrumah’s skepticism stems from Mahama’s previous record, specifically his administration’s struggles to resolve the debilitating power crisis, popularly known as “dumsor,” which plagued the nation. He argues that Mahama’s inability to effectively address the energy crisis casts a long shadow of doubt over his current promises of economic restoration. This skepticism is further fueled by Mahama’s own words in his State of the Nation Address (SONA) on February 27, 2025, where he drew a parallel between his purported resolution of “dumsor” and his current commitment to fixing the economy. Nkrumah contends that this comparison, given the reality of the persistent power outages during Mahama’s earlier tenure, undermines the credibility of his current economic pledges.
The crux of Nkrumah’s argument hinges on the perceived disconnect between Mahama’s pronouncements and the lived experiences of Ghanaians. He emphasizes that despite Mahama’s assertions of having resolved the power crisis, the reality on the ground in 2016, the final year of his previous administration, was one of continued power outages. This stark contrast between rhetoric and reality, according to Nkrumah, forms the basis for questioning Mahama’s current economic pronouncements. He posits that if Mahama’s claims of resolving “dumsor” are demonstrably false, then his promises of economic recovery should be viewed with similar suspicion. This skepticism, Nkrumah argues, is not unfounded but rather a logical extrapolation based on past performance.
Nkrumah’s critique extends to the broader implications of Mahama’s economic promises. He suggests that if these promises are built on a foundation of misrepresentation, as he believes the “dumsor” narrative to be, then the nation is likely heading towards a period of significant economic hardship. He cautions Ghanaians against accepting Mahama’s pronouncements at face value, urging them to consider his past record when evaluating the feasibility of his current commitments. This cautious approach, according to Nkrumah, is essential to prevent the nation from being lulled into a false sense of security by promises that are unlikely to materialize.
Furthermore, Nkrumah’s skepticism is underscored by the timing of Mahama’s pronouncements. He highlights the fact that Mahama made similar promises in July 2024, which were reiterated in his recent SONA. This repetition, in Nkrumah’s view, does not reinforce the commitment but rather raises concerns about the sincerity and feasibility of the proposed solutions. He questions why, if these promises were genuine, they have not yet yielded tangible results. This lack of progress, he argues, further strengthens the case for skepticism.
In essence, Oppong Nkrumah’s argument is a call for accountability and a plea for Ghanaians to exercise critical judgment. He urges the public to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the track record of those making promises. He insists that the memory of “dumsor” should not be dismissed as a mere historical footnote but should serve as a potent reminder of the importance of holding leaders accountable for their pronouncements. This accountability, he contends, is vital for safeguarding the nation’s economic future.
Nkrumah’s message resonates with a broader theme of political scrutiny and the importance of informed citizenry. He implicitly encourages Ghanaians to engage actively in evaluating political promises and to demand transparency and accountability from their leaders. His critique serves as a reminder that in a democratic society, citizens have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to question those in power and to hold them accountable for their actions and their promises. This active engagement, he implies, is crucial for ensuring good governance and preventing the recurrence of past mistakes.
