“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” — Proverbs 18:17
As a concerned member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), I believe John Boadu is perfectly entitled to campaign on his experience. However, experience must be presented with the full record, rather than through selected achievements detached from their institutional context.
This is particularly important at a time when many of today’s party executives were not in office when some of the decisions being discussed were taken.
Constituency and regional support
One of the issues John Boadu has highlighted is the monthly support provided to constituencies and regions. If he introduced the arrangement, that is certainly part of his record. However, it also raises legitimate questions about how the initiative was financed and administered.
Was the funding his personal contribution, or were the resources mobilised through broader government and party structures? Why did the arrangement continue after he left office as General Secretary, and what eventually led to its discontinuation?
In 2021, while serving as General Secretary, Mr Boadu himself publicly spoke about government appointees making periodic contributions to support party activities at the constituency, regional and national levels.
That admission points to a broader institutional arrangement involving several actors. Such initiatives should therefore be placed within their proper context rather than being presented years later solely as the personal achievement of one individual.
The 169 parliamentary seats
There is no dispute that the NPP won 169 parliamentary seats in the 2016 elections. That achievement can legitimately form part of Mr Boadu’s organisational record.
But there is another equally important figure: 137.
Following the 2020 elections, the NPP returned to Parliament with 137 elected MPs, 32 fewer seats than it had won in 2016.
If the 169 seats are presented as evidence of organisational success during Mr Boadu’s tenure, delegates are equally entitled to ask what the 137 seats represent.
One cannot personalise the rise while institutionalising the decline. If 169 forms part of the record, then 137 must also form part of that same record.
That is not propaganda. It is arithmetic.
Party officers in government institutions
There is also the claim that assigning party organisers and youth organisers to institutions such as the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) and youth employment programmes was an innovation of Mr Boadu’s era.
That claim deserves closer scrutiny.
Long-serving NPP members know that similar arrangements existed during the administration of former President John Agyekum Kufuor. Institutional memory did not begin in 2017, and longstanding party practices should not be presented to newer executives as personal inventions.
Leadership experience should include an appreciation of what was inherited, what was modified and what was genuinely introduced.
The issue of party vehicles
The question of party vehicles also requires a fair examination of institutional responsibility.
If decisions concerning the purchase or leasing of party vehicles were taken collectively through the National Executive Committee (NEC) or other authorised party structures, and Mr Boadu was part of those structures, then a straightforward question arises:
What was his position when those decisions were taken?
Collective decisions cannot conveniently become the responsibility of others years later simply because one of the participants is now campaigning for office.
If a decision was collectively taken, accountability for that decision must also be understood collectively.
Leadership and discretion
There is, furthermore, a broader issue concerning internal party operations and security arrangements.
Not everything a serious political organisation does internally needs to be advertised publicly. Some arrangements work precisely because they are handled quietly and responsibly.
Leadership experience should therefore teach not only what was accomplished, but also what should be disclosed, when it should be disclosed and what properly belongs within the party’s internal structures.
Discretion is itself an element of leadership.
The full record matters
None of this diminishes John Boadu’s years of service to the NPP. He has experience, and he has every right to campaign on that experience.
But party delegates deserve the whole record, not a catalogue in which every success becomes an individual’s personal achievement while every setback becomes somebody else’s responsibility.
If 169 is part of your record, then 137 is also part of your record.
If collective party initiatives become your achievements, then collective party decisions cannot suddenly become the failures of others.
The real question for delegates, therefore, may not simply be: How experienced is John Boadu?
The more important question is: How complete and accurate is the account of that experience that delegates are being asked to believe?
The NPP has a long institutional history, and its achievements and setbacks have been shaped by many individuals and structures. A credible assessment of any candidate’s leadership record must therefore recognise both personal contributions and collective responsibility.
Let the campaign be vigorous. Let the contest be competitive. But above all, let the full story be told.
Authored by:
Michael Aikins Amadi
Lecturer, UPSA
