By In a stunning revelation buried on page 122 of the Mike Oquaye Committee Report, Fiifi Boafo, the spokesperson for the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) 2024 running mate, Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh (popularly known as NAPO), delivers a candid and explosive critique of his principal. The quote, which has sent shockwaves through Ghana’s political landscape, exposes Boafo’s frustration, disillusionment, and ethical dilemmas while defending NAPO’s controversial conduct during the 2024 election campaign.
The statement raises serious questions about the NPP’s internal dynamics, the suitability of its running mate, and the credibility of its campaign strategy. This article dissects Boafo’s confession, its implications for Ghanaian politics, and the broader lessons it holds for political communication and leadership selection.
The Context: The Oquaye Report and the NPP’s 2024 Defeat
The Mike Oquaye Committee was constituted by the NPP to investigate the party’s unexpected defeat in the 2024 general elections, a loss that ended its eight-year tenure in power. Led by former Speaker of Parliament Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye, the committee sought to identify the factors—strategic, operational, and political—that contributed to the party’s electoral failure. The report, intended as an internal diagnostic tool, has inadvertently become a lightning rod for controversy due to leaks like Boafo’s statement, which expose fissures within the party.
Boafo’s role as NAPO’s spokesperson placed him at the heart of the NPP’s campaign machinery. Tasked with managing communications for Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia’s running mate, Boafo was responsible for shaping public perception of NAPO, a polarizing figure known for his outspokenness and occasional gaffes. The Oquaye Report, however, reveals that this role took a significant toll on Boafo, pushing him to the brink of abandoning his duties and questioning the viability of NAPO’s candidacy.
The Quote: A Crisis of Conscience
Boafo’s words are a rare glimpse into the personal and professional struggles of a political operative caught between loyalty to his party and fidelity to the truth. He confesses: “There was a point I genuinely wanted to give up on him—having to explain away the reckless statements of a grown man felt like an insult to the intelligence of Ghanaians. I found myself lying just to convince the public to see things differently, even though his words were crystal clear. Honestly, if given the chance, our running mate should be replaced.”
This statement is remarkable for several reasons. First, it highlights Boafo’s exasperation with NAPO’s “reckless statements,” which he felt compelled to defend despite their indefensibility. While the report does not specify which statements Boafo refers to, NAPO’s campaign was marred by several high-profile controversies.
For instance, during his unveiling in Kumasi on July 9, 2024, NAPO claimed that no Ghanaian president, including Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, had developed the country as much as President Nana Akufo-Addo—a remark widely criticized as disrespectful and historically inaccurate. Boafo himself addressed the backlash, arguing on Joy FM that NAPO’s intent was not to denigrate Nkrumah but to express a personal opinion, a defense that strained credulity for many Ghanaians.
Second, Boafo’s admission that he “found [himself] lying” to the public is a startling acknowledgment of ethical compromise. As a seasoned communications professional and Head of Corporate Affairs at Ghana’s COCOBOD, Boafo was no stranger to managing complex narratives. Yet, his confession suggests that defending NAPO required him to cross a moral line, fabricating explanations that he knew misrepresented the truth. This raises troubling questions about the integrity of the NPP’s campaign and the pressures faced by spokespersons in high-stakes political environments.
Finally, Boafo’s call for NAPO’s replacement is a direct indictment of the NPP’s decision to select him as Bawumia’s running mate. It suggests that, in Boafo’s view, NAPO’s liabilities—his propensity for controversial statements and perceived arrogance—outweighed his contributions to the ticket. This sentiment, expressed by someone so close to NAPO, underscores the internal doubts that plagued the NPP’s campaign and may have contributed to its electoral defeat.
The Implications: A Fractured Campaign and a Question of Leadership
Boafo’s confession points to deeper issues within the NPP’s 2024 campaign. The selection of NAPO as running mate was a strategic gamble, intended to energize the party’s base in the Ashanti Region, a traditional stronghold, while leveraging his reputation as a results-oriented minister. However, his tenure as Education and Energy Minister was not without criticism, and his brash communication style alienated segments of the electorate. Boafo’s statement suggests that these flaws were not merely external perceptions but were acutely felt within the campaign team itself.
The revelation also casts a shadow over the NPP’s leadership selection process. Why was NAPO chosen despite his known tendencies for provocative rhetoric? Did the party underestimate the electoral cost of his controversies, or was there a lack of viable alternatives? Boafo’s desire to “give up” on NAPO hints at a broader failure of vetting and preparation, leaving the campaign vulnerable to self-inflicted wounds.
Moreover, Boafo’s admission of lying to the public raises ethical questions about political communication in Ghana. In a democracy where trust in institutions is already fragile, the deliberate dissemination of misleading narratives risks further eroding public confidence. Boafo’s candor, while admirable in retrospect, underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in how political messages are crafted and delivered.
The Broader Lessons: Political Accountability and Reform
The Fiifi Boafo confession is more than a footnote in the Oquaye Report; it is a clarion call for introspection within the NPP and Ghana’s political class. First, it highlights the importance of selecting candidates who can unite rather than divide. NAPO’s controversies, as recounted by Boafo, suggest that his selection was a miscalculation that may have cost the NPP dearly. Political parties must prioritize candidates whose records and temperaments can withstand the scrutiny of a national campaign.
Second, the episode underscores the need for ethical standards in political communication. Spokespersons like Boafo operate in high-pressure environments, often tasked with defending the indefensible. Parties should foster cultures that encourage honesty and accountability, rather than forcing operatives to resort to falsehoods to protect flawed candidates.
Finally, the leak of Boafo’s statement from the Oquaye Report raises questions about the NPP’s ability to manage internal dissent and maintain confidentiality. The report was meant to be a private reckoning, yet its contents have fueled public debate, exposing the party’s vulnerabilities. This suggests a need for stronger internal cohesion and discipline as the NPP seeks to rebuild ahead of future elections.
Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning
Fiifi Boafo’s confession on page 122 of the Oquaye Report is a bombshell that lays bare the tensions, missteps, and ethical dilemmas that defined the NPP’s 2024 campaign. His frustration with NAPO’s reckless statements, his admission of lying to the public, and his call for the running mate’s replacement paint a picture of a campaign in disarray, undermined by its own choices.
For the NPP, this revelation is a moment of reckoning, demanding a thorough reassessment of its strategies and values. For Ghanaians, it is a reminder of the importance of holding political actors accountable and demanding leadership that respects the intelligence and aspirations of the electorate. As the dust settles on the 2024 elections, Boafo’s words will linger as a cautionary tale for political parties and communicators alike: authenticity and integrity are not just virtues—they are electoral imperatives.
Note: The quote attributed to Fiifi Boafo is presented as provided, but its authenticity within the Oquaye Report could not be independently verified due to the report’s internal nature. This analysis assumes its accuracy for the purpose of discussion.
