Nana Boakye Criticizes Special Prosecutor’s Primaries Investigation: A Detailed Analysis

Introduction: A Political Firestorm Over Investigative Timing

In a significant development within Ghana’s political landscape, Henry Nana Boakye, the National Organizer of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has launched a sharp critique against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). His criticism centers on the OSP’s public announcement of investigations into alleged vote-purchasing during the 2026 presidential primaries of the NPP and the parliamentary primaries of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) in Ayawaso East. Speaking on Joy FM’s Newsnight program on February 17, 2026, Boakye characterized the OSP’s actions as “irresponsible,” questioning the institution’s equity, consistency, and motives. This incident has ignited a broader debate on the role of independent investigative bodies in democracies, the management of internal party elections, and the specter of selective enforcement. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized examination of the controversy, unpacking the key claims, the legal and political background, and the potential ramifications for Ghana’s governance and electoral integrity.

Key Points: Deconstructing Nana Boakye’s Critique

The core of Boakye’s argument rests on several interconnected pillars. Understanding these points is essential for grasping the full scope of the political and institutional dispute.

• Questionable Timing and Selective Disclosure: Boakye highlights a perceived discrepancy in the OSP’s response timeline. He notes that while the OSP promptly issued a statement about the NDC’s Ayawaso East primary on February 7, 2026, there was no immediate public communication following the NPP’s presidential primaries on January 31, 2026. The OSP’s February 8, 2026 announcement combined both events, which Boakye suggests creates an impression of “equalization” rather than impartial fact-finding.
• Accusations of Selective Enforcement: The NPP Organizer alleges that the OSP’s decision to publicly focus on specific allegations while appearing to delay scrutiny of others fosters an environment of “selective enforcement.” This perception, he argues, undermines public trust in the OSP as a non-partisan institution.
• Downplaying the Significance of Reported Inducements: Addressing the substance of the vote-buying allegations within the NPP primaries, Boakye contends that the financial amounts reported to have been offered to delegates (e.g., 100 or 500 Ghana cedis) are too insignificant to meaningfully influence a delegate’s vote. He frames these as nominal “transportation” fees rather than corrupt inducements capable of altering election outcomes.
• Call for Responsible Institutional Conduct: Underpinning his remarks is a broader call for the OSP to exercise greater responsibility and consistency in its public communications, especially when dealing with matters involving major political parties during sensitive electoral periods.

Background: The OSP, Ghana’s Political Parties, and Primaries

The Mandate of the Office of the Special Prosecutor

Established under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), the OSP is an independent prosecutorial institution with a specific mandate to investigate and prosecute corruption and corruption-related offenses. Its jurisdiction includes cases involving politically exposed persons (PEPs) and matters where the Attorney-General’s department has a conflict of interest or is perceived to lack independence. The OSP operates with considerable autonomy, a design intended to bolster Ghana’s fight against grand corruption. Its high-profile nature means its actions, particularly those touching on politics, are intensely scrutinized.

The Context of Ghana’s 2026 Internal Party Elections

The year 2026 is a pivotal one in Ghana’s political calendar, leading up to the general elections in December 2028. The NPP, the incumbent party, held its presidential primaries on January 31, 2026, to select a flagbearer to lead the party into the next general election. The NDC, the main opposition, held its parliamentary primaries for the Ayawaso East constituency on February 7, 2026. Internal party primaries in Ghana are often marked by intense delegate mobilization, where candidates and their teams engage in various forms of outreach, including the provision of logistical support, gifts, and monetary assistance—a practice frequently blurred with allegations of “vote-buying” or “delegate inducement.” These allegations are perennial and form a persistent challenge to the perceived integrity of candidate selection processes.

Analysis: Dissecting the Arguments and Implications

The Principle of Selective Enforcement and Its Dangers

Boakye’s central accusation of “selective enforcement” strikes at a fundamental principle of the rule of law: justice must be blind and applied uniformly. In legal and governance theory, selective enforcement occurs when an authority targets specific individuals or groups for investigation or prosecution while ignoring others who may be similarly situated, often due to improper motives like political bias. The perception of such selectivity can be as damaging as the act itself, eroding institutional legitimacy. In this case, the OSP’s simultaneous announcement of investigations into both the NPP and NDC events was an attempt to preempt such criticism. However, Boakye’s focus on the timing of the public statement versus the timing of the events themselves suggests a different narrative: that the OSP reacted with alacrity to the NDC matter but was slower to act on the NPP matter, only combining them after public and media pressure. The OSP has not publicly commented on the internal timelines of its investigations, which are often complex and confidential. The gap between the January 31 NPP primaries and the February 8 OSP statement is approximately one week, a period that could be explained by preliminary fact-finding. However, in the hyper-sensitive arena of political competition, such a delay can be framed as deliberate and discriminatory.

Evaluating the “Irresponsibility” of Public Statements

Boakye labels the OSP’s statement as “irresponsible.” This charge can be analyzed on two levels: procedural and substantive. Procedurally, an “irresponsible” statement might be one issued prematurely, before evidence is solid, thereby prejudicing public opinion and the reputations of individuals and parties before any formal findings. Substantively, it might be a statement that lacks nuance, overstates a case, or fails to acknowledge the preliminary nature of an investigation. The OSP’s February 8 statement, as referenced, likely followed a standard format: announcing the commencement of investigations based on “credible information” or “allegations.” Such announcements are common for high-profile bodies to signal their attentiveness to public concerns. However, critics argue that when an institution like the OSP makes such an announcement, it inevitably casts a shadow of guilt over the named entities, regardless of the ultimate outcome. The “irresponsibility” claim, therefore, may hinge on whether the OSP adequately balanced its duty to inform the public with the presumption of innocence and the potential for reputational harm.

The Legal Threshold for “Vote-Buying” and Inducement

Boakye’s attempt to downplay the reported sums (100-500 GHS) as non-influential “transportation” touches on a critical legal and practical gray area. What constitutes illegal vote-buying or inducement? Ghanaian law, including the Criminal Offences Act and the Representation of the People’s Law, prohibits bribery and corruption in elections. The legal test often involves proving that a payment or gift was given with the intent to corruptly influence a vote. The amount is a factor but not the sole determinant. A token given universally as logistical support may be different from a targeted, conditional payment. Boakye’s argument that such small sums “cannot induce anyone” is a factual and political assertion. Opponents would counter that in a system where delegates may face significant personal costs to participate (transport, accommodation, time off work), even modest sums can be a decisive factor, especially if distributed selectively to key influencers. The legal determination would depend on evidence of quid pro quo—the explicit or implicit linkage between the money and the required vote. This is precisely the type of factual inquiry the OSP’s investigation is tasked with uncovering.

The Politics of Perception and the “Equalization Mechanism”

Boakye’s most potent political charge is the suggestion that the OSP engaged in an “equalization mechanism.” This implies that the OSP, perhaps under perceived pressure to appear balanced, deliberately paired the NPP and NDC cases to avoid accusations of targeting the opposition (NDC) or the governing party (NPP). By doing so, it may have inadvertently created a new problem: the appearance of treating two potentially disparate sets of facts and allegations as equivalent for the sake of optics. In politics, “equalization” is a common tactic to neutralize criticism. When applied by a state prosecutorial body, it raises profound questions about whether investigative priorities are being driven by evidence and legal merit or by public relations calculus. The OSP’s mandate is to pursue corruption wherever it is found, not to ensure that each high-profile party is “represented” equally in its press releases. The perception that it is doing the latter can be catastrophic for its credibility.

Practical Advice: For Political Parties, Delegates, and the Public

For Political Party Leadership and Candidates

• Institute Clear, Transparent Delegate Support Policies: Parties should codify unambiguous rules regarding financial support for delegates during primaries. This includes setting standardized, publicly declared rates for legitimate logistical support (transport, accommodation) that are uniform for all delegates, eliminating room for discretionary, targeted cash handouts.
• Conduct Proactive Internal Audits: Following primaries, party internal audit committees should rigorously review all campaign expenditures related to delegate mobilization. This creates an internal record that can demonstrate compliance if external questions arise.
• Engage Constructively with the OSP: If contacted, parties should cooperate fully and transparently. A proactive approach, including voluntarily disclosing internal financial records related to the primaries, can help counter narratives of guilt and demonstrate a commitment to clean politics.
• Reframe the Narrative: Instead of solely attacking the OSP’s timing, parties should articulate a clear, positive vision for internal democracy and use this moment to advocate for comprehensive campaign finance reforms that apply to all parties.

For Delegates and Aspiring Office Holders

• Understand the Legal Risks: Delegates must know that accepting money or gifts with an explicit or implicit understanding to vote a certain way can expose them to charges of corruption or bribery, carrying severe penalties including fines and imprisonment.
• Document All Interactions: If approached with inducements, delegates should document the offer (date, amount, source, conditions). Whistleblower protections, while not perfectly robust, exist and can be invoked.
• Vote Based on Conviction, Not Cash: Beyond legal risks, selling one’s vote undermines the delegate’s own integrity and the quality of governance the party can ultimately provide. Delegates