Kennedy Agyapong Critiques NPP Peace Pact: The Controversy Over Dr. Bryan Acheampong and PhD Holders

Introduction

In the high-stakes environment of Ghanaian political primaries, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) recently attempted to foster internal cohesion through a peace pact ahead of its January 31 presidential primary. However, rather than serving as a unifying symbol, the signing ceremony sparked a significant controversy. Kennedy Agyapong, the Member of Parliament for Assin Central and a presidential aspirant, publicly criticized the process, accusing fellow contender Dr. Bryan Acheampong of inadvertently signing his name on the document. Furthermore, Agyapong took aim at three PhD-holding aspirants, suggesting they signed the agreement without thoroughly reading its contents. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the events, the specific clauses that triggered the dispute, and the broader implications for democratic processes and political accountability in Ghana.

Key Points

Background

Political peace pacts are standard procedures in Ghanaian election cycles, designed to ensure that competition remains healthy and does not devolve into violence or irreparable factionalism. In the context of the NPP’s internal presidential primary, the stakes were particularly high. The party was selecting a candidate to potentially succeed President Nana Akufo-Addo, leading to intense rivalry among the flagbearer aspirants.

The ceremony, held on January 23, 2026, was attended by all five major aspirants and senior party officials. The goal was to commit to “election harmony,” a pledge to accept the electoral management body’s verdict and to ensure that supporters remain calm throughout the process. However, the atmosphere turned tense when Kennedy Agyapong raised objections during the signing, refusing to immediately append his signature to the document presented.

Analysis

The “Bryan Acheampong” Incident

During a delegates’ meeting in Assin North, Kennedy Agyapong recounted the events of the signing ceremony with vivid detail. He alleged that Dr. Bryan Acheampong, another aspirant, signed the document in Agyapong’s designated spot. According to Agyapong, this was not a malicious act but a result of carelessness.

“They didn’t read the document. In my case, Hon Dr Bryan Acheampong signed at my place because he didn’t read,” Agyapong stated. He used this incident to draw a sharp contrast between his approach and that of his competitors. He quipped, “Me, am I a PhD holder? Three PhD holders. That’s how they sell Ghana by signing papers without reading.”

This statement serves as a metaphor for Agyapong’s broader campaign narrative: that academic credentials do not necessarily equate to practical competence or vigilance. By framing the incident as a mistake born of haste, he positions himself as the “man of the people” who pays attention to detail where the “elites” do not.

The Contested Clause: Acceptance of Results

The core of Agyapong’s objection lay in the second point of the peace pact document. The clause required aspirants to sign a binding agreement to accept the outcome of the primary election, even if the process was flawed or perceived as unfair.

Agyapong argued that signing such a blanket waiver was dangerous given the history of the NPP’s internal elections. He stated, “When I got to point two on the document, it instructed us to sign and agree that, however the election goes, whether you’ve been cheated or not, you should accept it. That’s where I questioned the document because of precedence.”

His refusal to sign immediately was rooted in a desire for accountability. He believed that agreeing to accept a potentially rigged outcome would set a bad precedent and embolden those who might manipulate the process.

Historical Precedents and Grievances

To substantiate his refusal, Agyapong cited specific irregularities he alleged occurred during the 2023 NPP primaries. These examples were intended to demonstrate that his skepticism was not theoretical but based on lived experience.

• 100% vs. 92%: He noted an instance where a candidate reportedly received 100% of the vote in a particular area, while he received 92%, suggesting statistical anomalies.
• Nchumuru Discrepancy: He claimed he received 104 votes but was officially recorded as receiving only 14.
• Bunkpurugu Anomaly: He alleged receiving zero votes in Bunkpurugu despite having two witnesses who testified to voting for him.

By highlighting these discrepancies, Agyapong framed the peace pact not as a tool for harmony, but potentially as a mechanism to silence legitimate complaints about electoral integrity.

The Omission of the Collation Clause

While Agyapong’s public critique focused on the “acceptance of results” clause, his spokesperson, Kwasi Kwarteng, provided further context regarding a procedural omission. In an interview with Channel One TV, Kwarteng explained that the final document presented at the ceremony differed from what had been previously discussed.

Earlier negotiations between the aspirants, the Presidential Election Committee, and the Electoral Commission had agreed that voting centers would also serve as collation centers. Crucially, there was a provision that results from any center where security was compromised would not be counted.

However, this critical safety mechanism was missing from the document presented for signing. “The expectation was that the organisers would have served the parties with the documents… so that they would have read earlier,” Kwarteng said. He revealed that upon Agyapong’s protest, Joseph Osei Owusu, the Chairman of the Presidential Election Committee, admitted the omission was an error and provided verbal assurance that the clause would be inserted later.

This revelation suggests that Agyapong’s objection was not merely performative but based on a legitimate discrepancy between the agreed terms and the written document.

Practical Advice

For political stakeholders, party delegates, and observers, the controversy surrounding the NPP peace pact offers several practical lessons on navigating complex political agreements:

1. The Importance of Due Diligence

Kennedy Agyapong’s critique of the PhD holders highlights a universal principle: never sign a document without reading it thoroughly. In legal and political contexts, “ignorance of the content” is rarely a valid defense once a signature is affixed. Aspiring leaders must prioritize scrutiny over ceremony.

2. Understanding “Unconscionable” Clauses

Clauses that require unconditional acceptance of outcomes—regardless of fairness—can be legally and ethically problematic. Before signing such agreements, stakeholders should:

• Consult legal counsel to understand the binding nature of the waiver.
• Negotiate for “good faith” clauses that protect against demonstrable fraud.
• Ensure that verbal assurances (like the one regarding collation centers) are codified in writing.

3. Verification of Draft Documents

As noted by Kwasi Kwarteng, receiving documents in advance is crucial. In high-pressure environments, errors like the one involving Dr. Bryan Agyapong’s signature or omitted clauses are common. Best practice dictates:

• Request draft copies of agreements at least 48 hours before signing ceremonies.
• Compare the final draft against previous versions to identify changes or omissions.
• Designate a legal team to perform a “redline” comparison of documents.

FAQ

Conclusion

The incident involving Kennedy Agyapong, Dr. Bryan Acheampong, and the NPP peace pact serves as a microcosm of the tensions inherent in competitive democratic processes. It underscores the delicate balance between maintaining party harmony and ensuring electoral integrity. Agyapong’s refusal to sign blindly, and his subsequent critique of the “PhD holders,” reflects a demand for transparency and a rejection of procedural complacency. While the peace pact was eventually signed, the controversy highlights the necessity for rigorous scrutiny of political agreements to ensure that all parties fully understand the commitments they are making.