Introduction

In the high-stakes arena of Ghanaian politics, credibility and transparency are often the deciding factors in electoral success. With the New Patriotic Party (NPP) gearing up for its presidential primaries scheduled for January 31, 2026, internal scrutiny of the flagbearer aspirants has intensified. A significant development has emerged regarding Dr. Bryan Acheampong, one of the five prominent contenders.

Following a formal request under Ghana’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, Parliament has issued an official response that casts doubt on claims regarding Dr. Acheampong’s military background. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the RTI reaction, the specific claims in question, and the potential legal and political ramifications for the NPP flagbearer race.

Key Points

Background

The political climate within the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is currently charged with anticipation as the January 31, 2026, flagbearer election approaches. Dr. Bryan Acheampong, a former Minister of Agriculture and a Member of Parliament, stands as one of the five key aspirants seeking to lead the party into the 2028 general elections.

The Nature of the Claims

Dr. Acheampong has previously alluded to a background that includes military experience, specifically within the United States Air Force. In political circles, such claims often bolster a candidate’s profile, suggesting discipline, strategic thinking, and international exposure. However, these assertions have now been subjected to formal verification.

The Right to Information Mechanism

Ghana’s Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), provides a legal framework for citizens to access public information held by public institutions. Recognizing the importance of transparency in democratic processes, a formal RTI request was submitted to the Clerk to Parliament on November 4, 2025. The objective was simple: to verify whether Parliament held any official records confirming Dr. Acheampong’s alleged military service.

Analysis

The response from Parliament, dated December 11, 2025, and signed by the Clerk, Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror, provides a definitive answer to the RTI inquiry. The analysis of this response reveals three critical findings.

1. The Absence of Documentation

Parliament’s response explicitly states that there is no record of Dr. Acheampong submitting details regarding any rank of enlistment or discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces. Specifically, the institution confirmed it does not possess a Certificate of Honourable Discharge or any similar documentation.

From an administrative perspective, this suggests that if such service occurred, the necessary documentation was never formally presented to Parliament during his vetting or tenure. In the context of parliamentary protocol, where biographical data is usually compiled for records, this absence is notable.

2. The Legal Implications of False Declarations

While the RTI response does not constitute a finding of guilt, it opens the door to potential legal consequences. Ghanaian legal experts emphasize that statements made to Parliament carry significant weight. If a candidate submits a curriculum vitae (CV) or makes verbal assertions during parliamentary vetting that are found to be false, this could amount to perjury or deception of a public officer.

Under Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act, perjury is a misdemeanour, punishable by imprisonment. If it is established that Dr. Acheampong claimed military service to Parliament without substantiating it with evidence, he could face legal scrutiny beyond the political sphere.

3. The Political Fallout

The timing of this revelation is critical. With the NPP primaries less than a year away, delegates are increasingly focused on vetting the credibility of aspirants. The “integrity question” is often a decisive factor in Ghanaian elections. The absence of records regarding a claimed military background could be perceived as a lack of transparency, potentially influencing delegate sentiment.

Practical Advice

For political observers, party delegates, and the general public, navigating this developing story requires a careful approach. Here are practical steps for understanding the implications:

For Voters and Delegates

• Seek Primary Sources: Rely on official documents such as the RTI response rather than social media speculation.
• Contextualize the Issue: Understand that the RTI response confirms the absence of records in Parliament, but it does not definitively prove the non-existence of the service itself. It highlights a discrepancy in documentation rather than a direct factual dispute.

For Political Analysts

• Monitor Official Statements: Pay close attention to any rebuttal or clarification issued by Dr. Acheampong’s campaign team. A prompt response is often crucial in crisis management.
• Assess Compliance: Evaluate whether the candidate adhered to the Code of Conduct for aspirants regarding the disclosure of personal history.

Legal Perspective

If further investigation is launched, the burden of proof may shift. Legal counsel for the candidate would likely need to produce independent evidence of service, such as U.S. Department of Defense records, to counter the parliamentary findings.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What does the RTI response actually say?

The RTI response from Parliament confirms that they do not have any documents from Dr. Bryan Acheampong proving service in the U.S. Air Force or any other branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. They cannot provide certified copies of such service because no such documentation was ever submitted to them.

Does this mean Dr. Acheampong is lying?

Not necessarily. The response confirms the absence of records in Parliament. It does not serve as a legal verdict on whether the service took place. It does, however, raise questions about why such documentation was not provided to Parliament if the claims are true.

What is the penalty for false declaration in Ghana?

Under Ghanaian law, making a false statement to a public institution can lead to charges of perjury or deception of a public officer. Penalties can include fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity and context of the deception.

How does this affect the NPP flagbearer race?

Integrity is a major currency in political primaries. While this development may not disqualify Dr. Acheampong legally, it provides ammunition for political opponents and could sway undecided delegates who prioritize transparency.

Conclusion

The RTI reaction regarding Dr. Bryan Acheampong’s alleged military service has introduced a complex layer to the NPP’s upcoming flagbearer race. While Parliament’s response is definitive regarding its own records, it leaves broader questions unanswered.

The situation underscores the importance of the Right to Information Act as a tool for accountability in Ghana’s democracy. As the January 2026 primaries approach, the onus is now on the candidate to address these discrepancies to the satisfaction of the party delegates and the public. Whether this issue evolves into a major political scandal or is resolved through further clarification remains to be seen.

Sources

• Parliament of Ghana: Official RTI Response (Ref: RTI/2025/Nov/04)
• Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) – Republic of Ghana
• Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) – Republic of Ghana
• New Patriotic Party (NPP) Flagbearer Election Guidelines 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a formal accusation of wrongdoing. It is based on publicly available documents and official responses.