By: Godwin Ako Gunn
The reaction from some members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) to the appointment of Affi Agbenyo to the Electoral Commission (EC) offers an opportunity for a broader reflection on political consistency, fairness and the consequences of the standards political actors establish for others.
I do not know Affi Agbenyo personally, but the debate surrounding the appointment raises an important question: can political parties defend a principle when it serves their interests and condemn it when the same principle is applied under a different administration?
The answer should be straightforward. Fairness cannot be selective, and principles should not change simply because the political tables have turned.
The familiar golden rule says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is not merely a moral lesson; it is a reminder that the standards we demand of others must also guide our own conduct.
When the tables turn
The appointments of Dr. Bossman Asare, Appiagyei and other individuals to public positions attracted criticism over questions surrounding political affiliations and perceived partisan considerations. Those controversies generated arguments, defences and counterarguments from different sides of the political divide.
Miracle Aboagye and others who defended such appointments should take a moment to revisit the positions they adopted at the time. The arguments they advanced yesterday deserve the same scrutiny when circumstances change today.
If political affiliation, perceived loyalty or questions of impartiality were legitimate grounds for scrutiny then, similar concerns cannot simply be dismissed now because a different government is involved.
What goes around, indeed, comes around.
Our elders have a saying about chewing the hand of an ape: chew cautiously, because its hand looks remarkably like ours. The lesson is that the treatment we mete out to others can eventually become the treatment we receive.
Politics is no exception. Those who establish precedents while in power should remember that political power is temporary, and the same standards may one day be applied to them.
One appointment, a thousand reactions
The concerns being expressed by some NPP members over the latest EC appointment demonstrate how differently political actors can perceive similar situations depending on where they stand.
My concern is not that anyone should be denied the right to question an appointment. Scrutiny is essential to democracy, particularly when the independence and credibility of the Electoral Commission are at stake.
The real question is whether the same standards are being applied consistently.
If an appointment is considered defensible under one administration, what makes a comparable appointment unacceptable under another? If there are meaningful differences between the cases, those differences should be clearly explained. But if the objections are based on standards previously rejected or dismissed, the apparent inconsistency deserves examination.
We should not confuse accountability with political convenience.
For once, perhaps, those who previously defended controversial decisions can appreciate how others felt when similar concerns were raised against their own side. That is not an argument for revenge. It is an argument for reflection.
The politics of double standards
The debate also recalls the controversies surrounding appointments involving relatives of political leaders.
The NPP criticised John Dramani Mahama over allegations of appointing family members and friends. Similar questions were subsequently raised about appointments involving members of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s family during his administration.
Defenders of Akufo-Addo’s appointments argued, among other things, that his relatives were qualified and were entitled, as Ghanaian, to serve in public office.
That argument raises a legitimate question: were the relatives of Mahama not equally entitled to be considered for public office, subject to the same requirements of competence, fairness and due process?
The issue should never be whether a person belongs to one political leader’s family or another. The proper questions concern qualifications, transparent procedures, conflicts of interest and whether public appointments serve the national interest.
If competence is the standard, it must apply to everyone. If transparency is required, it cannot become optional when the individuals concerned are politically connected to those in power.
We cannot demand one standard from our opponents and invent exceptions for ourselves.
Remember the precedents
The controversies surrounding former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo and former Electoral Commission Chairperson Charlotte Osei also remain part of Ghana’s political and institutional history.
Their respective tenures and departures from office generated intense public debate, with competing interpretations of the decisions and processes involved. Those episodes continue to inform discussions about institutional independence, executive authority and the treatment of public officials.
Political actors who defended or celebrated decisions at the time should recognise that their arguments may later be revisited. What is defended as acceptable conduct under one administration can become a point of criticism when another government adopts a similar approach.
That is why public institutions must be governed by clear rules, transparent processes and respect for due process rather than the shifting preferences of political parties.
The Electoral Commission, in particular, must command public confidence. Appointments to the Commission should therefore be assessed through credible standards of competence, impartiality and institutional independence. Those standards must apply regardless of which party is in government.
The danger of political amnesia
One recurring weakness in Ghanaian politics is the tendency to forget yesterday’s arguments when today’s circumstances become uncomfortable.
Political parties often demand accountability while in opposition but become defensive when the same scrutiny turns towards them in government. They call for transparency when challenging their opponents, yet may question the motives of critics when their own decisions are examined.
This cycle weakens public trust.
No political party should claim a permanent monopoly on fairness, integrity or patriotism. Neither should any party assume that its interpretation of accountability must automatically become the national standard.
The NPP, like every other political party, has a responsibility to reflect on its previous positions and explain any apparent inconsistencies. That responsibility does not mean the party must remain silent about concerns it considers legitimate. It means those concerns should be advanced with arguments that can withstand the same scrutiny the party demands of others.
Criticism should be based on evidence and principle, not merely on who benefits or loses.
There is a popular Ghanaian expression: “If dog bite dog, blood no dey come.” Yet political disagreements leave consequences, even when those involved refuse to acknowledge them. Repeated inconsistency can erode credibility, deepen partisan divisions and make it harder for citizens to trust public institutions.
Ghana needs more than political quarrels
While political parties debate appointments and defend their respective positions, the country faces pressing challenges that require sustained attention.
Young people need jobs. Families need economic relief. Businesses need an environment in which they can grow. Communities need reliable public services, and citizens need leadership that delivers measurable results.
These priorities should not be lost in endless partisan exchanges.
This does not mean political appointments should escape scrutiny. On the contrary, a democracy depends on citizens, the media, civil society and political parties asking difficult questions about those entrusted with public responsibilities.
But such scrutiny is most valuable when it is consistent, evidence-based and directed towards strengthening institutions rather than scoring partisan points.
The appointment of Affi Agbenyo should therefore be considered on its merits, including the relevant qualifications, legal requirements and questions of impartiality. At the same time, those criticising it should be prepared to apply their stated principles consistently, just as those defending it should be willing to answer legitimate questions.
Fairness must not be a privilege reserved for political allies.
A lesson in humility
I hope the NPP and the wider political establishment will take this moment as an opportunity for reflection. The purpose should not be to celebrate anyone’s discomfort, but to encourage a political culture in which public standards are not adjusted to suit whoever holds power.
There comes a time when every political actor must pause and consider whether the arguments used against opponents are consistent with the principles they are willing to defend for themselves.
When that moment comes, humility must be demonstrated through conduct, not merely words. It must be reflected in a willingness to acknowledge mistakes, explain decisions and accept scrutiny without treating every criticism as a political attack.
The goal should not be to make one party suffer because another suffered before it. Rather, it should be to ensure that no party has to endure unfair treatment simply because it is out of power.
Ghana deserves a political culture in which fairness is not partisan, accountability is not selective, and institutional independence is not defended only when convenient.
Let us learn from yesterday, act responsibly today and build a better tomorrow.
To the NPP, this is an opportunity to revisit the arguments advanced in the past and consider whether they remain consistent with the concerns being expressed today. To all political actors, the lesson is the same: the standards you establish for others may one day become the standards by which your own actions are judged.
There is no need to celebrate another person’s discomfort or to turn every disagreement into a political spectacle. But neither should the public be asked to forget yesterday’s arguments simply because today’s circumstances have changed.
**Do not bleed publicly when you receive a higher dose of your own prescription. Instead, reflect on the prescription itself—and whether it was fair in the first place.**
The greater victory will not belong to the NPP, the NDC or any individual politician. It will belong to Ghana if fairness, competence, transparency and accountability become enduring principles of public life rather than convenient political talking points.
Keep hope alive. Better days are ahead.
KUN FA YAKUN.
Source : www.thenewindependentonline com