The NPP’s politics of reporting Ghana and Africa to Western powers, a shameful legacy?

There is something deeply disturbing, disgraceful and profoundly disappointing about the New Patriotic Party's (NPP) decision to petition the United States to suspend diplomatic courtesies for Ghanaian diplomatic and service passport holders. It is difficult to understand how a political party that claims to have Ghana's best interests at heart can repeatedly resort to involving foreign powers in matters that Ghana's own institutions are constitutionally mandated to investigate.

What exactly is wrong with the NPP? Have we reached a point where every domestic political disagreement must be carried to Washington for validation? Is Ghana no longer capable of investigating its own affairs? Must our sovereignty and international reputation become casualties of partisan bitterness?

Let me make one thing clear: if the allegations surrounding the issuance of service passports are true, those responsible must be investigated and held accountable. Nobody should misuse public office or obtain official travel documents through false representations. But there is a proper way to pursue accountability. Ghana has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament, the Auditor-General, the investigative institutions and the courts.

Why, then, must the NPP rush to ask a foreign government to impose restrictions on Ghanaian passport holders?

This is not patriotism. It is political vindictiveness, selfishness, recklessness and an embarrassing display of misplaced priorities.

The NPP cannot pretend that this tendency to look towards Western powers for political validation is entirely new.

During the Gold Coast era, the political tradition from which the NPP traces its ancestry, particularly the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), operated within the British colonial constitutional framework. The UGCC, led by figures including J.B. Danquah, petitioned the colonial administration for constitutional reforms and self-government. Following the 1948 disturbances, the colonial authorities arrested the Big Six, including Kwame Nkrumah and J.B. Danquah.

The subsequent political disagreements between the UGCC and Nkrumah's Convention People's Party became increasingly bitter. The struggle over the pace and direction of independence exposed deep political divisions.

History must be treated honestly: petitions to the colonial administration for constitutional reform were not inherently acts of betrayal. However, the lesson we must draw is that political rivalry becomes dangerous when external authorities are invited to become instruments in domestic political battles.

After independence in 1957, one would have expected Ghana's political class to develop an unshakeable commitment to defending the sovereignty and dignity of the new nation.

Yet, decades later, we are still witnessing political conduct that raises uncomfortable questions about colonial dependency and the inability to separate partisan interests from national interests.

We must also remember the diplomatic controversy surrounding former President Nana Akufo-Addo's December 2022 remarks in Washington about alleged Wagner Group activities in Burkina Faso.

His comments, made alongside US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, generated considerable diplomatic tension. Burkina Faso summoned Ghana's ambassador and subsequently recalled its ambassador for consultations.

Whether the security concerns were genuine is a separate matter. Regional security threats deserve serious attention. However, such sensitive issues require diplomatic tact, discretion and careful consideration of their consequences for neighbouring countries.

Why must Ghana repeatedly find itself in situations where its political and diplomatic engagements with Western powers become sources of unnecessary tension with fellow African countries?

The latest petition is another example of politics driven by bitterness, spite, vindictiveness, opportunism, pettiness and an alarming lack of political maturity.

It is reckless, irresponsible, intellectually disappointing and profoundly unpatriotic to celebrate opportunities to embarrass one's own country.

What kind of breed of political actors believes that undermining the international standing of Ghana is an acceptable way to score political points?

A responsible opposition would demand an independent audit, insist on parliamentary scrutiny and submit credible evidence to the appropriate Ghanaian authorities. It would protect the national interest while demanding accountability.

Instead, the NPP has chosen to invite American scrutiny and possible punitive treatment of Ghanaian passport holders.

Justin Kodua Frimpong must understand that the office of General Secretary demands maturity, sound judgment, restraint and intellectual responsibility. Opposition politics is not a licence for political sabotage.

The NPP must learn that Ghana is bigger than its electoral ambitions, bigger than its leadership and certainly bigger than its hatred for the NDC.

There is nothing admirable about political backbiting. There is nothing courageous about seeking foreign intervention to settle domestic political scores. And there is nothing patriotic about treating Ghana's international reputation as a weapon against political opponents.

We fought for independence in 1957 so that Ghanaians could determine their own destiny. We cannot celebrate sovereignty on Independence Day and surrender our national dignity whenever partisan interests demand it.

Ghana deserves an opposition that is intelligent, constructive, responsible and patriotic, not one consumed by bitterness, desperation, vindictiveness and an apparent obsession with seeking Western approval.

Our national interest must always come before partisan hatred. Enough of this destructive politics and treachery!