ACCRA — NPP flagbearer hopeful Kennedy Ohene Agyapong has doubled down on his earlier claim that Vice President Dr Mahamudu Bawumia is a “liar,” insisting he will not retract the remark despite heightened calls for calm and unity after the party’s Peace Pact signing.

His renewed defiance comes after what supporters describe as a nationwide chorus urging him to back down on the comments. In the midst of the backlash, a statement was issued by his campaign team—signed by Agyapong himself—apologising to Dr Bawumia.

However, following the Peace Pact event, Agyapong was later seen addressing constituents and appeared to reverse course, declaring he would not apologise.

“I will not apologise. I will apologise my foot. I don’t fear anybody,” he said, reinforcing his posture and suggesting he would not be pressured into withdrawing his remarks.

Agyapong’s comments formed part of a heated post-event account of the Peace Pact ceremony, where he said he resisted pressure and only agreed to sign after raising concerns about what he described as errors in the document.

He claimed he was the only candidate who spotted “glaring mistakes” in the pact, mocking some party figures for allegedly failing to scrutinise the text before endorsing it.

“Even PhD holders couldn’t see the mistakes,” he said, arguing that signing documents without careful review is dangerous and comparable to “signing your own death warrant.”

Agyapong said he “stood his ground” until his objections were acknowledged, portraying his stance as proof he would not compromise his outspoken style for political convenience as the party heads into a tense primary contest.

Analysis: Agyapong’s Flip-Flop Looks Reckless — and Unfair to Bawumia and Others

Agyapong’s conduct, as captured in this sequence of events, raises serious questions about consistency, judgement, and the discipline expected of a leading contender in a party that is publicly pleading for unity.

First, the most damaging element is the contradiction: a campaign statement signed by Agyapong himself issues an apology to Dr Bawumia, only for him to turn around shortly after and publicly reject that apology, doubling down on the insult. That reversal makes the apology appear not as a genuine act of responsibility, but as a tactical move to manage backlash—an approach that can easily be read as foolhardy and politically unserious.

Second, the refusal to withdraw the “liar” tag — even after a peace pact meant to cool tempers — undercuts the very spirit of the unity message the party sought to project. If a candidate signs onto peace and restraint, but immediately escalates rhetoric afterward, it sends a signal that the document is ceremonial to him, not binding in principle.

Third, the attack on other contestants as “blind PhD holders” is not only insulting; it is also unfair and unnecessary. If, as eyewitness accounts and the outcome suggest, there was nothing substantively wrong with the pact, then portraying colleagues as intellectually incapable for not “spotting mistakes” becomes mere political theatre. It’s a cheap shot that drags the contest away from ideas and credibility into mockery and personal attacks—exactly what peace pacts are meant to prevent.

Finally, and most importantly, this posture works in Dr Bawumia’s favour in the court of public reason. A Vice President does not need to trade insults to win credibility; the contrast between restraint and provocation is often enough. Where Agyapong’s comments read as combustible and impulsive, Dr Bawumia is better positioned to appear measured, focused, and presidential—the kind of temperament a party typically wants heading into a high-stakes national election cycle.

In short, signing an apology and then repudiating it publicly, while escalating insults against both Dr Bawumia and fellow aspirants, is not bold leadership — it is foolhardy political conduct that risks widening cracks in the party at the very moment it is trying to seal them.

Powered by Froala Editor