Nana Akomea, a stalwart of the New Patriotic Party
Veteran NPP stalwart Nana Akomea has strongly rebutted Kennedy Agyapong’s recent claims that Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia’s religious background cost the New Patriotic Party (NPP) the 2024 general elections.
In a pointed response, Akomea described Agyapong’s argument as “not tenable” and labeled it “a dangerous campaign strategy.”
Kennedy Agyapong, who lost to Bawumia in the party’s presidential primaries, recently alleged that the NPP’s defeat was partly due to Christian voters rejecting a Muslim flagbearer.
However, in an interview with Citi News, Nana Akomea dismissed the remarks as not only unfounded but also potentially divisive.
“Even Mahama, as President, lost the 2016 elections, but nobody said he lost because of his religion,” Akomea stated.
“So the impression that Bawumia — or the NPP — lost because the candidate was a Muslim is not even tenable, apart from it being such a dangerous campaign strategy.”
He went on to dismantle Kennedy’s theory by citing the outcome of the NPP’s own presidential primaries as evidence that religion was not a barrier.
“Look, if the NPP wanted only Christian leaders, how come in last year’s presidential primary, there were nine Christians and only one Muslim?” Akomea asked.
“In both stages of the primary — the super delegates and the main election — Bawumia won against all his opponents, who were Christians, including Kennedy Agyapong himself.”
So what is the basis of the belief that Christians in the NPP do not want a Muslim candidate? It doesn’t hold any water at all.”
Kennedy Agyapong had earlier stirred controversy by insisting that the NPP’s tradition doesn’t guarantee second chances to underperforming candidates.
“Let no one be deceived, he said. “Our party has a history of rewarding strong candidates. If you lead us into an election and perform abysmally, you should not expect another chance.”
He argued that Bawumia’s poor showing in the 2024 elections should disqualify him from another run, while also linking the defeat to religious bias within the party’s Christian majority — a claim that has drawn sharp criticism from both party elders and grassroots members.