Here’s a bold statement: Ghana’s former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has been accused of leaving the nation in a fragile state, and the allegations are sparking intense debate. But here’s where it gets controversial—private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has publicly criticized Akufo-Addo, claiming he mismanaged the country and failed to deliver on key promises, particularly in the fight against corruption and constitutional reforms. In a viral video, Kpebu didn’t hold back, arguing that Akufo-Addo’s tenure was marked by unfulfilled commitments and a lack of progress in critical areas.
Kpebu highlighted one glaring issue: Akufo-Addo’s eight-year blockade of constitutional review efforts. This delay, according to Kpebu, prevented Ghanaians from electing Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs), a move that could have strengthened accountability at the local level. And this is the part most people miss—Kpebu claims that despite Akufo-Addo’s promises, none of the proposals from the FIADU commission were implemented during his term.
On the topic of corruption, Kpebu didn’t mince words. He asserted that Akufo-Addo’s record was worse than that of his predecessor, John Dramani Mahama. Pointing to the Corruption Perception Index, Kpebu noted that Akufo-Addo failed to outperform Mahama in any of his eight years in office. Here’s the kicker—Kpebu argues that Mahama also fared better on economic performance, press freedom, and democracy indices, raising questions about Akufo-Addo’s overall leadership.
Kpebu’s frustration was palpable as he stated, ‘He misgoverned us, retrogressed us. He couldn’t fight corruption, and he deceived citizens with unfulfilled promises.’ Kpebu vowed to continue his criticism until Akufo-Addo offers an unqualified apology to Ghanaians, emphasizing that his stance is not personal but rooted in accountability.
Now, here’s a thought-provoking question—can leaders be held accountable for unfulfilled promises, or is it unfair to judge them solely on what they didn’t achieve? Kpebu’s bold claim that Akufo-Addo is the ‘mother serpent of corruption’ is sure to spark differing opinions. He argues that leaders cannot deceive citizens with promises of reform only to deliver the opposite. But is this a fair assessment, or is there more to the story?
Kpebu’s critique extends beyond corruption. He accuses Akufo-Addo of failing to strengthen democracy and press freedom, areas where he claims Mahama performed better. And this is where it gets even more contentious—Kpebu insists that Akufo-Addo owes Ghanaians not just one, but multiple apologies, even suggesting he should ‘kneel down’ to show sincerity. Is this a reasonable demand, or does it go too far?
As the debate heats up, one thing is clear: Kpebu’s allegations are not just about policy failures but about trust and leadership. Here’s the final question for you—do you agree with Kpebu’s assessment, or do you think Akufo-Addo’s legacy is being unfairly tarnished? Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments—your voice matters!
