The New Patriotic Party’s decision to initiate processes to expel Professor Kwabena Frimpong Boateng has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholar and CDD Ghana Fellow, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, who described the move as both a strategic error and an unintended validation of the concerns raised by the former minister.
Professor Asare’s critique follows public remarks by Professor Frimpong Boateng, a long standing figure within the NPP, in which he questioned the current direction of the party, described its present form as “fake,” alleged corruption in its internal processes, and openly stated that he no longer associates himself with what he considers the current incarnation of the party.
In response, a statement attributed to the General Secretary of the NPP rejected these claims, denied allegations of irregularities in the party’s internal elections, and announced that steps had been taken to expel him.
“This reaction raises a broader question that goes beyond personalities: how should a democratic political party treat harsh internal criticism, especially when such criticism echoes concerns commonly raised during post-election introspection?”
CDD-Ghana Fellow and legal scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
From that standpoint, he contended that the decision to activate expulsion proceedings is fundamentally flawed. In his view, it is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive, as it reinforces rather than weakens the critique it seeks to suppress.
He noted that Professor Frimpong Boateng had already declared his disassociation from the party, making any attempt to expel him logically incoherent. According to Professor Asare, discipline in such circumstances becomes purely symbolic and strips the process of procedural meaning.
Troubling Signal of Intolerance
He further argued that the move sends a troubling signal about the party’s tolerance for internal dissent. Many of the issues raised by Professor Frimpong Boateng, he notes, are similar to concerns often voiced by party members when leadership seeks explanations for electoral defeat.
The difference, in this case, appears to be that the critique was made publicly. This, Professor Asare suggested, creates the impression that the party is less concerned with the substance of criticism than with its visibility.
Another concern raised by the legal scholar is what he described as the reframing of governance questions as disciplinary offenses. Allegations touching on internal democracy, transparency, and corruption, he argued, are matters of institutional governance that should invite inquiry and reform rather than punishment.
Treating such concerns as misconduct risks portraying principled dissent as indiscipline. Professor Asare also observes that the party’s response has amplified the criticism instead of neutralizing it.
He argued that without the announcement of expulsion proceedings, the remarks by Professor Frimpong Boateng would have remained part of an ongoing internal and public debate. By elevating the issue to a disciplinary confrontation, the party transformed it into a national controversy and extended its lifespan in the public domain.
Questions of procedure also feature prominently in Professor Asare’s critique. He noted that a party serious about due process should clearly cite the constitutional provisions relied upon, identify the appropriate disciplinary body, and outline the procedures to be followed.
Credibility Concerns
In his assessment, the statement announcing the expulsion process lacked these details, weakening its credibility and raising doubts about the seriousness of the action.
He further challenged the argument that acceptance of the results of a party’s primary by candidates automatically proves its integrity. While acknowledging that consensus can contribute to stability, Professor Asare argued that electoral integrity ultimately depends on transparency and verifiability rather than post election agreement among contenders.
At the heart of his argument is the belief that public criticism is not inherently anti-party conduct. In democratic traditions, he noted, there is a distinction between sabotage and critique.
Raising concerns about internal decay, even in strong terms, Professor Asare insisted, is not the same as campaigning against one’s party in an election. By focusing disciplinary attention on Professor Frimpong Boateng, Professor Asare argued that the NPP risks personalizing what are fundamentally systemic issues.
This, he said, diverts attention from the substance of the allegations to the character of the critic and avoids engagement with the deeper institutional questions raised.
In his view, the episode reinforces the very narrative the party seeks to reject. A confident and healthy political organization, he argued, responds to criticism with evidence, dialogue, and reform. Resorting to disciplinary threats, he warned, reinforces perceptions of weakened internal democracy and discourages honest feedback.
“GOGO’s bottom line is that this is not about Prof. Frimpong Boateng. Others have raised similar concerns. It is about whether the NPP treats criticism as feedback or as heresy. A party that punishes the messenger does not disprove the charge of decay. It advertises it.”
CDD-Ghana Fellow and legal scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
He also framed the incident as a test for the party’s presidential aspirants, arguing that leadership extends beyond winning primaries to setting the tone for accountability and reform. In moments like this, he cautioned, silence from aspiring leaders will not be neutral but will be interpreted as a position in itself.
READ ALSO: IES Hails Decisive US$1.47bn Energy Debt Clearance in Energy Sector
