It is instructive to listen to Lawyer Obiri Boahen’s political commentaries, but it is equally necessary to subject such narratives to critical historical and constitutional scrutiny. I have been following his recent submissions on pro-NPP platforms, particularly on Wontumi TV, with keen interest. While I appreciate his continued engagement in Ghana’s political discourse, I feel compelled—respectfully—to offer a constructive counterpoint to some of his remarks, especially regarding H.E. John Dramani Mahama and national leadership.
Lawyer Obiri Boahen’s commentary often presents monolithic arguments, violating the principle of audi alteram partem—the right to be heard on the other side. In his recent appearance on Wontumi TV (as aired on YouTube, 26 July 2026: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5d0og1HLYk), he criticised the Supreme Court’s decision to quash the arrest warrant against Kelvin Taylor. He further criticised President Mahama for allegedly allowing Taylor to associate with state security while the State commemorating the 13th anniversary of the late President Atta Mills. Strangely, he simultaneously showered praise on late Professor Atta Mills—forgetting that he himself once heavily criticised the late President.
When President Mills’ administration boycotted six Multimedia Group stations, Obiri Boahen called the decision “unthinkable, irresponsible, crude, and very dangerous for the nation’s democracy.” According to him, the President’s action was a mark of growing executive intolerance. In his mind Professor Mills’ decision was a sign of growing intolerance and executive overreach for someone who called himself a law professor. He and the NPP likened Mills’ actions to those of a dictator. On the issue of new biometric registration, he accused Professor Mills for making empty rhetoric about free and fair elections. And he attacked Electoral Commissioner who on two times brought his party to power. In 2011, he made shocking statements, including: “Should I see Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan suffering to the point of death on my way, I will never convey him in my car to the nearest hospital…” Despite Prof. Mills’ support for investigations in the Woyome case, Lawyer Obiri Boahen still accused him of undermining the Attorney-General and EOCO. He criticised Prof. Mills’ position on the Dagbon crisis, he then Minister of State at the Interior did nothing about Dagbon crisis. Where was the NPP government’s accountability when the Ya-Na was murdered under their administration? He also criticised Prof. Mills on the issue of a presidential jet, and much more.
As Deputy General Secretary of the NPP during the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election violence and the 2020 election killings (where eight lives were lost), Lawyer Obiri Boahen remained silent. Yet, he condemned the NDC’s peaceful protests in 2021 as “unnecessary,” asking them to go to court—ironically, the same court that just exonerated Kelvin Taylor.
It must be noted that President Mahama has never declared any intent to seek a third term Presidency. Yet, whenever the topic arises, Lawyer Obiri Boahen predicts doom. He lambasted his party’s former Chairman, Mr Freddie Blay, also a lawyer, when the latter shared his view that, President Mahama’s third term will be the decision by the electorates. He referred Lawyer Freddie Blay to 1964 referedum. Lawyer Boahen also went hard on the Krontihene of Akyem Asoum who proposed a constitutional review to allow President John Mahama run a third term. In all his submissions, if it’s not his party’s way, then it is the highway. If a democratically legitimate leader like President Mahama, who will abide by the constitution and people’s will, wishes to seek another term, what democratic principle would that violate?
In fact, many mature democracies allow non-consecutive terms—Brazil, France, Germany, and even the UK. Ghana’s 1992 Constitution limits presidents to two terms—not necessarily consecutive. Mahama served one term (2013–2017), lost re-election, and returned through democratic means in 2024. If he wishes to run a third term when it is possible, it is not unconstitutional—it is an expression of democratic choice.
Ghana, Singapore, and the Double Standard
Some NPP-aligned figures and some Ghanaians often idolise Singapore as a model of development but fail to understand its path. Lee Kuan Yew ruled for 31 years (1959–1990) and continued to wield significant influence as Senior Minister and Minister Mentor long after. Singapore’s transformation wasn’t achieved through revolving political doors but through continuity, strategic planning, and long-term governance. So why the outrage if President Mahama, assuming strong leadership and developmental vision, considers a third term? The fear-mongering is baseless and intellectually dishonest. President Mahama’s continued service, if chosen by the people, would not threaten democracy but reinforce it.
Revisiting Ghana’s History and Selective Memory
Today, most Ghanaians would have wished Dr. Kwame Nkrumah remained President with his developmental agenda until his demise. Let us not forget the role of the United Party (UP), led by Dr. J.B. Danquah, Dr. K.A. Busia, and Baffour Osei Akoto, in opposing Dr. Kwame Nkrumah—not merely through democratic means, but via alliances with colonial remnants and Western intelligence that undermined Ghana’s sovereignty. Declassified documents today confirm UP-tradition collusion in the 1966 coup. The consequences of that rupture have reverberated through every administration since. The same people who idolise Singapore’s one-party state now reject even democratic attempts at long-term leadership in Ghana. That’s a troubling double standard.
Constructive Political Engagement, Not Hypocrisy
Lawyer Obiri Boahen would better serve Ghana by engaging in constructive, evidence-based dialogue. His selective outrage —condemning Mr. Mahama while elevating himself and barely defending a struggling NPP—appears self-serving. As the Akan proverb says: “dze wo fie asem” fix your own house first. The NPP has lost credibility and public trust. Instead of introspection, Obiri Boahen attacks those trying to rebuild the nation. We must build institutions, not destroy reputations. Ghana deserves visionary leadership, not doom-saying; policy continuity, not partisan hypocrisy.
Conclusion
Lawyer Boahen’s alarmism over Mahama’s possible third-term bid ignores constitutional and comparative precedents. If constitutional amendments were proposed, that would be a matter for democratic debate—not automatic condemnation. Many democracies (e.g., Germany, UK) allow leaders multiple non-consecutive terms. Boahen’s selective outrage suggests partisan bias rather than principled constitutionalism. If constitutional amendments arise, it will be for the electorate and Parliament to decide—not partisan lawyers on television.
Lawyer Obiri Boahen’s argument reflects historical amnesia, legal misinterpretation, and selective constitutionalism. Ghana needs leaders and thinkers committed to long-term solutions, not media showmanship. We know how the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition opposed Nkrumah’s developmental model, yet today most praises countries like Singapore and Malaysia who adopted similar strategies like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Let’s not admire those countries results but reject the very methods that built them.
Let us rise above petty partisanship and focus on sustainable governance. That is how we develop Ghana—not by shouting doom, but by offering bold ideas and institutional reform.
If you have nothing to say, don’t say it here.
Written by:
Lewis Kwame Addo
Amsterdam
