Peace pacts or publicity stunts? The National Peace Council’s role in perpetuating electoral injustice

The National Peace Council's overture for a Peace Pact ahead of the December elections reeks of a disingenuous charade, one that fundamentally disregards the brutal realities faced by the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The Council’s insistence on yet another superficial pact, without first confronting the festering wounds of past electoral violence, is not just ineffectual—it is dangerously complicit in perpetuating a deeply flawed electoral system.

The NDC’s refusal to endorse this hollow gesture is not merely a principled stance—it is an act of self-preservation in a political landscape where justice remains elusive. In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, where eight of their members were slaughtered with impunity, the Peace Council's failure to demand accountability is nothing short of scandalous. These are not isolated tragedies to be shrugged off as collateral damage; they are emblematic of a broader culture of state-sponsored violence that the Peace Council has shamefully chosen to overlook.

The Peace Council’s call for the NDC to "let bygones be bygones" is an affront to the families of the slain and to the very concept of justice. To sweep such atrocities under the carpet in the name of political expediency is to engage in a grotesque form of moral abdication. The Council's role, ostensibly that of an impartial arbiter, is undermined by its own inertia and selective blindness. By pushing for a Peace Pact without first securing justice for the victims, the Peace Council is asking the NDC to endorse a rigged game—a game where the rules are bent to favour those who wield power, no matter the human cost.

The NDC’s demands are not outlandish; they are fundamental to the preservation of any credible democratic process. They call for the prosecution of those responsible for electoral violence, the impartiality of the Electoral Commission, and the assurance that the rule of law will be respected by all parties, including the sitting President. These are not radical notions—they are the bedrock upon which any genuine democracy must be built. To dismiss these demands, as the Peace Council seems willing to do, is to condone the very injustices that have marred Ghana’s electoral history.

Globally, in nations where democracy has matured and electoral integrity is a non-negotiable standard, peace accords are more than mere symbolic gestures. They are underpinned by robust institutions that enforce accountability, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that all parties compete on an even playing field. The Peace Council’s reluctance to insist on these same standards for Ghana exposes a troubling complacency that threatens to derail the nation’s democratic trajectory. Their current approach—one that prioritizes optics over substance—is not only inadequate but perilously close to complicity.

The Council’s failure to address the NDC’s grievances is not just a misstep; it is a dereliction of duty that risks legitimizing an electoral process fraught with biases and irregularities. By turning a blind eye to the structural flaws within the Electoral Commission and the security apparatus—flaws that the NDC has emphatically highlighted—the Peace Council is tacitly endorsing an environment where electoral malfeasance can thrive. This is not the path to peace; it is a recipe for chaos.

The Peace Council must awaken from its stupor and confront the harsh realities that threaten to undermine the integrity of Ghana’s democratic process. It must demand accountability for past electoral violence, push for reforms within the Electoral Commission and security forces, and ensure that the upcoming elections are conducted in a manner that is both free and fair. Anything less would be an unforgivable betrayal of the principles of justice and democracy.

Furthermore, the NDC’s demand for the electoral commissioner, the chief justice, the attorney general, the inspector general of police, the president, and the national security coordinator to all sign the pact is not only appropriate but necessary. These are the very actors who hold the levers of power and influence over the electoral process. Their signatures on the Peace Pact would signal a binding commitment to uphold the integrity of the elections, ensuring that justice is served in the event of any malfeasance or dereliction of duty. Without their explicit and public commitment, any talk of peace remains hollow, a mere veneer masking the rot beneath.

The NDC’s position is not one of intransigence; it is a clarion call for a democracy that is worth its name. Their refusal to sign the Peace Pact under the current conditions is not a rejection of peace—it is a demand for a peace that is anchored in justice, fairness, and respect for the rule of law. The Peace Council, if it is to have any credibility at all, must heed this call. If it continues down its current path, it will not be remembered as a guardian of peace, but as a willing accomplice in the erosion of Ghana’s democratic foundations.