President Nana Akufo-Addo has shown weakness in his dealing with the “NPP members are more Ghanaian than other Ghanaians” gaffe committed by Ghana’s High Commissioner to South Africa, George Ayisi-Boateng, former President John Mahama has said.Speaking to a crowd of National Democratic Congress supporters in the Central Region on Sunday, 5 November after a Unity Walk, Mr Mahama said: “Finally, let me talk about the president not putting his foot down.”
According to him, Ghana has a constitution which is “the supreme law of the land and, so, if you are a party officer, you can say whatever you want, there is no problem. You can say all jobs should go to NDC people before it goes to NPP people. That’s if you are Allotey Jacobs, you can say that because government doesn’t pay you, taxpayers don’t pay you, you haven’t sworn an oath to anybody.
“But when you are appointed as a High Commissioner and then you swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of Ghana and the Constitution of Ghana says: ‘There shall be no discrimination, and that you shall do justice to all manner of persons, that’s what the constitution of Ghana says, then you come and say – have you read animal Farm before? – It says all animals are equal – that’s how they started when they did the revolution. Then when Napoleon and the pigs started enjoying, they had to justifying why they were enjoying, and, so, they said: ‘All animals are equal but some are more equal than others’.
He said “when they [NPP] were looking for your vote, I remember President Akufo-Addo said: ‘We shall open opportunities of this country to all Ghanaians irrespective of your party or your ethnic affiliation’. Do you remember he said that? So we did the revolution and he came to power, now that the pigs are enjoying they say: ‘Some Ghanaians are more Ghanaian than others’.
“I mean for something like this, you don’t call the person to the Flagstaff House, draft an apology letter for him and ask him to sign; you sack him at once,” Mr Mahama said.
In his view, Mr Ayisi-Boateng’s apology was not sincere.
“And you even read the apology letter and it’s an apology of apology. He says: ‘To apologise for the effect of my words, not apologise for my words’, and that is the new government under which we are.”