New Patriotic Party (NPP) flagbearer hopeful, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, has plunged himself into fresh controversy after dramatically disowning an apology issued in his own name over comments in which he described former Vice-President Dr Mahamudu Bawumia as a “liar,” exposing troubling contradictions in his posture at a time when the party is publicly calling for calm, unity and discipline.
The latest development follows the signing of the NPP’s Peace Pact, a document intended to lower political temperatures and rein in inflammatory rhetoric as the party heads into a fiercely contested internal race.
You might also like
Rather than closing the chapter on the dispute, Agyapong’s conduct before and after the event has instead reopened it—this time raising deeper questions about consistency, credibility and respect for collective party decisions.
In the heat of public backlash over his “liar” remark against Dr Bawumia, Agyapong’s campaign team issued a formal statement apologising to the Vice President.
The statement, which bore Agyapong’s signature, expressed regret over the comments and was widely interpreted as an effort to douse growing internal unrest and respond to mounting pressure from party elders and supporters across the country.
However, the apology proved short-lived.
Barely hours after the Peace Pact ceremony, Agyapong appeared before constituents and supporters and took a sharply defiant turn, openly rejecting the very apology issued in his name.
In language that stunned many observers, he declared emphatically that he would not retract his comments against Dr Bawumia.
“I will not apologise. I will apologise my foot. I don’t fear anybody,” he said, doubling down on his earlier claim and portraying himself as a man unwilling to bow to pressure.
The contradiction was stark. A candidate who had, on paper, apologised to a sitting Vice-President was now publicly repudiating that apology and reasserting the insult that triggered the backlash in the first place.
To many within and outside the party, the sequence made the earlier statement look less like a genuine act of contrition and more like a tactical response to outrage—one abandoned the moment it became inconvenient.
Agyapong sought to frame his defiance as part of a broader narrative of resistance during the Peace Pact signing itself.
He recounted that he nearly refused to sign the document, claiming he identified what he described as “glaring mistakes” that others failed to notice.
According to him, he stood his ground until his concerns were addressed, presenting his stance as evidence of vigilance, courage and independence.
He went further, mocking other party figures and aspirants, some of whom he noted hold doctoral degrees, for allegedly endorsing the pact without scrutinising its contents.
“Even PhD holders couldn’t see the mistakes,” Agyapong said, warning that signing documents without careful review was dangerous and akin to “signing your own death warrant.”
Yet here again, the narrative runs into contradiction.
Despite Agyapong’s dramatic account, the Peace Pact was ultimately signed without any public record of substantive errors or amendments.
No revisions were announced, and party officials moved swiftly to project unity and consensus.
This has led many observers to question whether the alleged “mistakes” were ever real—or whether the episode was simply another platform for political theatre.
More critically, Agyapong’s post-pact conduct appeared to undermine the very purpose of the agreement he eventually signed.
Peace pacts, by design, are meant to restrain provocative language and foster mutual respect among contenders.
By rejecting his apology and escalating rhetoric immediately after endorsing the pact, Agyapong sent a signal that the document was, at best, symbolic to him rather than a binding commitment.
The attack on fellow aspirants and party figures as intellectually careless only compounded the damage.
Critics argue that even if concerns had existed about the document, ridiculing colleagues as “blind PhD holders” added nothing of substance to the contest and instead dragged the race deeper into personal mockery—precisely the atmosphere the party leadership is struggling to contain.
Analysts note that the Vice-President has emerged relatively strengthened by the contrast.
While Agyapong’s remarks have been combustible and confrontational, Dr Bawumia has largely avoided trading insults, allowing the controversy to play out without personal escalation.
That restraint, many argue, plays to the Vice President’s advantage.
In a political climate where temperament and discipline matter as much as rhetoric, the juxtaposition between provocation and composure has been unmistakable.
For undecided party members and the wider public, the episode reinforces competing images: one aspirant as impulsive and erratic, the other as measured and presidential.
The broader concern for the NPP, however, goes beyond individual reputations.
The party is entering a high-stakes election cycle, still recovering from recent electoral defeat and under intense pressure to present a united front. Public reversals, repudiated apologies and fresh insults risk widening internal cracks at the very moment party leaders are trying to seal them.
In political terms, boldness is often confused with belligerence. Signing an apology and then disowning it publicly, while escalating attacks on both a sitting Vice-President and fellow aspirants, may appeal to a core base that thrives on confrontation.
But to a party seeking credibility, cohesion and electoral recovery, it raises uncomfortable questions about judgement and leadership.
Ultimately, the contradiction at the heart of Agyapong’s conduct is difficult to escape. An apology that is disavowed is no apology at all.
A peace pact followed immediately by provocation weakens the pact’s authority.
And claims of principle ring hollow when they appear selectively applied.
For a party asking its supporters to trust its leaders with national power once again, such flip-flops do not project strength.
They project uncertainty—and that may be the most damaging outcome of all.
