The Executive Director of the African Institute of Strategic Studies, Dr Jonathan Asante Otchere, has described comments by the National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, on the party’s parliamentary leadership reshuffle as unnecessary, warning that some issues are better left undisturbed.
Asiedu Nketiah, speaking at a thank-you tour in Sawla on Friday, May 22, said the party’s sweeping victory in the 2024 general elections was driven by difficult but deliberate changes to its parliamentary leadership structure, which he insists were necessary to strengthen the party’s electoral competitiveness.
But Dr Otchere argued that the controversy surrounding the removal of the Minority leadership, led by Haruna Iddrisu, should not have been reopened, especially given the tensions it previously generated within and outside the party.
Speaking on the Channel One Newsroom, Dr Otchere said the decision to publicly revisit the issue was avoidable and risked reigniting old divisions.
“When you find yourself in a situation where sleeping dogs are lying, you do not wake them up,” he said. “In effect, to some extent it was not necessary. Maybe to a minute extent, but largely it was not necessary.”
He explained that while he understood the political reasoning behind the 2023 parliamentary leadership changes, particularly the belief that economic management capacity would be key to electoral success, the communication and handling of the decision created unnecessary confusion.
“We all read between the lines at the time that the economy was going to determine the pace, therefore you needed somebody who knew the economy, and that is the reason why some of us supported that decision,” he said.
However, he added that the manner in which the decision was implemented and discussed created both internal and external tensions.
“But he ought to have also considered the theory and the confusion that this particular decision raised within the party and outside as well,” he noted.
Dr Otchere also questioned aspects of how the decision was being framed in public discourse, suggesting that the narration appeared overly individualised.
“It is quite surprising that he is using the first person singular,” he said, adding that leadership decisions of that magnitude should not be personalised in hindsight.
He concluded that while the restructuring may have had strategic merit, revisiting it publicly at this stage was unnecessary and could reopen old political wounds.
“I think by and large that particular decision, and its pronouncement as he is saying it now, was not necessary,” he stated.
