Have you ever wondered whether you are truly safe anywhere in Africa? If not, have you ever thought about what your country is doing to ensure your safety? Trust me, security is everything. You cannot thrive or even be productive in an insecure environment. You can have all the resources and talents in the world, but you can never achieve greatness in an unsafe and insecure environment. That makes security the key.

Have you ever asked yourself why presidents and prime ministers carry the title “Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces”? Take a moment to think about it. Every country requires leadership to guide and govern, but among all the responsibilities of a president or head of state, security stands above all.

Africa is richly blessed with natural resources, yet history tells us that we have been conquered, brutalized, and enslaved for 500 years by foreign oppressors. Today, our leaders smile and dine with these same oppressors as if they are friends, collaborating with them more eagerly than with fellow African leaders. Many of us believe that our former colonizers or slave masters have our best interests at heart — a dangerous and foolish illusion.

After more than 36 years of seeking education and knowledge in Ghana, I was shocked to realize that I had never heard of the Treaty of Pelindaba until about a year ago. Nothing has ever surprised me more. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is also your first time hearing about it — but allow me to explain it in my own simple terms.

In 1996, the United Nations gathered African nations together. As always, our leaders, ever obedient to external powers, boarded their first class flights and went to sit at the feet of their former colonial masters. The meeting took place in Cairo, Egypt. During that gathering, they were told something along these lines:

“Hello Mother Africa, we love you so much. You are a great continent with great potential. And because we care for you, we want you to sign an agreement that prevents you from ever having anything to do with nuclear energy and weapons.”

This treaty — officially called the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty — bans African states from researching, developing, manufacturing, stockpiling, acquiring, testing, possessing, or stationing nuclear weapons on African soil. It was meant, they said, to ensure Africa remains a “nuclear-free” continent.

Funny, isn’t it?

Reports show that 41 African countries signed the agreement initially, later increasing to 51. Yes, Africa bought it. Africa signed away its security, disarmed the continent and gave away the continent’s power .

I wasn’t there, but I can’t help wondering — did anyone ask why? For heaven’s sake, we all know what nuclear weapons can do. The world witnessed their destructive power when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. We also know that those who possess such weapons cannot be bullied easily. Isn’t protecting your people from bullying exactly what good leadership should ensure?

Why didn’t anyone ask the United Nations to advocate for a worldwide nuclear-free zone instead of one limited to Africa? Isn’t the UN supposed to represent the interests of the entire world? Why was it so urgent and pressing that Africa remain nuclear-free, while the Western and Asian powers continue to build and stockpile nuclear weapons?

If nuclear weapons are truly evil, why does the UN show so much concern for Africa to abandon them, but so little interest in getting the developed world to do the same? Yet our leaders signed this agreement — and it still binds us today.

It’s like a father being told that a powerful weapon could protect his family — and then his oppressor, the same one who invaded, enslaved, and exploited him for centuries, insists he must never possess it. And he agrees! Not just one father, but 51 of them. Wait, were they expecting to received a Nobel Peace Prize for their compliance?

Some may say I’m oversimplifying the issue. I don’t think so. In the 1950s, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana established Africa’s first nuclear energy program, Kwabenya Nuclear Reactor Project (GNRP), at the University of Ghana. The greatest visionary Africa has ever produced understood that nuclear energy would shape the future of warfare and security. He wanted to ensure Ghana — and Africa — had the protection it deserved. But as history shows, every time a true African leader rises to defend his people, he is eliminated by those who have never wished us well.

Africa can have all the resources in the world. We can be the richest continent on Earth. But remember this: if you do not hold true power, no one will respect you.

Did you know that many African countries are richer than North Korea in terms of GDP, yet on the global stage, North Korea commands more respect and influence in world security affairs than any African nation? Not a single African country sits on the United Nations Security Council. Different African leaders, including the President of Kenya recently, have spoken on this matter. Yet in the eyes of the Western world, these speeches are merely performances — opportunities for Africans to vent while nothing changes.

Today, I believe South Africa regrets dismantling its Pelindaba nuclear program — the source of the treaty’s name. And I dare say that Dr. Nkrumah, in his grave, must be weeping. His vision for Africa’s strength and self-reliance died with him, leaving behind a continent rich in resources but poor in security and respect.

Think about this: if Africa is meant to be a nuclear-free zone, why do these same colonial powers continue to extract uranium, rare earth minerals, and other materials used for nuclear energy and weapons from African soil in Namibia, Niger, South Africa, Malawi, Tanzania, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique, Algeria, Madagascar, Nigeria, Kenya, and Burundi.

So, let’s get this straight — African nations sign an agreement banning themselves from developing nuclear weapons or energy, supposedly because it’s dangerous. Yet, they continue to export the raw materials that others use to build the very weapons they forbade themselves from producing.

I may not know all the details, but one thing is clear: no wise African, understanding what we know today, could ever call that decision a good one. It remains one of the greatest acts of irresponsibility, carelessness, naive, cognitive laziness and self-inflicted insecurity our leaders have ever imposed on their people. So how will any intelligent and analytical person describe this treaty? This is not a treaty of peace, nor of helping Africa, it is a one that silenced and disarmed a continent of giants, it is a treaty of surrender of power and safety, it is a treaty that makes Africa helpless and defenseless.

Of course, our education systems will never teach us this. But at AfriDeem, we strive to decolonize the African mindset — to make you aware, to make you think, and to make you care for Africa. This is your home and always will be, whether you live on the continent or in the diaspora.

And for those in the diaspora who believe they are safer in foreign lands, remember: no matter where you live, they still know you are not one of them.

May the true God’s of our land, bless our continent.

In response, both the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the National Democratic Congress announced investigations into the matter. The President of the Republic, John Dramani Mahama, reportedly dismissed Baba Jamal, a contestant, from his position as Ambassador to Nigeria pending the outcome of these investigations.

It is disheartening that practices we have tolerated for years are suddenly treated as aberrations simply because they have become politically inconvenient. This is how elections have been conducted in Ghana for as long as many of us can remember. Yet we act surprised—loudly, publicly, and selectively.

The hypocrisy of Ghana’s political leadership is especially troubling. Our leaders pretend not to understand what is happening in the country, even though they are often the architects and beneficiaries of the very system. If vote buying is indeed a crime—and I firmly believe it is—then why does even a newborn baby knows that almost every election in Ghana is influenced by money or inducements of some kind. Sometimes it is cash. Other times it comes disguised as “kindness”: promises of future jobs, contracts, appointments, or political favors.

At the level of general elections, this reality is even more obvious. I have voted countless times and I have consistently witnessed politicians distributing money, household items, and other goods simply to secure votes. In Ghana, if you do not pay—let me repeat—if you do not pay, you will not win. That is the system we have built and normalized.

Poverty, deliberately created and sustained by political leadership and societal complacency, has turned elections into survival opportunities for many voters. Delegates and ordinary citizens alike see elections as their one chance to extract something—anything—from a system that has otherwise failed them. That is why people only show interest when money is involved. Hopeson Adorye explained this reality clearly and unapologetically during an interview on Joy News and he is just being frank.

So is it not deeply hypocritical for President John Dramani Mahama to take action against current culprits when he, like many leaders in both the NDC and the NPP, has been complicit in these same practices throughout their political career?

Let me give one example. During the 2012 general elections, under the NDC government led by John Mahama, reports emerged of Kia Picanto vehicles being distributed to students—particularly female students—as a strategy to influence votes. This was widely covered by the media. I was a student at the University of Ghana at the time, and I personally witnessed aspects of this practice.

Over the years, I have closely followed Ghanaian politics. I have seen money, rice, machetes, cooking oil, solar lamps, and countless other items distributed to voters in cities and villages alike—all in the name of securing votes. These acts are not limited to one party. They were carried out by both the NPP and the NDC at every level of elections. Vote buying is not new in Ghana. It is routine.

What should concern us most is what this system produces. Political parties that spend obscene amounts of money to win power inevitably become corrupt once elected. They must recoup their “investment.” There is no free lunch. This explains why many of our leaders show little genuine concern for national development. Politics in Ghana has become a business venture, not a public service. That is why politicians are often wealthier than the business people who actually create value.

To the OSP, the NDC, and other groups suddenly calling for investigations: enough of the eye service. Stop wasting taxpayers’ money on performative exercises meant to score public approval when you know very well that nothing meaningful will come of them.

If Ghana were serious about ending vote buying, these acts would be classified as serious crimes punishable by mandatory jail terms at all levels. That is the only deterrent that works. But we all know why this will never happen: the same leaders who would be responsible for passing such laws are the same people who benefit from violating them. Are they not the same people who need to enforce it?

As I have said repeatedly, the so called democratic and political systems handed to us by your colonial masters were never designed to liberate or uplift you. They were designed to divide, weaken, and stall your development. This ongoing farce around vote buying is yet another reminder that western democratic system is failing us —just as it was designed to.

When she was asked about the outcome of the research, she explained:

“After five years of research—traveling from the bottom of Ghana to the top and asking the same question—we found that Ghanaians simply live in the present moment.”

Many people who watched the video focused on praising Ghana for being peaceful, and rightly so. If there is any continent deeply divided against itself, it is Africa. Africans were deliberately divided geographically during the Berlin Conference, tribally through the creation of artificial boundaries, religiously through the introduction of competing belief systems, and politically through imposed governance structures. Within Ghana alone, we see tribal divisions, religious fragmentation, political party rivalries, and internal factions—all of them legacies of colonial interference.

In spite of these deep and intentional divisions by colonialists, Ghana has remained relatively peaceful. That is no small achievement and deserves acknowledgment.

However, what struck me most was not the praise for Ghana’s peace, but the explanation given for it—that Ghanaians “live in the present moment”. If you noticed closely, there was a subtle shift in her facial expression and tone when she made that statement. In my personal assessment, that remark was not a compliment.

I must clarify that this is my own interpretation and not a verified conclusion of her study. However, it raises an important issue worth examining.

What does it mean to live in the “present moment”

Living in the present is often described as mindfulness—the practice of focusing one’s attention on the “here and now,” without anxiety about the future or regret about the past. It involves awareness of one’s immediate experience, reducing stress, and engaging fully with the moment.

While mindfulness has psychological benefits, there is another side to living perpetually in the present—especially at the level of a society or nation.

Her comments immediately reminded me of the famous Marshmallow Study conducted in the late 1960s on delayed gratification. In that experiment, children were offered a choice: one marshmallow immediately, or two marshmallows if they could wait. Researchers later found that children who were able to delay gratification tended to have better long-term outcomes, including higher academic achievement, stronger self-control, and improved life stability. The ability to delay gratification was more common among older children with higher maturity.

So what does this mean in a national context?

This pattern is evident across many aspects of Ghana today.

Giving Away the Future for Quick Gratification

In the article titled Ghana’s Lithium Deal: Why Ghana Keeps Giving Away Its Future, I explained how short-term thinking and instant gratification among leaders are destroying Ghana’s long-term prospects. Because our leaders focus on the present moment, they are quick to sell Ghana’s natural resources cheaply in exchange for immediate cash.

This mindset is not limited to the lithium deal, where Ghana celebrates a mere 5–10% royalty. It extends to deals that have been made with Ghana’s gold, diamonds, bauxite, oil, and other strategic resources which benefits foreign nations. These decisions satisfy immediate desires while leaving the youth and future generations with nothing.

This way of thinking aligns perfectly with how colonial systems want formerly colonized people to behave—content with temporary comfort, peaceful compliance, and short-term rewards. Such “peace” is conditional and fragile. The moment you become aware and begin to resist exploitation, you realize that those who benefit from your silence were never your friends.

Conversely, consider the United States. It is known to have oil reserves capable of sustaining the country for over 200 years if drilling and imports were halted. Yet successive generations continue to plan aggressively for the future, accumulating more resources, expanding influence, and protecting long-term national interests—sometimes by force. This is a country that is living not just in the present moment, but in the future as well to create generational wealth and capacity.

Now ask yourself honestly: if Ghana were to experience a major shutdown today, could we sustain ourselves for even one or two years? The answer reveals the truth behind that researcher’s observation. Living only in the present is a sign of leadership without vision.

Is it not telling that Ghana does not even have a national 20-year development plan agreed upon across political parties? Instead, successive governments dismantle one another’s policies, propagate propaganda against even good ideas, and run the country in circles—year after year—with little progress. They do this so each political party can celebrate present wins at the expense of the future of the country.

Emergency Preparedness and National Failure

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this weakness even more clearly. During global lockdowns, Ghana struggled to produce something as basic as face masks. We had no local capacity. Food insecurity became widespread, and videos surfaced of citizens scrambling for relief items distributed by NGOs.

Meanwhile, in developed countries like the United States, families received stimulus checks—financial support drawn from national reserves that sustained millions throughout the crisis. Those reserves existed because earlier generations planned for emergencies.

In Ghana, much of our national wealth has been mismanaged, stolen, or surrendered. The pandemic exposed the fact that, in time of emergency, Ghana cannot survive past probably a year because we always live in the present moment.

Political Decisions and Instant Gratification

This same mindset is evident during elections. Political parties distribute money, rice, cooking oil, machetes, and other items to voters in exchange for votes. Because many citizens are conditioned to prioritize immediate gain, they accept these gifts—forgetting past suffering under the same administrations and ignoring the future consequences.

People would rather enjoy the moment than endure temporary hardship for long-term benefit. This culture of instant gratification affects both leaders and the governed.

Let me borrow a Jewish proverb that says:

“A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”

While developed nations are planning for generations they may never meet, many of our leaders continue to live only in the present. If we do not change this mindset—at both leadership and societal levels—peace alone will not save us.

Is it not long overdue that we learn from one of our own, Dr Kwame Nkrumah - the greatest African visionary that ever lived?

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah governed with generations in mind. He understood that political independence without economic and industrial power was meaningless. That is why he pursued rapid industrialization, establishing over fifty state-owned industries so that Ghana could produce what it consumed instead of exporting raw materials and importing finished goods at exploitative prices. Many of these industries continued to sustain Ghana long after he was overthrown—proof that his ideas were not reckless, but simply ahead of their time.

Nkrumah built the Akosombo Dam to power Ghana’s future. More than fifty years later, it still remains the major backbone of Ghana’s electricity supply. He insisted on state control over minerals, energy, and strategic industries because he understood that foreign ownership disguised as “investment” would eventually strip Ghana of sovereignty and reduce the state to a beggar in its own land. Today, as Ghana signs away lithium, gold, oil, and bauxite for quick money royalties, we are living inside the very warning he gave.

He also initiated Ghana’s nuclear energy program because he foresaw that true power in the modern world would be determined by advanced science, technology, and energy capacity. That program was abandoned after his removal. Decades later, we regret.

Perhaps most dangerously ignored was Nkrumah’s vision of African unity. He warned that without continental unity, African states would remain weak, divided, and permanently vulnerable to neocolonial control. Today, Africa remains fragmented, bargaining individually with global powers from positions of weakness—exactly the future he tried to prevent.

Books cannot contain the vision he had for a continent and country he loved. The tragedy is that he was right too early, and we lacked the patience, discipline, and foresight to follow him even till this day. The cost of betraying him and rejecting long-term vision in favor of immediate comfort is the crisis Ghana and Africa faces today and the mistake we keep making. Our leaders of today are busily fighting and opposing each other - in the name of practicing what they think is the best governance system their colonialists have given them. They seek their interest in the “now and then” and surprisingly they have rallied the whole nation through that path.

It is time we stop living only in the present moment as a country. Generations yet unborn will judge us—not by how peaceful we were, but by what we built, what we protected, and what we left behind. We must learn to do better, or be remembered no better.

In the month of January 2026, the internet and social media have been in overdrive. And right at the center of it all is IShowSpeed.

IShowSpeed, whose real name is Darren Jason Watkins Jr., is an African American YouTuber and live streamer known for his extremely high-energy, loud, and unpredictable persona. He rose to global fame through gaming streams, reaction videos, and IRL livestreams where exaggerated emotions, impulsive behavior, and chaotic humor regularly go viral. Beyond gaming, he has expanded into music, travel, and public livestreams that attract massive crowds and millions of viewers across the world. Loved by fans for his raw authenticity and entertainment value and criticized by others for controversy, Speed has become one of the most recognizable internet personalities of his generation. And yes, I love him.

Speed has traveled widely as part of his work, visiting Asia, Europe, and other regions. In January 2026, however, he made his first trip to Africa. What followed was something worth paying attention to. His visit sent social media into a frenzy as he moved through multiple African countries, drawing crowds, sparking conversations, and exposing realities many people had never been forced to confront.

This article examines lessons that can be learned from this trip. These observations are based on Speed’s viral videos, the global reactions to them, and the conversations they triggered across social media platforms worldwide. So, what has Speed trip teach the world about Africa, and about the world’s relationship with it?

Africans are a happy and welcoming people.

Anyone who truly follows Speed’s adventures across the world will notice something unmistakable. No other continent or group of people has received him with the level of enthusiasm, joy, warmth, and spectacle that Africans did. This is not an exaggeration. It is plainly visible in the videos. Africans welcomed him openly, celebrated him, danced with him, introduced him to their cultures, and treated him like family. Race did not matter. Religion did not matter. Difference did not matter.

That is African humanity. Despite centuries of exploitation, colonization, stolen resources, and humiliation, Africans remain welcoming. They did not call him an alien. They did not brand him illegal. They did not deploy policies, technology, or language designed to make him feel inferior or unwanted. Different tribes welcomed him, shared their customs, and made deliberate efforts to make him feel at home. That is Africanism. And frankly, that is how human beings are supposed to treat each other.

Africa is a beautiful place.

Speed showed scenes of stunning cities, vibrant streets, modern malls, rich landscapes, and thriving social life. His trip shattered the lies many people in the United States and the Western world have been fed their entire lives. For many Americans, this was an awakening. Africa is not a jungle filled with madness, mud houses, people living on trees, and chaos. That image was manufactured. It was deliberately constructed so Africa could be looked down upon, dismissed, and exploited without moral discomfort.

Africa is not a country.

For the first time in the lives of many Americans, including African Americans, both educated and uneducated, this basic truth finally became unavoidable. Africa is a continent. A continent with the largest number of countries in the world. Yet generations have been conditioned by their educational systems to imagine Africa as a single country tucked somewhere “in the jungle.”

I experienced this ignorance firsthand while studying in the United States. One day, I boarded a bus, and the white American sitting beside me asked if I knew someone. When I said no, he replied, “Oh, I thought you were from Africa, so you would know him.” I asked where in Africa the person was from. He said Zimbabwe. I am Ghanaian. That moment made it painfully clear that even at the college level, many Americans conceive of Africa as one small, undifferentiated place where everyone somehow knows everyone else. This ignorance is not accidental. Even world maps have been deliberately distorted to make Africa appear smaller than it truly is. That alone should raise questions.

Joblessness among African youth is real and devastating.

Amid all the joy and excitement, an uncomfortable question must be asked. How were so many young people able to abandon their responsibilities during working hours to follow an entertainer across cities and countries? The answer is painful but simple. Many of them do not have jobs. Youth unemployment is crippling the continent.

This widespread joblessness also explains the intense attachment to entertainment and spectacle. When people are denied meaningful work and opportunity, entertainment becomes both escape and survival. But this condition is not accidental either. The lack of job creation across Africa is a direct consequence of imperialist domination. Africa’s natural resources are exported in raw form to foreign nations, where industries are built and jobs are created elsewhere. Africa, meanwhile, is left under-industrialized, dependent, and reduced to a consumer market. The result is a continent full of idle youth, collapsing hope, and wasted potential.

Neocolonialism and imperialism are still alive in Africa.

African minerals that could enrich the continent remain under the control of Western powers. This reality was exposed clearly during Speed’s visit to Botswana. While visiting a mall, he was introduced to a diamond company. Shocked to learn that diamonds are found in Africa in both rough and refined forms, Speed attempted to buy some. He was told he could not. In fact, he was told that no one in Africa, or anywhere else, could buy them. Only two companies were authorized to do so. Foreign capitalist corporations t have monopolized the diamond industry in that region.

This is the reality. Africa’s resources, under the language of capitalism and democracy, are still controlled by foreign interests, while the true owners of those resources live in poverty. The public reaction to this moment was intense because it exposed an uncomfortable truth. Imperialism never ended. It simply changed its vocabulary and refined its methods. Africa is still not free.

The world’s view of Africa is not Africa’s view of the world.

This may be the most revealing lesson of all. In African educational systems, students are taught European and American history in detail. We learn their political systems, their wars, their leaders, and their ideologies. This is not neutral education. It is the residue of colonial schooling designed to position the West as superior. Meanwhile, African history, African philosophies, and African self-knowledge are sidelined or treated as optional.

Most Africans can name Western countries, presidents, kings, and capitals with ease. The reverse is not true. In the Western world, Africa is taught as inferior. Everything chaotic, primitive, inhuman, and demeaning is associated with Africa. That is why so many Americans and African Americans were seen on TikTok and other platforms crying in disbelief, admitting they had been lied to all their lives. They were shocked to see skyscrapers, highways, malls, and functioning cities. Some were stunned to learn that the very minerals powering Western development largely come from Africa.

I have had Black friends in the United States tell me that while growing up, they were taught to be grateful for slavery. They were told that without slavery, they would not have had the opportunity to live in America. I was shocked the first time I heard this. I also learned that many were taught Africans sold their own families into slavery, that white people never kidnapped anyone, and that Africa was something to distance themselves from. That is why many African Americans want nothing to do with Africa today.

Yet those same powers are deeply embedded in Africa, doing business, extracting resources, and enriching themselves. These are deliberate colonial strategies designed to divide Africans and disconnect people of African descent from their roots. When you convince a people that nothing good comes from where they come from, you control them.

Speed did not set out to expose any of this. But his trip did. And that alone should make us uncomfortable, learn and strive to make this world a better place.

The past year has been encouraging for many Ghanaians. After eight years of what many consider a disastrous administration under President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, there is a renewed sense of confidence in government under the second coming of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) led by President John Dramani Mahama. Many citizens now speak of accountability, steadier leadership, and improved transparency. Some media outlets have even reported calls for a constitutional review that would allow President Mahama to seek a third term, with claims that as many as 66 percent of Ghanaians support such an idea. No one knows the future, but I must say that these are early days to judge a sitting government. They always start so good and rosy to win the confidence of the people. But the ending stories have never been a happy one.

On the surface, this appears to be good news. It suggests that Ghanaians once again feel connected to their government and optimistic about national leadership. However, a deeper and more important question must be asked: Is John Dramani Mahama—or the NDC—the solution to Ghana’s problems? Can Ghana truly rely on one individual or one political party as the foundation of its national progress?

The honest answer is no. Ghana cannot be built around John Dramani Mahama, just as it cannot be built around any single individual or political party. People and parties are temporary, and history has shown that they eventually fail, change, or disappoint. What Ghana urgently needs is not another political savior, but strong systems—systems that outlive individuals, rise above party politics, and protect the national interest regardless of who is in power. Only the wise will understand.

It is important to remember that this is not John Mahama’s first time as president. His earlier administration was widely criticized for corruption, misappropriation of funds, and economic hardship. Even figures within his own political tradition, including former President Jerry John Rawlings, publicly condemned aspects of his government, famously describing it as being led by “babies with sharp teeth.” That period ended in an unprecedented electoral defeat by over one million votes—a historic rejection that reflected deep public frustration.

Ghanaians may have short memories, as John Mahama himself once remarked, but memory should not be confused with bitterness. The purpose of this article is not to dwell on past failures. In fact, it is worth acknowledging that President Mahama has clearly regained the confidence of many Ghanaians, myself included, at least at the time of writing this article. He appears to have learned from past mistakes and is governing with greater care and restraint. This progress deserves recognition. Still, acknowledging improvement does not mean surrendering our future to one individual.

One fundamental weakness Ghana continues to struggle with is a lack of long-term national vision. As a people, we are often preoccupied with short-term gains and immediate relief rather than sustainable development and generational prosperity. We focus on the present moment, celebrating temporary comfort while neglecting long-term planning. This mindset partly explains why Ghana has never fully matched the ambition and vision of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah—a leader who thought and acted decades ahead of his time. Even today, we struggle to articulate, let alone execute, a vision as bold as the one he pursued in the 1960s.

This brings us back to a critical question: How long will John Mahama remain president? Even if his intentions remain noble and his performance strong, it would be foolish to assume that whoever succeeds him—whether from the same party or another—will share the same values, ethics, vision or priorities. There is no guarantee of continuity. Within a few years, Ghana will inevitably be under new leadership, and there is no certainty that progress made today will be protected tomorrow.

This reality exposes a dangerous flaw in how we think about governance. You cannot build an economy, a government, or a future around a person. Ghana needs systems that function beyond the best of leaders and protect the nation from the worst of them. We need institutions that compel leaders to act in the national interest, regardless of personal character or motivation. It is unrealistic to expect all future leaders to be good. Therefore, instead of placing our hope in personalities, we must place our hope in systems that work.

Motivation also matters. One leader may be driven by a desire to leave a positive legacy; another may be motivated by self-interest, as history has repeatedly shown. Reaching the presidency requires enormous financial backing, often from powerful individuals, corporations, and foreign interests. These funders do not invest out of charity—they expect returns in the form of contracts, influence, appointments, and access. This reality helps explain why even well-intentioned leaders sometimes overlook corruption happening right in front of them. Their hands may be tied by prior commitments made during the struggle for power.

This is precisely why strong systems are non-negotiable. If Ghana designs its governance structures to anticipate human weakness, block corruption, limit external manipulation, and enforce accountability, the country will thrive regardless of who occupies the presidency. A nation built on systems will benefit not only the present generation but generations yet unborn.

Ghana must therefore build a system of government that reflects its values, protects its culture, and serves its people. We need institutions strong enough to suppress neo-colonial influence, resist exploitation by foreign corporations, and prevent national resources from being sold under the illusion of “win-win” deals. We need systems that block corruption decisively and enforce accountability across the judiciary, parliament, and all sectors of public life.

Ghana has made many mistakes, but those mistakes provide valuable lessons. In my view, even if reforming these systems requires profound constitutional or structural change, it would still be far more reliable than endlessly searching for “good leaders.” What Ghana truly needs are leaders who must conform to strong systems—not systems that bend to leaders.

That is the future worth fighting for.

This statement is simple yet powerful, and it remains as true today as it was then. With the right training methods, rewards, punishments, and social conditions, a person can be shaped into almost anything—including a criminal.

Training is always designed to produce a specific purpose and outcome. What people learn depends largely on what the teacher, the system, or the institution intends them to become. A curriculum is never accidental; it is carefully structured to transmit certain skills, values, and limitations. The depth of learning, therefore, is determined not only by the learner’s ability, but by how far the system intends to empower them.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for Africa: what exactly are Africans trained to become?

This pattern repeats across nearly every field of education. The question, therefore, becomes unavoidable: are we truly being educated, or are we simply passing time under the illusion of education?

Were You Schooled or Educated? Know the Difference

Many Africans believe they are educated. In reality, most of us have been schooled, not educated. These two are not the same.

Schooling is the formal, institutional, and organized process through which a society trains, disciplines, and socializes individuals—especially children—according to its values, economic needs, and power structures. It operates through standardized curricula, teachers, examinations, rules, and certificates. At its core, schooling is designed to transmit approved knowledge—what those in authority decide you should know. It shapes behavior and obedience through time discipline, hierarchy, and compliance with rules.

In this sense, schooling becomes a structured method by which society conditions individuals to become particular kinds of workers, citizens, and subjects—sometimes for collective good, but often for control.

Education, however, operates at a higher and more transformative level. It is not primarily concerned with fitting individuals into existing systems, but with developing the capacity to think critically, question assumptions, and understand the world deeply enough to change it. An educated person—or an educated society—is one that possesses the intellectual tools to shape its own future rather than inherit one imposed upon it.

Schooling trains a person to become whatever the trainer desires. Education equips individuals to think independently, create, solve problems, and reproduce value. We often confuse the two. So ask yourself: with all the years you have spent in school, were you schooled—or were you educated?

The Purpose of Western Education to Africans

Africa adopted a western education system designed and imposed by colonial powers - with the sole purpose to control and influence the thought processes of the people. It is naïve to believe that the same colonial masters we fought to free ourselves from would provide an education that would allow us to compete with them or surpass them. That was never the intention.

Colonial education in Africa was designed primarily to produce literate clerks and intermediaries—not innovators or industrial competitors. Africans were trained to read, write, and speak the colonial language well enough to serve administrative functions and facilitate colonial control, not to build independent industries or technologies.

This explains why many African graduates can write excellent English, Arabic, Portuguese or French, memorize textbooks, and pass examinations, yet lack practical, employable, or productive skills. The system was never meant to make us self-reliant. It was designed to make us functionally useful while remaining dependent and compliant. Yet we mistake literacy and mastery of scripted curricula for education.

If the goal had been genuine empowerment and transformation, our education would have equipped us to build planes, cars, medical equipment, agricultural machinery, household appliances, and advanced technologies using the abundant resources we possess. But such competence would make Africa self-sufficient—and therefore unprofitable to exploit.

Another core objective of this system is compliance. Africa’s education model largely follows what is popularly called the “chew and pour” system in Ghana—memorize content, reproduce it in examinations, and move on. From kindergarten to university, success is measured by recall rather than creativity, innovation, or problem-solving.

The outcome is predictable. Students trained under this system rarely challenge assumptions or question relevance. They accept what they are taught as unquestionable truth. Because Africans have been schooled to believe what colonial systems wanted them to believe, many accept inherited political and economic structures without question—even when those systems repeatedly fail. Does it surprise you that many so-called educated Africans carry colonized mindsets—seeing everything African as inferior, aspiring to Western lifestyles and culture, and believing that Africa cannot develop without colonial powers ?

Those who manage to rise beyond schooling into true education—those who challenge the status quo and provoke independent thinking—are often silenced, marginalized, or eliminated. History reminds us of this through figures such as Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and other Pan-African visionaries.

The Deception of Western Education

Every successful scam follows a pattern: the victim is made to constantly believe they are winning, even as they are losing. Anyone who has been scammed will tell you that the illusion of progress always comes before the collapse.

Western education, as imposed on Africa, operates in a similar way. It offers entitlements—degrees, certificates, and diplomas—that create a sense of superiority and achievement. Yet beneath these titles lies an uncomfortable truth: many highly credentialed individuals cannot produce anything of tangible value.

Once people are convinced they are highly educated, they become emotionally invested in protecting that identity. Questioning the system then feels like a personal attack, making reform even more difficult.

Consider this example. Ghana has many professors and PhD holders in engineering, yet little innovation to show for it. Meanwhile, innovators like Apostle Kwadwo Safo Kantanka—often dismissed as “uneducated” because he lacks Western academic credentials—have designed and built cars, helicopters, televisions, and automated systems using sensors, in some cases ahead of mainstream adoption. Ironically, many of the highly schooled but unproductive elites are unwilling to humble themselves to learn from such innovators.

This raises a disturbing question: who is truly educated—the one with the titles, or the one who can think, create, and build?

Let me be clear: I do not oppose schooling. Literacy is essential, and every African should be able to read, write, and comprehend. However, Africa must reclaim control of its educational system and refocus it on transformative learning—learning that sharpens critical thinking, challenges assumptions, encourages creativity and innovation, and ultimately makes Africa self-reliant and capable of solving its own problems. Leadership must note that, they youth are realizing the hopelessness of our educational system from experiences of frustrated graduates. If national level effort is not reached to make things better, no one will be found in our educational institutions anymore. The people cannot be unconsciously scammed forever.

One of the greatest civilizations to ever exist was the Roman Empire. For centuries, Rome governed vast territories through a complex and sophisticated political system. It operated a mixed structure that combined elected officials such as consuls, powerful popular assemblies like the Centuriate and Tribal Assemblies, and the highly influential Senate. In many ways, this balance between democratic participation and aristocratic authority resembles political systems found in many modern states today. Yet despite this sophistication, Rome was deeply flawed. Corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement, and state misappropriation were widespread and persistent.

Despite leadership corruption in such a brutal and ruthless era, what is particularly striking is that Roman leaders developed a deliberate governing playbook—a calculated strategy designed to control, distract, and pacify the population, particularly during periods of corruption, economic hardship, or political instability. These tactics were often subtle and difficult for ordinary citizens to recognize. Over time, people became accustomed to their conditions and stopped questioning the system until hardship became unbearable and unrest finally erupted.

In modern-day Ghana, evidence of corruption, mismanagement, and the misappropriation of public funds dominates news headlines almost daily. The consequences have been severe, creating immense hardship and instability for ordinary citizens. Yet despite this reality, a significant portion of the population—especially the youth—appears largely disengaged. Even when people recognize that something is wrong, they often fail to give these issues the sustained attention and urgency required to confront them meaningfully.

To understand this phenomenon, it is useful to revisit an ancient strategy of governance that continues to be applied in modern politics, including in Ghana: distraction through entertainment.

The Playbook of Distraction Through Entertainment

In the ancient world, entertainment was not simply a source of leisure; it was a calculated instrument of governance. Rulers understood that controlling attention and emotion could be just as effective as controlling laws or armies. As a result, large public spectacles were deliberately sponsored to manage public sentiment, suppress dissent, and maintain stability during periods of corruption, economic hardship, and political uncertainty. This strategy worked not because people were uninformed, but because it aligned closely with predictable patterns of human behavior.

The Roman Empire provides the clearest example through what later became known as panem et circenses—“bread and circuses.” Roman emperors and political elites invested enormous resources in gladiatorial contests, chariot races, wild animal hunts, public feasts, and free grain distributions. These spectacles ensured that citizens were fed and continuously entertained, keeping their emotions engaged while their attention was drawn away from matters of governance. Entertainment did not replace political institutions, but it steadily eroded the public’s impulse to question them.

This reliance on entertainment intensified during times of crisis. Periods of food shortages, economic downturns, military defeats, or political scandal were often accompanied by an expansion of public games and spectacles. Rather than confronting the underlying causes of instability, rulers used performance to temporarily calm the population. The reign of Emperor Commodus illustrates this clearly. As criticism of his leadership and allegations of corruption mounted, he devoted increasing resources to gladiatorial shows and even entered the arena himself, transforming political dissatisfaction into spectacle and personal display.

These events were not politically neutral. They stirred powerful emotions—excitement, fear, pride, and tribal loyalty, particularly through rival chariot racing factions. Such emotional stimulation united citizens around shared spectacles instead of shared political demands. It offered psychological escape, redirected frustration, and reinforced obedience by casting the emperor as the provider of joy and relief. People left the arena exhilarated, not reflective. Corruption faded from their immediate thoughts.

This strategy, however, had its limits. When economic collapse became too severe, no amount of entertainment could suppress public anger. However, during periods of routine governance, distraction through spectacle remained one of the most powerful methods rulers used to maintain control.

Rome was not alone in this practice. Ancient Egypt, China, Byzantine empires, Mesoamerican civilizations, etc. organized grand religious festivals, dynasty celebrations, ritual games and public feasts that served similar purposes.

Application in Modern-Day Ghana

In modern times, particularly in Ghana, these tactics of distraction are not always obvious, but they are deeply embedded and actively reinforced. The youth of today tend to focus far more on the present than on the future. While many openly complain about corruption, mismanagement, and government misappropriation that directly affect their lives, very little is done in terms of sustained civic engagement or political participation to challenge these conditions.

One of the most visible forms of distraction is political shows. In Ghana, political campaigns have increasingly evolved into entertainment spectacles. Political leaders pay musicians and celebrities to perform at rallies, prioritizing excitement over substance. Instead of engaging citizens on governance, economic reform, and long-term national development, campaigns are held in stadiums and public spaces designed to attract large crowds, crowned with music, dancing, “jama”, and celebration, while meaningful political discourse is largely absent.

Both major political parties—the NPP and the NDC—have consistently collaborated with popular musicians to produce campaign songs in almost every election cycle. These songs are designed to emotionally mobilize voters rather than educate them on policy or vision. For the NPP, songs such as Daddy Lumba’s Nana Winner and 4 More for Nana are well known. For the NDC, tracks like Nacee’s Kwen Kwen and Onaapo serve a similar function. This pattern reveals how vulnerable and easily distracted the youth have become in the political process.

Beyond election campaigns, political leaders also sponsor or actively participate in community entertainment events under the guise of social engagement. I am not opposed to entertainment itself. However, it becomes deeply concerning when high-profile leaders—ministers, parliamentarians, and senior officials—who should be focused on economic stability, job creation, investor confidence, and international relations, instead devote significant time and public resources to organizing low-level entertainment. Rather than prioritizing sustainable industries and long-term solutions to youth unemployment, they offer one-time spectacles that mirror the same ancient tactics used to pacify the masses.

A recent example is the Ashanti Regional Minister’s involvement in organizing and launching Kumasi Fest, where celebrities were invited to entertain the public for a day or two. While some may argue that such events bring money into the region, this economic benefit is temporary. Once the excitement fades, the youth are left with the same unemployment, frustration, and disappointment. Other examples include Detty December events, Tidal Rave Festival, Afrochella, Rapperholic, Bhim Festival, Likor on the Beach, Shay Concert, etc.

What is even more troubling is what often occurs at these events. Several viral videos have shown young adults engaging in sexual activities in public during concerts, including events associated with Wendy Shay. What is captured on camera likely represents only a small fraction of what occurs within the crowd. Yet political and traditional leaders rarely intervene or introduce policies to regulate such behavior. They tolerate it because it keeps the youth entertained and distracted from engaging deeply with political and national issues.

Sports provide another powerful distraction. Ghanaian youth—particularly young men—are deeply consumed by Western sports. Many spend entire weekends watching the English Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, and other leagues from morning until late at night, followed by weekday fixtures in the Champions League and Europa League. Beyond lost time, many also spend money they do not have on betting and gambling, worsening their financial struggles.

This cycle of sports entertainment offers temporary pleasure while diverting attention from pressing socio-economic issues. It is therefore unsurprising that many celebrate leaders who advocate for reduced DStv prices. The youth often respond more positively to comfort and entertainment than to accountability and reform. It is also unsurprising that millions of dollars are spent on global sporting events such as the upcoming 2026 World Cup while many citizens lack basic necessities. As history has shown, public realization often comes only after the celebrations end, when scandals involving inflated costs and financial mismanagement surface at the Public Account Committee meetings .

Social media further intensifies this distraction. Most youth today spend more time on social media than on any productive activity. Hours are consumed watching short videos, reels, and comedy skits that add little to personal development. Significant amounts of money are spent on internet data rather than on learning skills in finance, politics, entrepreneurship, or technology from these platforms.

It is especially disheartening that when individuals like Mr. Obeng Darko organize free training programs across university campuses—focused on financial literacy, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance—attendance is often low, despite the proven impact of these initiatives transforming lives by reshaping mindsets and empowering young people to build something meaningful.

Ironically, the moment a concert featuring popular celebrities is announced—whether free or paid— venues become overcrowded. Even more troubling is leaders’ lack of support and interest in movements that genuinely seek to empower the youth intellectually and economically. Instead, overwhelming support is given to entertainment that keeps the youth distracted from pursuing long-term goals and engaging with issues that truly matter. This pattern is not accidental; it is sustained because a distracted youth is easier to control than an informed and organized one.

Modern societies may no longer rely on gladiators or imperial arenas, but the underlying principle remains unchanged. Today, excessive focus on sports, nonstop media cycles, celebrity culture, and political theater serves the same function these spectacles once did. They consume attention, shape emotions, and divert focus away from corruption, accountability, and deep structural failures.

Those who claim to have genuine intentions of leading Ghana into a better future must therefore take responsibility for reshaping the mindset of the people, particularly the youth. Without a deliberate shift away from constant distraction toward critical thinking, civic engagement, and national development, meaningful progress will remain elusive. When citizens are distracted, leaders are rarely challenged. When leaders are not held accountable, development becomes an illusion. The time to demand reform is now.

Over the past few months, I have grown increasingly concerned about a misconception that many Ghanaians appear to have developed regarding the kind of personality and temperament one must possess to become president. This misconception is troubling, particularly because it is being reinforced rather than corrected. Key stakeholders—political analysts, civil society actors, and opinion leaders—ought to be educating the public more effectively. Instead, many simply observe as the public becomes mis-educated and misinformed, reacting emotionally and impulsively rather than approaching national issues with analytical reasoning.

This problem is evident in the way certain arguments are framed in the media and other public platforms, especially attempts to portray Honorable Kennedy Agyapong as unfit for the presidency solely because of his personality. I find this line of reasoning troubling and largely nonsensical. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is critical that such discussions are grounded in thoughtful analysis rather than personal bias or emotional reaction.

For clarity, this analysis is not presented on behalf of any political group or affiliation. I speak solely for myself, and my intention is not to promote any individual, but to challenge the flawed assumption that leadership effectiveness is tied to a narrow definition of temperament.

Personalities and Temperament of Former Ghanaian Presidents

To place this discussion in proper context, it is useful to examine the personalities and temperaments of Ghana’s former presidents since the country became a constitutional republic in 1992. The assessments below reflect my personal observations, though I believe many readers will recognize these traits as broadly consistent with public perception.

Jerry John Rawlings governed with intensity and moral certainty. His temperament was fiery, confrontational, and deeply uncompromising. He viewed leadership as a corrective force against corruption and elite excess, and he believed that fear, moral pressure, and public discipline were legitimate tools of governance. This personality was appropriate for his time.

Charismatic and populist, Rawlings inspired devotion and relied heavily on personal authority rather than institutions, maintaining a revolutionary mindset even during civilian rule. Highly emotional and instinctive, he distrusted elites and preferred command over consensus. While this made him decisive and commanding, it also left little room for dissent and weakened institutional independence.

John Agyekum Kufuor was a sharp contrast. Calm, diplomatic, and conciliatory, Kufuor believed democracy functioned best when leaders exercised restraint. He favored dialogue, negotiation, and institutional processes over confrontation.

Soft-spoken and urbane, he trusted systems and delegated authority to advisers. Critics often interpreted his patience and optimism as weakness or detachment, particularly during crises. Supporters, however, viewed his leadership as stabilizing, mature, and respectful of democratic norms. His presidency emphasized institutional growth, international diplomacy, and consensus-building rather than emotional politics.

John Evans Atta Mills was perhaps the most introspective and reserved of Ghana’s presidents in the Fourth Republic. A scholar by disposition, his temperament was reflective, gentle, and conflict-averse. He governed with strong personal ethics and placed a high premium on peace, humility, and moral restraint.

Mills avoided political drama and resisted pressure from hardliners, even within his own party. He disliked harsh rhetoric and public confrontation, preferring quiet governance guided by conscience. While this earned him respect for integrity and civility, it also attracted criticism for indecision and weak political control. His leadership prioritized harmony over aggression and restraint over dominance.

John Dramani Mahama’s temperament is pragmatic, adaptive, and emotionally steady. Unlike Rawlings’ moral intensity or Mills’ gentleness, Mahama approaches leadership as a realist and manager of political complexity. He is flexible, transactional, and comfortable with compromise.

Mahama governs by building broad coalitions and navigating constraints rather than dramatizing conflict. He is less ideological and less confrontational, preferring accommodation to rigid positions. Critics view this flexibility as a lack of firmness or ideological clarity, while supporters see it as maturity and political endurance.

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is driven by strong convictions and a deep belief in his historical mission. Ideological and confident, his temperament is firm and often inflexible. He places great emphasis on ideas, constitutionalism, and legacy, sometimes at the expense of emotional connection with the public.

Akufo-Addo governs with a sense of destiny and is willing to endure unpopularity if he believes his position is morally or intellectually correct. While this provides ideological clarity and vision, it has also been criticized for rigidity, elitism, and emotional distance from everyday hardship. He is persuasive, but not instinctively responsive to public pressure.

Taken together, Ghana’s presidents demonstrate that there is no single personality type that defines effective leadership. Fiery leaders have governed, just as gentle scholars, pragmatic managers, and rigid ideologues have done. All of these leaders experienced both successes and failures, yet each left behind a distinct legacy.

Ghana is not unique in this regard. The United States offers a similar illustration. It has produced presidents and heads of state with vastly different personalities and temperaments, all of whom left their imprint on the nation. Consider the sharp contrast between leaders such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden on one hand, and Donald Trump and George W. Bush on the other. Despite their differences, each governed in accordance with who they were, not by attempting to imitate another personality type. Their achievements and failures alike flowed from their authentic selves. It is my personal belief that societies derive the best results from leaders when those leaders are allowed to be their best and most authentic selves.

Let Ken Be Ken

In the current era of Ghanaian politics, public frustration is widespread. Citizens routinely express anger over corruption, misappropriation of public funds, unemployment, economic hardship, and weak accountability. The critical question, therefore, is not whether a candidate fits a preferred personality type, but whether the individual being elected possesses the competence, skills, vision, and goodwill required to confront these challenges. These are the serious questions that matter. Far less useful is the propagandist habit of attacking a person’s personality as a way of disqualifying them, rather than assessing how that personality might be applied—constructively—in pursuit of national objectives.

I see Hon Kennedy Agyapong to have the fit of the likes of Rawlings, Nkrumah and Trump. Like Rawlings and Trump, Kennedy Agyapong is defined by raw emotional intensity. He is confrontational by instinct and speaks without filters. Unlike polished or carefully scripted politicians, he confronts conflict with strong outrage, presenting himself as the individual willing He is deeply opposed to hypocrisy, instinctively suspicious of elite consensus, and inclined to view compromise as moral weakness. His temperament is not conciliatory but corrective and punitive. Rather than relying primarily on quiet institutional processes, he favors exposure, naming and shaming, and the application of public pressure as tools of accountability.

Like Rawlings, he approaches governance through the lens of righteousness versus corruption, believing that moral pressure and public exposure are legitimate instruments of political enforcement. Rawlings targeted the “kalabule” elite of his era; Kennedy targets what he describes as hypocritical politicians, judges, and business figures. The targets differ, but the underlying instinct remains the same.

Like Nkrumah and Trump, Kennedy Agyapong commands strong street-level populist appeal, particularly among young people who feel ignored or betrayed by what they perceive as overly cautious or “soft-spoken” leadership. His blunt authenticity energizes disengaged citizens and fuels a sense of urgency to act decisively. He articulates a vision of industrializing Ghana and expanding employment opportunities—an outlook clearly shaped by his background as a businessman and industrialist. He connects with the frustrations and aspirations of the youth and approaches national development from a business and industrialization perspective. Achieving this vision, however, requires Kennedy Agyapong remaining true to his God-given personality rather than diluting it to fit elite expectations.

I dare say that some years ago, some may argue that individuals such as Ken Ofori-Atta possess the “ideal” presidential temperament—calm, collected, Christian, intellectually refined, emotionally controlled, and soft-spoken. He famously read national budgets while quoting the Apostle Paul, embodying what many would describe as respectable and presidential decorum. Yet, despite these polished traits, this same figure has, over the past eight years, been accused of presiding over the misappropriation and alleged mismanagement of billions of dollars, leaving more than 35 million citizens bearing the consequences. He is now reportedly evading accountability. This reality challenges the simplistic assumption that refined personality traits automatically translate into ethical or effective leadership.

Former minister and NPP Member of Parliament, Samuel Atta Akyea, recently remarked, “I feel Kennedy Agyapong will beat some of his cabinet members as president. His temperament scares me”. Coming from a colleague within the same party, this statement is revealing. It suggests an awareness that Kennedy Agyapong would be intolerant of corruption, indiscipline, and misappropriation. Those who know him understand that he would not permit the comfortable, unchecked misconduct that thrives under pliable leadership. They know he is difficult to control, unwilling to look the other way, and unafraid to call out wrongdoing—even within his own party, as he has done in the past.

Similarly, Ghanaian lawyer and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, reacting to a recent campaign by Adwoa Sarfo intended to damage Kennedy Agyapong’s image, posed a pointed question to Ghanaians: “Adwoa Sarfo says Kennedy Agyapong is so principled that he would not appoint family members into government. Isn’t that a good thing?” This question deserves serious reflection. Is it not desirable to have a leader so principled that even close associates and family believe he would not engage in favoritism? Have Ghanaians not grown weary of nepotism and cronyism—practices that became deeply entrenched under the recent Akufo-Addo family and friends administration and whose consequences the nation continues to endure?

If Ghanaians are truly fed up with corruption, misappropriation, and elite impunity, then one must ask whether this is not precisely the type of leadership they claim to want. Yet many appear willing to embrace propaganda that demonizes a leader’s personality simply because it cannot be easily manipulated or controlled. At times, it seems as though Ghanaians are not merely victims of poor governance, but passive participants in its continuation.

I will entreat Hon Kennedy Agyapong to be himself and leverage his personality to lead better.

Are Ghanaian youth not mass migrating from a country governed under John Mahama’s relatively pragmatic and restrained temperament, only to seek livelihoods under the far more aggressive temperament and personality of Donald Trump in the United States? This reality alone suggests that people are not primarily driven by a leader’s temperament or personality. What they seek, above all else, is an economy that allows them to survive, progress, and secure a future.

For this reason, I would urge Honorable Kennedy Agyapong to remain true to himself and to leverage his personality more effectively rather than suppress it. Ultimately, citizens need a leader with a clear vision to solve pressing national problems, maintain public accountability, and improve living standards. Personality matters only to the extent that it serves these outcomes.

Unfortunately, the media often finds it easier to sell sensational narratives by amplifying the perceived flaws of individuals with strong reputations, conditioning the public to believe that a particular personality type is inherently unfit for leadership. This kind of narrative framing is both misleading and harmful to democratic choice.

It is therefore worth stating clearly that, based on my observations from a distance, Kennedy Agyapong—though imperfect, like all human beings—is a man of integrity, honor, and discipline. He is a responsible father and family man, a tireless worker, and a committed patriot. Beyond rhetoric, his actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of generosity and public-spiritedness.

I have observed his charitable impact extend across his family, hometown, constituency, region, and the nation at large. He has personally paid school fees for thousands of young Ghanaians, covered medical bills for many in need, and funded significant health and educational initiatives. Notably, he financed the construction of a multimillion-dollar cardiothoracic center in Ghana and has donated substantial resources to strengthen healthcare and educational infrastructure. Through these actions, he has influenced countless lives in meaningful and positive ways.

In light of this record, the claim that such a person lacks the “right personality” to be president deserves serious reconsideration. Leadership is not about conforming to a prescribed temperament; it is about results, accountability, and impact.

Ken, be yourself.

While there is significant debate and speculation among party members and the public about who might win, the purpose of this article is not to predict the outcome. Instead, it seeks to provide a neutral, analytical perspective from the point of view of an NPP delegate on who may best represent the party as its flagbearer.

Make no mistake, the presidential primaries are intended to select a party flagbearer, not the President of Ghana. The chosen candidate must be someone capable of leading the party and successfully contesting the presidency in the general elections. At this stage, the decision lies with the party delegates — who have the formal voting power to decide the party’s future flagbearer.

Readers must note that, as an AfriDeem contributor, I write from an expert political analyst perspective, which does not represent AfriDeem official, non-partisan stance. I have evaluated both candidates using seven neutral, non-partisan criteria. Candidates are rated on a five-star rating . Also each criteria is weighted on a level of importance from least (1) to most important (5) criteria. Points are allotted to each candidate based on ratings and the criteria importance.

International and Diplomatic Credibility | Weight - 1

A flagbearer must be able to represent Ghana on the global stage. Delegates should assess whether a candidate can build constructive international partnerships, attract investment, and command global respect. Does the candidate have the necessary experience and connections to succeed in this role?

Kennedy Agyapong | 2.5 Stars ★★✨☆☆ | 2.5 pts

In terms of international and diplomatic credibility, Kennedy may lag behind Bawumia. Despite serving as a Member of Parliament for 25 years, Kennedy has established strong local and continental partnerships and has successfully attracted investment through his business ventures. While the presidency itself grants global recognition, Kennedy would need to build such prestige over time, as this would be his first attempt at ascending to the highest office. Notwithstanding this, he has demonstrated international connections even before holding presidential office, including relationships with Chinese, Arab, and American partners, exemplified by his project to establish the largest pharmaceutical company in Ghana’s Central Region, etc. This demonstrates Kennedy’s ability to leverage his network and prove to Ghanaians that he can operate effectively on a larger stage even before assuming formal presidential duties.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 4.0 Stars ★★★★☆ | 4 pts

Bawumia tenure as vice president gives him a significant advantage in this area. Through his experience representing Ghana at both continental and global levels, he has likely developed partnerships with heads of state, prospective leaders, and international organizations. This experience positions him to maintain and strengthen these partnerships more effectively than Kennedy, providing a solid foundation for Ghana’s diplomatic engagement as president.

Verdict

Considering the capacity to represent Ghana at the highest level, Bawumia outclasses Kennedy in this criterion. While Kennedy demonstrates strong connections in his private and business life, he has not yet done so in the formal capacity of representing the Republic of Ghana. Therefore, Bawumia earns a higher rating of 4 stars, compared to Kennedy’s 2.5 stars.

Track Record, Experience & Competence | Weight - 1

Delegates must examine candidates’ previous leadership roles, achievements, and failures. This includes leadership in government, the party, or community roles, as well as the candidate’s ability to understand complex national issues, make informed decisions, manage government operations, and collaborate effectively with technocrats and institutions. Experience may come from public service, the private sector, or party leadership.

Kennedy Agyapong | 4.0 Stars ★★★★☆ | 4 pts

Kennedy served as a Member of Parliament for 25 years, from 2000 to 2025, giving him extensive political experience. He demonstrates leadership that has earned the respect of his constituents; when he decided not to contest further, chiefs and the community of Assin Central pleaded for him to remain in office—a clear sign of local confidence in his leadership. Beyond politics, Kennedy has successfully managed numerous business enterprises, which enhances trust among Ghanaian businessmen who believe he understands their challenges. In terms of public service, community engagement, and party roles, Kennedy arguably surpasses Bawumia.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 3.0 Stars ★★★☆☆ | 3 pts

Bawumia entered politics in 2008 as the running mate to Nana Akufo-Addo. While his position as vice president placed him close to the presidency, questions remain about the effectiveness and impact of his leadership. Many Ghanaians associate the administration he served under with failures, including economic challenges like cedi depreciation, which undermines his track record. Despite his experience in a high office, Bawumia’s accomplishments have left limited lasting impact, making it difficult for the public to see tangible results from his tenure.

Verdict

Both candidates bring distinct experiences to the table: Kennedy as a seasoned politician and businessman, Bawumia as an economist and former vice president. However, when evaluating overall experience and measurable impact, Kennedy has the advantage. He understands Ghana’s political environment and has consistently demonstrated effective leadership in both politics and business. While Bawumia’s role as vice president is notable, the lack of visible impact diminishes the relevance of his experience. Therefore, Kennedy earns 4 stars, and Bawumia receives 3 stars.

Character, Temperament, & Leadership Style | Weight - 2

Delegates must consider traits such as emotional intelligence, humility versus arrogance, ability to listen, crisis-management skills, consistency under pressure, and the discipline to hold wrongdoers—especially corrupt officials—accountable. These qualities are particularly important in Ghana, where citizens are deeply frustrated with corruption.

Kennedy Agyapong | 3.5 Stars ★★★✨☆ | 7 pts

Character can be deceiving; people are not always what they appear to be externally. Kennedy may be perceived as highly temperamental, arrogant, and harsh. Not a surprise, in Ghana’s business environment, toughness is often necessary to survive and succeed. Kennedy has demonstrated resilience, energy, and determination—traits that have contributed to his success.

In a nation grappling with endemic corruption, one might say that such a temperament is desirable. Kennedy’s high energy, discipline, and consistency have enabled him to overcome significant challenges. On his podcast with Kennected Minds podcast, he discussed how persistence and disciplined effort helped him reach his current level of achievement.

Additionally, Kennedy has shown significant altruism. Over the years, he has paid school fees for hundreds of students in Assin Central, built schools, CHIP compounds, market centers, and even supported individuals in pursuing political roles—all from his personal resources. This record of service and discipline enhances his profile as a leader with strong character.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 2.5 Stars ★★✨✩✩ | 5 pts

Bawumia has consistently presented a calm and composed demeanor. Unlike Kennedy, Bawumia maintains a constant, smiling persona. While some may interpret this as timidity, it could also be a deliberate approach to leadership.

However, when it comes to crisis management—particularly during issues such as currency depreciation—Bawumia’s performance has been criticized. As vice president under Akufo-Addo, he remained largely silent during periods of corruption within the administration, reflecting a lack of discipline in holding officials accountable. Furthermore, there is no widely recognized record of altruistic service or charity on his part that resonates with the public.

Verdict

Both candidates exhibit different leadership qualities. Kennedy demonstrates a high-temperament style, toughness, discipline, and a history of altruistic service, which are valuable for addressing corruption in Ghana. Bawumia’s calm and composed nature is not inherently negative, but in comparison, it lacks the visible impact needed for transformative leadership. Consequently, Kennedy earns 3.5 stars, and Bawumia receives 2.5 stars.

Integrity, Ethics & Accountability | Weight - 3

Ghana’s political environment places high value on honesty and accountability. Delegates must consider: Has the candidate demonstrated integrity? Are there unresolved scandals or corruption issues? Do they model accountability? How are they perceived by Ghanaians on these fronts? This factor is particularly relevant as Ghanaian youth are increasingly frustrated with government corruption.

Kennedy Agyapong | 4.5 Stars ★★★★✨ | 13.5 pts

Kennedy is widely admired, especially among the youth, for his honesty and willingness to speak the truth without fear or apology. Over the years, he has built a reputation as a politician of integrity. In Parliament, he is recognized for exposing more corruption than almost any other member, including high-profile cases like the Woyome saga.

Kennedy demonstrates an independent streak: he does not follow the crowd when it involves wrongdoing, even if it implicates his own party. He has consistently condemned corrupt actions by politicians, often acting alone without support. For example, it is believed—though unconfirmed—that he even voted in favor of the opposition NDC in electing the Speaker of Parliament, highlighting his commitment to principle over party politics.

His track record signals a genuine desire to fight corruption and advocate for the average Ghanaian, which resonates strongly with citizens. A candidate perceived as “clean” and trustworthy energizes the youth, appeals to middle-class professionals, reduces political apathy, and strengthens the party’s image.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 2.5 Stars ★★✨✩✩ | 7.5 pts

The Akufo-Addo administration, under which Bawumia served as vice president, is widely regarded as one of Ghana’s most corrupt modern governments. Because of his role in that administration, Bawumia’s name is often associated with governance failures and corruption. During his campaign, he has attempted to distance himself from the Akufo-Addo legacy, claiming he was just the “mate” rather than the driver and had limited influence—an argument that resonates weakly with many Ghanaians.

Bawumia has no widely recognized record of independently fighting corruption or exposing wrongdoing, either within his party or government. Consequently, public perception does not associate him with integrity or accountability.

Verdict

Kennedy’s consistent record of exposing corruption and advocating for accountability earns him a strong advantage in this category. Bawumia, by contrast, carries the burden of association with a widely criticized administration and lacks a personal record of ethical leadership. Accordingly, Kennedy is rated 4.5 stars, and Bawumia 2.5 stars.

Vision, Policy Agenda & Economic Understanding | Weight - 4

Delegates must assess whether the candidate presents a clear, realistic, and coherent vision for Ghana. This includes evaluating policy proposals that address key national priorities such as jobs, education, health, energy, agriculture, and economic stability. Given Ghana’s ongoing economic challenges, it is important to assess whether the candidate: understands macroeconomic issues, has feasible plans for job creation (Ghana’s number one problem), and comprehends the country’s debt, inflation, and investment environment. A credible economic message can attract undecided voters, restore public confidence, and set the candidate apart.

Kennedy Agyapong | 4.0 ★★★★☆ | 16 pts

Kennedy consistently communicates a clear vision for Ghana: industrialization. His message is supported not just by words but by his personal track record of building businesses, industries, and organizations. This real-world experience positions him as a leader Ghanaians can trust to address unemployment and transform the country into a production hub for Africa.

Through his 25 years as a parliamentarian and decades of business experience, Kennedy has gained insight into economic challenges and the effects of instability on businesses and investors. His campaign demonstrates feasible plans for job creation, reflecting a hands-on understanding of Ghana’s economic needs. Kennedy’s emphasis on following the footsteps of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, a celebrated African leader, further reinforces his vision and commitment to national development.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 2.5 ★★✨☆☆ | 10 pts

Bawumia brings strong academic and professional credentials to the table, including experience at the Bank of Ghana and a deep understanding of macroeconomic principles. He is recognized for accurate economic predictions and has earned the moniker “the economics prophet.”

However, Bawumia lacks a track record of translating this knowledge into practical results. During his tenure as vice president, Ghana’s industrialization efforts were largely unfulfilled, with programs such as “One District, One Factory” failing to meet expectations. While he understands economic principles theoretically, he has not demonstrated effective implementation, particularly in job creation—Ghana’s most pressing issue.

Verdict

While a president does not need to be an expert in every aspect of governance, they must demonstrate competence in key areas and the ability to leverage experts to implement policies. Kennedy, though as a businessman and politician, has practical experience creating jobs and managing economic ventures, and he has articulated feasible plans for national industrialization. Bawumia, despite his strong economic knowledge, struggles with practical application and has a record of unfulfilled promises in key economic initiatives.

On the basis of vision, policy agenda, and practical economic understanding, Kennedy outperforms Bawumia, earning 4 stars, while Bawumia receives 2.5 stars.

Party Unity & Coalition-Building Ability | Weight - 4

A strong leader should strengthen the party rather than divide it. Delegates must ask: Can this candidate bring all factions together? Will their leadership reduce internal conflict or exacerbate it? A leader who fosters division gives the opposition an advantage, making internal cohesion before and after the primaries essential for electoral success.

Kennedy Agyapong | 3.5 Stars ★★★✨☆ | 14 pts

Kennedy has consistently emphasized unity in his campaign. During his tour of the Eastern Region, he actively engaged delegates, advising them to avoid partisan politics and focus on collective goals. This demonstrates a genuine effort to bridge divides and inspire cohesion within the party.

With 25 years of parliamentary experience and a history of supporting party initiatives—including providing over 200 pickup vehicles for elections—Kennedy has shown dedication and loyalty to the party. His long-standing service and demonstrated commitment suggest that he has the influence and credibility needed to unite internal factions, prevent post-primary bitterness, inspire grassroots mobilization, and bring former rivals on board. In essence, Kennedy possesses the qualities necessary to translate unity into votes.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 3 Stars ★★★☆☆ | 12 pts

Bawumia’s record on party unity is less clear. While he has remained relatively calm publicly regarding allegations of internal division, there have been reports of party communicators creating confusion online and attacking Kennedy’s reputation, signaling underlying tensions.

Additionally, the departure of respected party figure Alan Kyeremateng—who cited favoritism and division within the party—highlights challenges in internal cohesion during Bawumia’s tenure as vice president. Such divisions have had tangible electoral consequences, particularly in the Ashanti region, where party unity has historically influenced voter turnout.

Verdict

Considering past divisions within the party and the need to unify all factions, Kennedy demonstrates a stronger potential to bring the party together across regions. His long-standing dedication and proactive approach to unity give him an edge over Bawumia in this regard. Therefore, Kennedy is rated 3.5 stars, while Bawumia receives 3 stars.

Electability and National Appeal | Weight - 5

Arguably the most important factor delegates must consider is electability. It is the single strongest determinant of victory. The ultimate goal is to select a flagbearer who can win the national elections against the main opposition, the NDC. Delegates must assess a candidate’s appeal across regions, ethnic groups, and demographics, as well as their communication skills, public trust, and perception, particularly among the youth.

Ask yourselves: Which candidate would the opposition prefer we present? Whichever candidate the opposition would most like to face is a weak link - and should be avoided. Even the most qualified candidate will fail if they lack broad national appeal. A successful flagbearer must attract floating voters, be likable and relatable to ordinary Ghanaians and win swing votes.

Kennedy Agyapong | 4.5 Stars ★★★★✨ | 22.5 pts

It is very clear that Kennedy communicates better than his competitors on campaign platforms and public stages. His message resonates strongly with the masses—especially the youth. Kennedy presents the NPP with a candidate who embodies love for the nation, a commitment to fighting corruption, honesty, straightforward, and a focus on addressing the country’s most urgent needs - job creation.

In the most recent elections, the NPP suffered the heaviest defeat in Ghana’s election history, largely because the previous government’s reputation had become deeply unpopular. Presenting a candidate closely associated with that administration risks reminding Ghanaians of the last eight years—years many do not want to relive.

Kennedy, however, offers a clean brand and a fresh face—making him the ideal candidate under these circumstances for the NPP.

Mahamudu Bawumia | 2.5 Stars ★★✨☆☆ | 12.5 pts

Bawumia may be a good candidate, but presenting him comes with a heavy political cost. His candidacy immediately triggers painful and disappointed memories of the Akufo-Addo administration. Ghanaians recall the unfulfilled promises, the economic hardship, and especially the depreciation of the cedi—an issue Bawumia himself campaigned on but failed to fix, ultimately corrected by Ato Forson of the NDC. This alone raises questions of competence and credibility, and many Ghanaians simply do not want to revisit that era.

Additionally, it becomes extremely difficult for the NPP to craft an effective campaign message if their own candidate symbolizes the very failures voters rejected. His public speaking struggles and lack of political charisma only worsened the issue, making it hard for him to energize voters or win the swing constituencies needed for national victory.

Verdict

For the NPP to have any chance of winning the upcoming election, they must make a bold statement to Ghanaians. They need to show they have learned from past mistakes and are presenting someone trustworthy—someone who represents a new direction.

Bringing back a figure directly associated with past failures would be a major strategic error and could keep the party in opposition for many years. That makes Bawumia a risky and unfavorable option.

Kennedy, on the other hand, gives the NPP a real opportunity to rebrand and challenge the incumbent. The NDC is already presenting a new face—one that will likely solidify strong national support over time. This means the NPP must also present someone who offers freshness, credibility, and a clean break from the previous administration.

This election cycle is the NPP’s best chance to reset, and Kennedy Agyapong is the candidate who gives the party that chance. Kennedy is rated 4.5 stars, while Bawumia receives 2.5 stars on the most important criteria - Electability and National Appeal.

FINAL VERDICT

Delegates must vote Hon. Kennedy Agyapong over Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia

The ultimate objective of the NPP presidential primaries is simple: elect the candidate who can win the 2028 general election. This is not about personal loyalty, emotion, or short-term excitement. It is about securing the long-term survival and return of the party to power. Delegates must therefore think beyond temporary jubilations and look at the bigger picture.

There is no strategic value in choosing a candidate who cannot deliver victory in 2028. Doing so risks keeping the party in opposition for another eight years. For this reason, delegates must carefully weigh the key criteria discussed above—not based on personal preference, but based on what gives the NPP the strongest path back to government.

After evaluating the candidates across seven critical metrics, the analysis is clear:
Hon. Kennedy Agyapong outperforms Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia in six out of seven categories, including the most decisive ones.

Based on this assessment:

• Kennedy Agyapong scores 79.5/100

• Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia scores 54.0/100

If the NPP is truly committed to regaining power in 2028, the evidence strongly suggests that delegates should rally behind Hon. Kennedy Agyapong as the candidate with the highest overall capacity, broader national appeal, and stronger winning potential.

Maybe this analysis above may be difficult for some unintelligent NPP delegates to comprehend. Let me break it down to a layman view.

The trade decisions African nations make and the collaborations they enter continue to work against the continent’s progress. One may ask: How can a continent so rich in natural resources still rank so high in poverty, unemployment, mass migration, hunger, and instability?

Carefully examine the top 10 export products of selected nations above: the United States and Canada from the Americas; England and France from Europe; China and Russia from Asia; and Ghana, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo from Africa. The results reveal patterns that are impossible to ignore.

Industrialized economies like the United States, Canada, France, China, and Russia export a wide range of manufactured and value-added goods—machinery, vehicles, electronics, chemicals, aerospace equipment, pharmaceuticals, and more. Their wealth is built on industries, factories, research, and technology.

In contrast, resource-rich developing economies such as Ghana, Nigeria, and the DRC rely heavily on a narrow set of raw materials and commodities—gold, oil, cocoa, cobalt, timber, or one or two other raw materials. Their export baskets lack diversification making them more vulnerable to fluctuations in global commodity prices and are dependent on raw materials, even though they produce some of the highest-quality natural resources in the world.

Despite having some of the highest-quality minerals and natural resources in the world, African export totals remain only a fraction of what a single industrialized country exports. I cannot point to a single major finished product that a country like Ghana has developed into a globally exported good.

Pattern of Resource Management in Ghana

I have discovered a pattern Ghana leaders follow regarding how resources of the nation are handled.

• Ghana’s raw materials are sold cheaply to foreign nations or exchanged for royalties through partnership agreements with foreign corporations.

• These nations establish factories in their own countries, hire thousands of their people, and create generational wealth through processing and manufacturing.

• They add value to the cheap resources obtained from Ghana .

• They sell the finished products—phones, jewelry, machines, batteries—back to Ghanaians at exaggerated prices.

In the end, foreign countries that do not own the resources earn more from them than Ghanaians do.

Most painful of all is that even within Africa—Ghana included—the mining of our own resources is not done by Africans. Almost every major mining field is leased to foreign companies that control the operations while African governments receive what they call a “royalty,” usually between 5% and 10%.

Since the discovery of gold in Obuasi and diamonds in the Western and Eastern Regions, European and Asian corporations have held long-term concessions allowing them to mine for decades. In return, Ghana receives a small royalty and is left with the environmental destruction—mosquito-breeding pits, ruined lands, and displaced communities.

Meanwhile, these companies ship the gold and other minerals abroad as raw materials for their own industries, creating jobs for their people, building value for their nations, and eventually selling finished products back to Ghanaians at higher prices.

The story is the same with oil discovered in Cape Three Points. Ghana granted rights to foreign companies for only a 9% royalty, while local communities suffered the loss of fishing grounds, broken employment promises, forced relocations, and long-term destruction of livelihoods.

Cocoa tells the same heartbreaking truth. Ghana has been a leading cocoa exporter since early 1900s, yet cocoa farmers remain among the poorest citizens. Our leaders continue to export raw beans instead of processing them into finished products that could create thousands of jobs and multiply national wealth.

And these examples go on endlessly. For almost every valuable resource we discover, the first instinct of our leaders is to lease it to foreign nations for royalties. No one thinks of maximizing it ourselves—building capacity, adding value, creating industries, and securing long-term prosperity for today’s generation and the ones yet to come. We keep handing away what could become multi-generational wealth.

Why This Pattern of Resource Management

It reflects how shallow and short-term our leadership has become. Many leaders refuse to plan long-term; they prefer quick money. The concessions look big at first glance, but in reality, they are crumbs compared to the true value of the resources handed away. Instead of thinking about the future and developing the capacity to manage these resources ourselves, they settle for instant gratification.

People often excuse this behavior with claims like “lack of capital” or “high cost of investment.” But they forget that Rome was not built in a day. Progress requires discipline and delayed gratification. Quick money brings quick suffering; long-term thinking builds long-term strength.

Another root of this problem is the division caused by partisan politics. From childhood, Ghanaians are conditioned to believe that our current political system is the only viable one. Yet this system encourages short-term decisions. Parties invest heavily to win power, and once in office they have only four years to recover their investment before elections return. So they rush deals that benefit their political group, not the nation.

If oil or minerals are discovered during their administration, they quickly sign deals so their party can benefit before their term ends. Long-term national planning becomes impossible. Leaders avoid initiating long-term projects because they fear a future government will claim the credit. So they choose short-term gains that benefit themselves before they exit office. This mentality is destroying our nation.

iPhones Production - A lesson Ghana leaders can learn from China

When we talk about iPhones, most people forget a simple truth: although Apple is an American company, the heart of the iPhone beats in China. China sits on some of the world’s most important rare earth minerals—just like many African nations—but unlike Ghana, China refused to play the role of a raw-material exporter begging for 5% - 10% royalties. They did something radically different.

They told Apple and every other Western corporation: “If you want our minerals, if you want our labor, if you want our market… then you must build your factories here.” Not in California. Not in Europe. In China. That one decision reshaped the destiny of over a billion people. It meant jobs stayed in China. Value stayed in China. Technology stayed in China. And expertise were built over time and stayed in China. Over time, this strategy produced world-class companies like Huawei, Xiaomi, Lenovo, and BYD — giants that now challenge the very nations that once looked down on China.

And let’s be clear: this transformation didn’t happen in one president’s term or through quick deals designed to make a few elites rich overnight. It took 10–20 years of disciplined, visionary leadership — leaders who understood that real development comes from controlling your resources, refining them at home, and forcing foreign corporations to respect your terms, not the other way around.

Today, Apple’s largest manufacturing centers are on Chinese soil, creating more than 10,000 direct jobs and over 5 million indirect jobs, fueling entire cities, funding local innovation, supporting local economy through taxes to Chinese governments and creating an huge job market where ordinary citizens do not need to flee abroad to survive. They created opportunity at home because they kept ownership at home.

Now Ghana stands at that same crossroads with lithium — a resource even more powerful than oil in the coming decades. Parliament will soon gather, and Ghana will be watching. Will our leaders follow the path of China and secure a future where Ghanaian engineers, miners, technicians, and innovators build industries on our own land? Or will they repeat the painful old pattern — accepting quick royalties, allowing foreign corporations to take our raw minerals, and leaving our youth with nothing but unemployment and dreams of traveling abroad for survival? This decision is not just about lithium. Ghana finally takes control of its destiny remains a question for the gods.

Lithium Royalty Saga

Consider the recent lithium royalty deal by the current government of Ghana. The royalty was initially set at only 10%. Lithium is one of the most critical minerals in modern technology.

Foreign companies want Ghana’s lithium because it powers the modern world—electric vehicle batteries, large-scale solar and wind energy storage, and everyday electronics like phones and laptops. Lithium is also essential in aerospace, defense, robotics, and future electric machinery, making it the “new oil” of the global economy. Whoever controls lithium controls the EV industry, renewable energy, future transportation, high-tech manufacturing, and the global battery supply chain. That is why foreign corporations pursue lithium with such aggression.

Do our leaders know this? Do they understand that Ghana’s lithium could become a global industry built on our own soil, creating jobs and wealth for generations? If they do, why are they so quick to exchange that potential for a 5%–10% royalty?

This is one moment where our leaders should stand together to protect Ghana’s future. They should have said, “We must think of the future of our children.” Instead of leasing it away, they can acquire the machines, trained the youth, and built a national lithium-processing industry owned and run by Ghanaians.

Even if it took ten years to build, would that not be better than giving away 90–95% of the wealth for quick cash? For over 50 years, we have repeated the same mistakes with gold, cocoa, oil, bauxite, manganese, and more. Meanwhile, the youth are forced to travel abroad in search of jobs that could easily be created here if we processed our own resources.

Kwame Nkrumah warned long ago: “So long as foreign interests control industry and finance, the wealth created by African labor and resources will go to enrich others.” He emphasized that true freedom requires economic independence, which can only come from developing our own industries, commerce, and banking. He said it plainly: “If you do not build factories, you will forever be selling cheap and buying expensive.”

Our leaders also fail to recognize that what appears as “help” from foreign nations often comes at the cost of surrendering our wealth. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Foreign countries do not cross oceans to help Africans; they come to pursue their interests. They exploit our resources with the cooperation of local leaders who prioritize personal gain over national interest and development.

Let this lithium opportunity become the turning point. Let it be the moment where we regain confidence in ourselves, believe in our own ability, and commit to building something that will last beyond our lifetime, for posterity will judge every action we take today. Let us stop being exporters of raw materials — a habit born of laziness and short sight — and become builders, innovators, and long-term thinkers. Let us set a new standard for how we handle our resources. Even if we fail, we know we tried doing something with good intentions of the nation and future generation at heart. We shall learn from our mistakes and bounce back stronger. It is time for the youth to speak up and stand up for change.

We often think of iconic figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the United States, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. After these frontiers came generations of leaders who built—sometimes imperfectly—on the sacrifices of those before them. This article focuses on the generations that followed the pioneers.

Let’s take an example of the United States. Across U.S. history, each generation of leaders made defining contributions. The Founding Generation, led by Washington and Jefferson, secured independence and drafted the Constitution. The Civil War Generation, shaped by Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, preserved the Union, ended slavery, and expanded civil rights. The Industrial and Gilded Age, influenced by Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie, drove rapid economic growth, modernization, and reforms. The Progressive and World War Era, led by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, built strong institutions, expanded social welfare, and guided the nation through two world wars. The Cold War Generation, with figures like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, advanced civil rights, fostered scientific breakthroughs such as the space program, and maintained global stability. The Post–Cold War Globalization Era, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, expanded global trade, encouraged technological innovation, and modernized the economy. Finally, the Digital and Populist Generation, shaped by leaders such as Donald Trump and Joe Biden, has focused on technological governance, inequality, cybersecurity, and democratic reforms.

Collectively, these leaders moved the United States from one stage to the next, ultimately shaping the global superpower it is today. I believe their founding fathers look down from the afterlife and are proud of their sacrifices they made. Their death and struggles were not in vain.

Can the Same Be Said of Ghana ?

Ghana, like the United States and many other nations, experienced colonization. The sacrifices of our founding fathers—especially Dr. Kwame Nkrumah—were instrumental in securing our independence and sovereignty. His contributions extended beyond independence: he transitioned Ghana into a republic and launched an ambitious industrialization agenda.

Yet, as with all great leaders, Nkrumah could not rule forever. His overthrow—engineered by Western powers with the collaboration of some Ghanaians—abruptly halted his vision of industrial progress and national freedom. It remains deeply painful how a leader who acted so visibly in the interest of his people could be removed so shamefully.

Like the US, multiple leaders have led Ghana after Kwame Nkrumah. This brings us to a difficult question: How should today’s youth in Ghana judge the generation that came after Nkrumah? Can we proudly say they left us a legacy worth celebrating? Or must we admit that they failed us?

Let’s analyze current existing conditions in Ghana. Today, success in Ghana is often defined by the ability to escape to the lands of our former colonial masters in search of greener pastures. Unemployment is widespread. Even highly educated graduates struggle to secure meaningful work in their homeland. Industrialization, initiated by Kwame Nkrumah, is nonexistent. Corruption dominates national news headlines. Protests erupt frequently. The youth—frustrated, unsupported, and hopeless—are desperate to leave the very land that should be their home. Natural and human resources continue to be exploited by foreign nations. Telecommunications, banking, mining, and many major industries are predominantly owned by Western, Eastern and foreign interests even on our own land. The country is drowning in debt, sustained only by using scarce rich natural and mineral resources as collateral. This leaves little hope for the Ghanaian child today or tomorrow.

I will like to call the generation after our founding fathers as generation of vipers. When I speak of this generation of vipers, I refer not only to political leaders but also to traditional leaders and every individual who lived within this era, who directly or indirectly, contributed to the decline of our nation. Whether you were involved directly or indirectly, you watched on as your colleagues and your generation betrayed a country and multiple generations that are to come after.

These issues are clear for all to see. But the question remains: How does that generation view its own service?

Honest Voices From Within the Generation

I deeply appreciate honesty, accountability, and integrity—especially when leaders admit their own failures. Let me talk about two respectable leaders who have made recent remarks on this subject.

Dr. Sam Jonah, age 76 years, former CEO of AngloGold Ashanti, has openly acknowledged the failures of his generation. His words are powerful, sobering, and painfully honest. Speaking directly to the youth, he said:

These are not the words of critics or activists. They are the words of someone who participated and lived through that era—someone courageous enough to admit the truth many are unwilling to face.

Veteran journalist Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, aged 75, has also expressed disappointment in his generation. He lamented that they failed to build upon the strong foundation laid by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, contributing to the challenges the youth face today. Watch his honest statements in the video below.

If every Ghanaian leader aged 50 and above—from that era—were asked to speak honestly, I believe most honest once would echo the sentiments of Sam Jonah and Addai-Sebo.

Lessons for the Current and Future Generation

A common Ghanaian adage says - “if your friend’s beard is on fire, fetch water and keep yours wet.” This means that when you see danger in someone’s situation, take precautions so it does not become your own.

Today, we criticize our predecessors—and rightly so. But every young Ghanaian must now ask: How will future generations judge us? Will they say we were any better than the generation we condemn? Or will we stand before them one day, apologizing for failing them as well?

If we are not careful, we may do worse. The crisis we have inherited is deep, and it will only grow more complex if we remain passive. If the youth do not rise now out of our timidity and cowardice—if they remain silent—the next generation will judge us just as harshly.

Nothing is improving. The same corrupt systems, political deception, and destructive governance practices are being passed down to younger leaders. Many young politicians enter the system already conditioned to prioritize party loyalty over patriotism. By the time they assume power, they are fully indoctrinated and continue to uphold and defend the values of their political affiliations - the same system that these generation of vipers are consciously upholding to create hardship for our generation and that of our children .

But as the current generation, we cannot simply sit aside and complain. Whether or not we are personally corrupt, we are living in the era when these failures continue, and that alone places responsibility on us to act by fighting for change. We must fight for a change to the existing systems that promote corruption and mismanagement, oppression and control from foreign interference, greed and self interests, etc.

Call to Action

The failures of those who came before us are undeniable, but they must not become the blueprint of our future. The truth spoken by Sam Jonah and Addai-Sebo is not merely a judgment of the past—it is a warning to the present generation of Ghanaians and Africans everywhere. If we do not rise to confront corruption, rebuild our institutions, resist foreign exploitation, and redefine leadership with integrity and courage, we will soon inherit the same condemnation we place on our predecessors. The torch now rests firmly in our hands, and history will remember what we did with it. Let us choose action over silence, reform over complacency, and courage over convenience. Let this be the generation that breaks the cycle—one that our children will one day thank, not accuse.

Kunta Kinte was a young Mandinka man from The Gambia, born around the mid-18th century. He was captured by slave traders around 1767, taken to America, and sold into slavery in Maryland. He was about 17 years old when he was captured/kidnapped while collecting wood near his village of Juffure. Slave traders seized him, chained him, and forced him onto a ship bound for the Americas — part of the transatlantic slave trade.

The journey, called the Middle Passage, was brutal and horrific. Enslaved Africans were packed tightly below deck, starved, beaten, and many died before reaching shore. Kunta survived — but his freedom and identity were violently stripped away like enslaved Africans before him and after him. When he arrived in Annapolis, Maryland, Kunta was sold to a white plantation owner named John Waller. On the plantation, enslaved Africans were given new, “Christian” names to erase their African identities — a practice meant to break their spirit and link them to their enslavers’ world.

This is the most iconic and heartbreaking part of Kunta Kinte’s story. Watch a short excerpt of the scene below in the 1997 TV Mini Series, Roots.

⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️ Content Warning⚠️⚠️ ⚠️

The following clip contains scenes of racial violence and brutality depicting the enslavement of Africans. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. This scene is shown for historical and educational purposes, to illustrate the cruelty of slavery and the resilience of those who resisted cultural erasure.

When Waller’s overseer tried to rename him “Toby”, Kunta refused to accept it. He insisted, proudly:

“My name is Kunta Kinte.”

The overseer, furious at his resistance, had Kunta tied to a post and whipped brutally. Each time the whip lashed his back, the overseer demanded,

“What’s your name?”
and each time, bleeding and in pain, Kunta answered,
“Kunta Kinte!”

The punishment continued for weeks until, exhausted and near death, Kunta finally whispered the name “Toby” — not out of surrender, but survival. That moment symbolized the violent erasure of African identity under slavery, and yet, his defiance became a symbol of cultural endurance — a refusal to be fully broken.

Watching that scene is painful — and it should be. I share this clip not for its brutality, but to remind us of what it means to resist even when the world tries to erase who you are. It urges us to confront the reality that names, language, and heritage are not just symbols — they are the essence of true identity.

Kunta Kinte’s story represents the struggle of millions of Africans who were enslaved — stripped of names, languages, and traditions — yet whose descendants still carry echoes of that lost heritage.

In many African and African diaspora cultures, a name is sacred. It carries ancestry, destiny, and identity. So when Kunta Kinte was whipped until he said “Toby,” it wasn’t just a man being beaten — it was a culture being attacked.

The Question of Identity

The question is this: is your African identity — your name — under attack?
Of course, it is.

I am yet to meet a white European, Arab or Asian, no matter where they live, who bears an African name. Naming is not a casual act — it ensures the continuation of heritage and the remembrance of one’s bloodline. It is the thread that connects generations, the bridge between past and present.

Yet it is heartbreaking that most Africans have abandoned the names of their forefathers — those who initiated their bloodline and stood up for their rights — and instead have taken on the strange names of their colonizers. I dare say, our ancestors must be turning in their graves, bitter that we proudly bear the names of the very people they fought against for our freedom and survival, while neglecting theirs.

Growing up in Ghana — and I believe this is true across almost all African countries — anytime a student introduced himself in school, he would often be asked, “What is your English name?” In churches or mosques, one is/was expected to take on an English/Christian/Biblical or Arab/Islam/Quran name to be accepted as “born again.”

So people adopted names like John, Mary, or Mohammed, Amina — and those without foreign names were often mocked or seen as uncivilized. This colonized mindset must be broken. It created the impression that anyone without a colonial name was barbaric or backward — a lie planted deep into our collective consciousness.

One of the strategies used by religious groups to push this agenda was to demonize African naming systems. Foreign religions, including Islam and Christianity, gave new names to converts as a sign of a “new covenant” — supposedly marking salvation and holiness. Our fathers were made to believe that they had to abandon their old names — the names of their ancestors — because they were branded “idolatrous.” Watch this short comedy video below from Concert Party show in Ghana. Though funny it shows a pastor suggesting colonial names to Bob Santo after his baptism and conversion to colonial religion.

What a devastating strategy to erase a culture, a heritage, and a long-standing identity — all in the name of control, power, and authority. This mindset breeds inferiority. It makes us view our traditions as primitive while glorifying Western conventions as modern and superior.

I may not have official statistics to prove this, but from my experience in Africa, I can confidently say that if a national survey were conducted today, over 80% of Ghanaians would bear foreign names.

The Lesson of Heritage Africa

Two years ago, a close friend I was visiting in Virginia — knowing my love for history and African culture — introduced me to a 1989 film titled Heritage Africa.

The message of that movie struck me deeply: cultural and mental bondage can be far more damaging than physical colonial rule. It emphasizes the need to reclaim one’s African identity and heritage as a means to overcome the lingering legacy of colonialism.

The story follows Quincy Arthur Bosomfield — originally Kwesi Atta Bosomefi.
Kwesi changed his name to an English one to better fit into the colonial system and advance his career. He believed that abandoning his African name would make him more “respectable” and help him climb the ranks of the colonial administration.

His transformation from Kwesi Atta Bosomefi (Kwesi → Quincy, Atta → Arthur, Bosomefi → Bosomfield) shows how deeply colonial psychology penetrated the African soul. He rejected his heritage and identity just to conform to a system designed to erase him.

And the sad reality is — this still happens today.

The Cycle Continues

I have seen expecting parents spend hours searching for the most “beautiful” Western, Arab or foreign names for their unborn children. And I will confess — I have been a victim of this too.
Like many of you reading this, I bear an foreign name. My children do as well. Not because I understood the implications — but simply because I was following the norm, unaware of what it truly meant.

This level of mental colonization runs deep — not just among individuals or families, but across entire African nations. We live in countries where streets, public buildings, and national monuments proudly bear foreign names. In Ghana and other African nations, for instance, we have Oxford Street, Liverpool Road, George Walker Bush Street, Victoria Falls, and many more.

So when I saw President Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso — a true Pan-African leader — begin renaming streets that once honored French colonizers, replacing them with the names of African heroes and ancestors, I was filled with pride. That is leadership rooted in identity.

When Others Reclaim Theirs

Recently, Turkey officially changed its international name to Türkiye, to better represent its culture, civilization, and values — and to distance itself from the English word “turkey,” which carried negative connotations.

The country has referred to itself as Türkiye since 1923, but it wasn’t until recently that the government formally requested international bodies, including the UN, to recognize it. This change was not cosmetic — it was symbolic of national pride and self-definition.

Yet here we are, still calling ourselves “Africans”, carrying the name given to us by Scipio Africanus — a Roman general who conquered and exploited parts of our continent, leaving his name as a mark of ownership. Most of our countries, cities, towns, and villages still bear colonial names. It is disheartening that many of our leaders seem comfortable living under the shadows of colonization instead of asserting who we truly are.

Who Is to Blame?

No child born to this world had a choice or say in what or how he was called. So who bears the responsibility for protecting our cultural identity? Leadership.

In traditional African society, culture always had custodians — our Chiefs and Kings — entrusted with preserving the heritage and identity of their people.

But under the long shadow of colonial influence, many of these custodians have failed in that duty. Whether through ignorance, complacency, or corruption, they have allowed our identity to be eroded before their very eyes.

Could it be that they, too, have become more colonized than the people they lead?

There are two ways any traditional or political leader might respond to what I am writing. They could take offense — viewing it as an attack on their reputation or intelligence. Or they could see it as a call to awareness — a reminder of the oath they took to protect the dignity and cultural identity of their people. I sincerely hope they choose the latter.

The Call to Reclaim African Identity

I am not writing this article merely to criticize. I am writing to awaken the African — wherever we are — to a sense of awareness about who we are and the power we hold when we reclaim our true identity.

We must free ourselves from this stolen identity and rediscover our worth as a people. And I hope this article will stir both political and cultural leaders to rise to their responsibility — to defend and promote our heritage, and to restore trust and pride in our culture.

I do not yet know how this awakening will fully happen, but I believe it begins with simple, deliberate steps. We can start by reforming our educational systems, by launching public campaigns that celebrate our ancestors, and by teaching our children the true meaning of their names.

I do not know when Africa will finally reach that point where we can all stand proud of who we are — but understanding our past and how we arrived here is the first step.

The second is having the will and desire to change — even if it begins with small steps. Because every time we reclaim a name, we reclaim a piece of our identity. And when we reclaim our identity, we reclaim our power.

If several people were asked this question, each might answer differently. People would describe different components of who they are, meaning that who you are encompasses many things. Some would mention their name, where they come from, their favorite food, culture, clothing, or the songs they love. In fact, one might conclude that the best way to describe oneself is through culture — one’s way of life.

Ultimately, answering this question comes down to identifying one thing: your identity. A person is lost without it. If you do not know who you are, you cannot know who you are meant to become. If you do not know who you are, you may not even recognize what you are entitled to in life. Every human being belongs somewhere, and not knowing where you belong makes you vulnerable and easily controlled. That is the power of identity and self-awareness.

Because identity is so crucial, your enemy will use any means possible to strip it from you. Once that happens, they gain control and dominance over you. It’s that simple.

For over 500 years, Africans — or Black people — have endured unimaginable hardship through slavery and colonization. Though this remains the longest period of enslavement and colonization in human history, it is not the first. But what lessons can we learn from earlier examples — especially if we’ve learned nothing of our own, the most recent and devastating one?

Let us look at an incident recorded in the Bible, describing the colonization of ancient Israelites by the Assyrians and Babylonians. In the Book of Daniel 1:3–7, we read that when King Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Jerusalem around 586 BC, he took many Israelites into exile:

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and nobility — young men without physical defects, handsome, intelligent, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they would enter the king’s service. Among those chosen were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

Many Christians may have read this passage but never considered its deeper implications.

Nebuchadnezzar took the best and brightest young Israelites — educated them in the Babylonian language and literature (erasing their Hebrew heritage), fed them royal food and wine (enforcing foreign customs and diet), and gave them new names (changing their identity). This process erased their Hebrew heritage and replaced it with Babylonian identity (replacing their Hebrew names which honored their Hebrew gods and ancestors with names honoring Babylonian gods and ancestors). Their Hebrew names, which honored Yahweh, were changed to names honoring Babylonian gods:

• Daniel (“God is my Judge”) → Belteshazzar (honoring Bel, a Babylonian deity)

• Hananiah (“The Lord is gracious”) → Shadrach (possibly “command of Aku,” the moon god)

• Mishael (“Who is like God?”) → Meshach (“Who is like Aku?”)

• Azariah (“The Lord helps”) → Abednego (“servant of Nebo”)

Do you see what the Babylonians were doing? This was cultural indoctrination — what we might today call brainwashing. It was a deliberate attempt to erase their original identity and assimilate them into a foreign culture — a form of cultural colonization.

The enslavers targeted the youth — the most promising, intelligent, and impressionable. They re-educated them in foreign science, literature, and religion. They renamed them, tied their identities to foreign gods, fed them foreign food, and trained them to serve the empire. Babylon didn’t destroy Israel’s culture — it replaced it. They colonized not just the land, but the minds and souls of the people.

Now pause for a moment. If you think I am here to preach, then you’ve missed the point. The question you should be asking yourself is this:

Has the playbook of colonization changed?

If not, after centuries of slavery and colonization, how has African culture and identity been attacked? Are we still being controlled — permanently — by former slave masters? Have we been stripped of our true identity? Do we truly know who we are, or have we been living under a false identity imposed on us by foreign colonizers?

Has there been a conscious and ongoing effort to attack our traditional religions?

Has there been a conscious and ongoing effort to erase our names?

Has there been a conscious and ongoing effort to erase or lifestyle?

Has there been a conscious and ongoing effort to erase our language?

Has there been a conscious and ongoing effort to erase our leadership systems?

It is extremely sad how African leadership has failed its youth in almost every aspect of life. African politicians, traditional leaders, and many others in positions of influence have been a disappointment to the generations coming after them. What is even more troubling is that many of them do not recognize this failure as a serious threat to development. And if our leaders do not see it as a problem, how then will the rising generation even begin to think critically about it?

Perhaps someone reading this may ask, “How is this relevant to modern day development?” I challenge anyone who holds that view to sit down, reflect deeply, and ask themselves: If these issues were truly irrelevant, why then did your colonizers go to such great lengths—through enslavement, manipulation, and psychological warfare—to strip you of our identity? They understood the power of identity, even if we pretend not to or even if you are ignorant. They know that following slavery, the best way to control you is to control you mind by making you believe everything about you is inferior - name, food, traditional government, clothing, beliefs and culture, language, etc.

Leadership in Africa must rise to the occasion. Leadership in Africa must make a conscious, deliberate effort to start from the basics of helping people reclaim and embrace their true self. Our forefathers fought and sacrificed for our freedom.

And preservation begins with education. Make reforms to educate their people to understand the tactics used by past and present oppressors, and to guide them toward reclaiming and embracing the true culture and identity our ancestors left for us. Make laws the ensure that our culture is not lost. Enforce them, for it is your sworn duty and you have all the powers and support of the people to do it.

Because of this, national security agencies must be extremely intentional about who they recruit into the armed forces. The job requires people who are willing, intrinsically motivated, disciplined, and guided by a deep sense of patriotism. It is not a career for just anyone.

My migration to the United States opened my eyes to how differently countries operate, and why the results vary so drastically. I often compare their systems to those in Ghana, and the contrast in outcomes proves why some nations prosper while others stagnate.

Cadet Talent in Ghana — An Untapped Goldmine

Cadets at High School Level - An Early Training

The video above shows performance of Obiri Yeboah Senior High School Immigration Cadets. This school has won numerous cadet competitions across the Central Region and the entire nation. Their excellence is no accident—they are trained by expert immigration officers, benefiting from proximity to Ghana’s only immigration training school in Assin Foso.

These students are talented, disciplined, and have already been well groomed as future officers of the Ghana Immigration Service. They may not know everything yet, but compared to someone with zero prior training, they possess a solid foundation — marching, saluting, defense basics, discipline, and basic service terminologies.

Obiri Yeboah Senior High School is not an isolated case. Almost every high school in Ghana has a cadet corps trained by skilled instructors as well. In high school, these students receive no financial reward, no academic bonuses, no incentives for their participation in cadet programs — just a certificate. So why do they join? In my own view, their participation is fueled by intrinsic motivation, passion and love for service.

They choose to do something difficult, in addition to heavy academic workloads, for no reward but commitment and the passion to be a cadet student. And that alone speaks volumes. We cannot all be cadets, and that is fine, because not everyone has the passion or ability for it.

Cadets at the Tertiary Level — Even More Prepared

At the University of Ghana’s Commonwealth Hall, I had friends in the Vandal Army Cadet Corps. These were intelligent students studying psychology, mathematics, engineering, nursing, and other fields — trained by Ghana Armed Forces personnel. They had both brains and discipline.

Like the Vandal Army, other halls in Ghana universities — Akuafo, Mensah Sarbah, Casford, Katanga, Continental — also have well-trained cadet corps. The story is the same across universities, polytechnics, nursing colleges, and teacher training institutions.

Before I proceed to make my national policy recommendation for national security recruitment , let us learn from other nations.

What Other Countries Are Doing

To be good at something, learn from the best. Let us examine how stronger nations recruit and train their forces. I will examine the case of the US, Russia and China.

United States — JROTC and ROTC

The U.S. uses the ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) and JROTC (Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) programs as their first line of Security Agency recruitment. ROTC IS a college-based program that trains students to become commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces after graduation. The high school equivalent is JROTC. It is offered at over 1,700 colleges and universities and includes military training alongside academic studies, often with scholarships available to help cover tuition and other expenses. Students in the program can earn scholarships, develop leadership skills, and graduate ready to serve as second lieutenants in the Army, Navy, or Air Force. Students take part in military science classes, physical training, and summer training programs, building leadership and teamwork skills that are valuable in both civilian and military life.

I studied alongside ROTC students—they were regular students majoring in engineering, computer science, nursing, and more, while also receiving military training. Their system resembles Ghana’s cadets—but with the crucial difference that the U.S. actually invests in and recruits from theirs.

Russia — Yunarmiya and Military Academies

Russia has programs similar to ROTC/JROTC, but they are organized differently and are more closely tied to state-run youth and military-patriotic organizations rather than universities. The largest and most visible youth military-patriotic program in Russia is called Yunarmiya (Young Army).Yunarmiya focuses on military-style training - discipline, marching, drill, physical fitness, survival, patriotism, national defense skills, weapon familiarization and competitions.

Also there are dedicated military universities, such as Combined Arms Academy, Military Technical University, Naval Academies and Air Force Academies.

China — Junxun & University Defense Programs

In China, all high school and university students undergo a short period of mandatory military training called Junxun. They train in Marching and drill, Basic military discipline, Physical conditioning, Intro to national defense and Sometimes basic weapons instruction (non-live fire).

Like the USA, China runs University National Defense Students(similar to ROTC). Like ROTC, students in China attend a regular civilian university and participate in the military program. After graduation Graduates are commissioned as army officers and serve a mandatory number of years in active duty. Like Russia and America, China also has Military Academies.

The Benefits These Countries Enjoy

The benefits of these programs to these countries are that they get a steady, predictable pipeline of new trained lieutenants and officers from diverse academic backgrounds.

This produces officers who understand both military and civilian worlds, are better prepared for the service and bring innovation to the service.

By the time they commission, they’ve had at least 4 years of progressive leadership practice, not just boot camp or short officer school. These programs offer a stabilizing force for recruitment and readiness

These nations invest early because they understand a simple truth: Strong armies are built from young, disciplined recruits—not desperate jobseekers.

So you see, great military nations use similar approaches — training and identifying future military personnel early. Meanwhile in Ghana, even though we have similar systems in our schools and universities, we do not leverage them.

So why are we ignoring this pool of ready, motivated, partially trained, high-potential candidates? The hard truth are these:

But should we entrust the safety of over 30 million Ghanaians to people who were not recruited on merit? You may think this is a small problem, but wait until a crisis or war breaks out — and these individuals cannot deliver.

Furthermore, if leaders of our Armed Forces cannot manage and coordinate mere recruitment processes, how can they manage and coordinate warfare and security of the nation?

THE CALL TO RECRUIT FROM HIGH SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Let me be clear: I believe every person can be trained. But it is wiser to recruit the best, the strongest, the most motivated, the most prepared — especially when they already exist in our cadet systems.

I once asked my friend why they joined the cadets at college. Their responses remain the same : they have had the passion since high school and they really enjoy being part of the cadet.

But they also feared one thing—that when the time came to join the army, they might be denied because “in Ghana, it’s all about who you know”. This is heartbreaking.

These are the very people who should be first in line: highly educated, physically capable, motivated, and already partially trained. Yet they fear being pushed aside by protocol, politics, or favoritism.

I am calling for the Ghana Armed Forces, Immigration Service, Fire Service, Police Service, and other agencies to prioritize recruitment from high schools and universities for these reasons:

1. They have the right motivation from the beginning. Without money, promises, or incentives, they still join cadet groups out of pure passion.

2. They join for the right reasons. Their interest in the security forces was born at a young age—not out of desperation for a job.

3. They already have basic training. It is common sense to recruit people who already understand the fundamentals.

4. It allows early screening. Experts can identify the strongest, most disciplined, and most resilient candidates before national recruitment begins.

5. It reduces political interference. Early recruitment blocks party protocols and favoritism, ensuring merit-based entry.

6. It ensures recruitment of smart, competent individuals. Many cadets are among the brightest in their schools.

7. It prevents tragedies like the Elwak Stadium stampede. If recruitment pipelines begin early, we will not see 60,000 desperate applicants fighting for space in a 7,000-capacity stadium just to get a job.

In conclusion, the cadets in our high schools and universities are motivated, experienced, disciplined, and ready. Yet the nation overlooks them for political, financial, and self-serving reasons. Ghana cannot build a strong military or national security system on protocol, bribery, favoritism, and desperation. If we want to become a powerful, secure, and respected nation, we must do what strong nations do: Recruit young, recruit early, recruit the motivated, and recruit on merit.

Let me tell you a story of mine in 2016. I was a young man with good credentials—a bachelor’s degree from the University of Ghana and a master’s degree as well. Yet, despite all these qualifications and years of effort in developing myself, I was never gainfully employed in my own country. In fact, I didn’t get full-time employment in Ghana until after I traveled abroad. No wonder almost every young person wants to leave the country.

In 2016, I got myself affiliated with politics, hoping it would help me secure a job. One day, some party leaders called me and told me that the constituency executives had recognized my efforts during the campaign and were going to help me get a job. At that time, anything would do for me. As a young man in my late 30s with a graduate degree but unemployed, living with my parents was both frustrating and embarrassing. The job they recommended was at the airport as a security officer.

My friend and I, who were both affiliated with the party, were invited to the Elwak Stadium for screening. As part of the process, we went through fitness tests and some physical exercises. The funny part—which my friend and I still laugh about today—was when we were asked to strip naked so that our testicles could be inspected to confirm that we had two. We laugh over this everyday. Anyway, that is too much information already.

Fast forward about a month later—we still hadn’t heard anything about whether we had been selected. I thought this was a party protocol arrangement. When we reached out to our contacts, we were told to forget about it because the positions had already been given out long before we even attended the screening. They assured us that if another opportunity came, they would prioritize us.

Let me tell you another story.

A year later, a position was announced for a National School Health Educational Coordinator under the Ministry of Education. This role became crucial after the Influenza H1N1 outbreak at Kumasi Academy Senior High School, which killed 17 students in 2017. I applied for the role with my Master of Public Health qualification and was selected for the aptitude test. I passed that and was later invited for an in-person interview.

During the interview, I noticed the interviewers’ curiosity about my background, and how deeply they probed to understand my ideas for this new role. It was a great interview, and I left confident.

As I was walking back through the Ministries area afterward, a young man around my age approached me politely. He told me he was a national service person working in the ministry. After learning we were both old Vandals from the University of Ghana, he told me something I will never forget.

“V-mate,” he said, for which I quickly responded “Sharp” . “I was in the interview room taking notes for the panel. I can tell you for a fact—you are the ideal candidate for this role. You scored the highest in the aptitude test. You wrote the best report. Others wrote essays like SHS teachers, but yours was the only proper report, and that is exactly what they were looking for.”

“But,” he continued, “the sad truth is that the person selected for this role has already been chosen. The order came from above. Everything happening here is just a formality—for bonuses and sitting allowances. I hope you get it, but don’t hope too high.”

We exchanged contacts, and he is still my friend to this day.

These experiences, and many others before and after, taught me important lessons about public sector employment in Ghana:

• You do not get a job based on merit.

• Corruption is real—you must pay to get in.

• You must know someone (or be known by someone) to get in—and even then, you still pay.

• The real selected applicants rarely attend interviews; when they do, it’s just for formality.

But is this how things ought to be? Can’t we as Ghanaians do better for ourselves, at least for once?

Subscribe now

For goodness’ sake, the National Security Agencies—especially the Armed Forces—are among the most important institutions in our country. That is why the President, the highest authority in Ghana, is called the Commander-in-Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces. National security is crucial; we cannot afford to get it wrong.

So who is to blame? Leadership?

Yes, to some extent. We cannot all be at the helm of affairs. That is why we elect leaders—to represent our interests and work for the common good of Ghana. But before we blame leaders, let us look at ourselves. Leadership is always a reflection of the people, and vice versa.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Bad things happen because so-called good people refuse to speak up. Corruption persists because we tolerate it. When we fail to speak, bad precedents become acceptable norms.

The recruitment process for Ghana’s security services is fraudulent, exploitative, and corrupt. In my view, what is happening with security services recruitment should never be legal. The government is using the unemployment crisis—a crisis they themselves contributed to—to exploit and extort the same poor citizens they should be helping. Why on earth should people pay money for before they get employed.

Now let’s talk about employment and global recruitment standards.

Across the world an din many countries, there are laws guiding recruitment processes to ensure they are legal and ethical. Yet, in Ghana, even at the highest levels of leadership, we have lost our sense of ethics in this process. And if the highest authorities lack ethics, how can the institutions under them do better?

Global labor standards on recruitment fees are clear:

• Employers—not applicants—must pay recruitment costs.

• Charging jobseekers creates conflicts of interest and enables fraud.

• Many countries have laws that prohibit employers or agencies from collecting any form of recruitment fee from applicants.

It is common sense. An employer needs workers to generate profit, and employees receive only a fraction of that profit. If the business is not profitable because employees underperform, they are laid off. So why should an employer charge someone for a chance to work?

Yet this is exactly what is happening in our security services. People are made to pay money—through the sale of application forms—for a 0%–3% chance of being selected. This is pathetic and a bad precedent.

And let’s consider the nature of the job. These are positions of service—roles where people are literally putting their lives on the line for their country. The job is risky. It should be a role of honor, yet the government expects applicants to pay for the chance to die in service to the nation. It just doesn’t make sense.

Worse still, the government knows that most applicants are applying out of desperation, not passion. The economic struggles force many to take any job available, even one they are not truly inclined to do. And because of that desperation, they charge them recruitment fees. This is daylight exploitation.

Last year, it was reported that 90,000 applicants applied for the Armed Forces recruitment, with only 3,000 selected. This year, 60,000 applied, and only 4,000 were to be picked. If these numbers are accurate, then the GAF made between GHC 12–18 million from selling application forms alone. And they do this knowing perfectly well that the majority of applicants will not be selected—not because of merit, but because the slots have already been allocated through bribery, political protocol, military protocol, and favoritism. I once chanced on this page on facebook and I said to myself, wow. It is really a business.

You may deny this, but anyone living in Ghana knows it is true. And this problem is not limited to the current government—it has existed under previous governments as well, and will continue if nothing is done.

Ask any officer currently serving in the security agencies how they got in. Nine out of ten will tell you it was through protocol or bribery. I personally experienced this when I attempted to help my brother join the Immigration Service. I was told to pay GHC 50,000. How can someone who has GHC 50,000 be desperately looking for a job? I later learned that those who don’t have upfront cash are enlisted, and the money is deducted from their salaries for 6–12 months until the bribe is paid off.

Some will defend the recruitment fees by claiming they cover administrative costs—processing applications, shortlisting, online portals, verification, security checks, etc. These excuses are weak and expose the incompetence of the public sector in managing simple recruitment systems in a technologically advanced world.

Takeaways

I hope this article will push for reforms and bring some decency into government recruitment:

• The youth must be angry enough to demand transparency and refuse exploitation. Silence is acceptance. Speak up.

• Abolish application fees for government jobs. Government recruitment laws should eliminate application fees—90% of applicants are going to get rejected anyway.

• Stop sharing recruitment slots among MPs, Ministers, Chiefs, and Political figures. Recruitment should be national, not partisan.

• Recruitment must be merit-based, not favoritism-based. Let the best candidates serve Ghana.

• Criminalize recruitment bribery and protocol systems. These crimes should be made felonies, with strict long-term penalties including jail terms.

Ghana is bleeding and it’s our silence that is killing her. Every year, thousands of Ghanaian youth wake up early, queue under the hot sun, and pray for a chance to serve their country. They run. They sweat. They faint. Some collapse. Some die.

And after all that, the job is already gone—to someone who paid, someone connected, someone with protocol. How long will we accept this? Ghana is not poor. Ghana is not cursed. Ghana is simply mismanaged. And until we fight corruption—not with slogans, but with consequences—stories like mine will remain ordinary, and tragedies like Elwak stampede will continue. The time for truth is now. The time for reform is now. The time to fix Ghana is now.

Now, let’s look to history, as one cannot understand the present and future without the past. Think of the ancient times before the Westerners invaded our continent. Did we believe in anything? Did we worship any being? Were we spiritual? Did we love one another? Of course, the answer to all these questions is yes.

If that was the case, then why are we all suddenly Christians and Muslims, neglecting the traditional religions of our roots? The answer to this, if you are reading this, is that you inherited the religion you saw practiced in your environment; in other words, you were nurtured into it. It is that simple. You came into this world like a tabula rasa; society imprinted upon your mind what you should think and believe. Your religion is not something you discovered—you conformed to it because almost everyone else practiced it, and perhaps, just perhaps, it made sense to you.

But have you ever wondered how your forefathers, or their forefathers, became Christians or Muslims? If this does not bother you, then you are either not curious enough, and without this knowledge, you shall perish. Note that your early ancestors joined these religious movements because they were forced on them by their colonial oppressors. It was part of the colonization process. It was not meant to save them; it was meant to enslave and control them, just as it had been the same process for the colonizers in their part of the world.

Notwithstanding, that historical context is not the primary subject of this article. This write-up is focused on the Sabbath day.

The Command to Labor

It is the wish of every African that the continent flourishes, that it becomes productive, and that it blossoms. This cannot be achieved until its people are productive and industrious. For Christ’s sake, industrialization breeds prosperity! But in Ghana and other African countries, it is appalling to see most people idling and looking for easy ways to succeed, seeking a miraculous or spiritual shortcut to make it in life. Switch on your television any morning, and you will see church sermons from Monday through Sunday across numerous channels. I have asked myself: If our people are not out there working, learning, or thinking, how can this country ever become industrious? Why do these people work to make little money, and then think they can buy salvation or prosperity through tithing and donations? This brainwashing is wrong, and must stop. Where are our leaders? Wait !!! Are they victims as well?

I deem it right to say that worshipping God more than one day a week is against the commands and will of God—at least, the Christian God. God does not expect His children to gather and worship Him more than once a week. This is a basic concept every Christian must grasp, especially those who know how to read and write the English language. Our forefathers might have worshipped more than once a week, but does that surprise you? The religion was literally whipped into them. They accepted a book when they didn’t even know how to read or write a foreign language.

But for you who know how to read and write today, let’s examine the scripture in Exodus 20 together. The Ten Commandments was a law God gave to the ancient Israelites through Moses. The King James Version uses direct commands to emphasize them: “Thou shalt,” and “Thou shalt not.” Think of a few:

• Thou shalt not kill.

• Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

• Thou shalt not steal.

If God says “Thou shalt,” that is a straight command. In other words, you should.

When the command for the Sabbath day observance came, this is what God said:

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This was the initial command, and I believe nothing ever changed. Let’s break this down: “Remember the Sabbath day.” I was not the smartest in elementary school, but no one can disprove this fact, that the word “day” is singular, not plural. That means it is one single day. I do not care what this day is (let that be a debate for the religious sects), but my point is that it is not more than one day. He further explained, “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work,” but “the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God.” This confirms God was talking of the Sabbath as a single day of rest.

But let’s focus on verse 9, which reads, “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.” This is, in effect, a command: Thou shalt labor and do all your work in six days. Is this not a straight command? Why do most Christians overlook this and turn it the other way around, praying, congregating, and worshipping for six days while resting for just one or two? What a joke! “Are we worshipping God or worshipping our laziness?

Is it because you have freedom of religion and so you can fool around and then turn back and blame the government and the system for your hardships? Do we even recognize that failing to work for six days breaks the commandment of “six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work?” Why did we even skip that verse?

No pastor will tell you this because they want you there so they can make a lot of money off of you. No political leader will affirm this because they get their votes from the churches and have aligned with these religious leaders for the people’s support. If you say this, they will think of you as evil and not loving God, but the truth of the matter is this: worshipping God more than once or twice a week is foolishness. God does not need to tell you this directly; He affirmed it in the Sabbath day command.

Analyze this particular scripture well, and you will see God promoting industrialization and hard work as opposed to worshipping Him most of the time. Hence, religious leaders do not teach this, do not practice this, and do not want to see their members out there working, because they need you to follow them every day, every time.

The Logic of Rest and African Tradition

But think of it: is it not just common sense that man cannot work all week without taking at least one day to rest? Even machines and animals that labor for us need some time for maintenance, rest, and healing.

This branded concept of a Sabbath day is not new. In fact, in African traditional religion, the deities prohibited people from farming, fishing, and doing other work on particular days of the week. For example, among the Akan people of Ghana, specific Sundays, known as “Akwasidae,” were days when it was taboo to be seen farming (the main occupation of the people in ancient times). In coastal areas in Ghana, the gods prohibited people whose main occupation was fishing from fishing on Tuesdays.

This may have spiritual significance, but it is also just common sense that after a man has worked for six days—which he ought to do for most of his life for his own survival—he should at least have a day or two of rest. That day is when the gods require that they be worshipped and adored.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not deterring you from worshiping your God or deity. That is far from it. But I deem it right to say that any religious organization or sect that congregates its members more often than its members are out there working for the survival and productivity of themselves and their country is doing these members a profound disservice. Perhaps you might argue that you are not like that, if that is the case for you, well done. But you should deem it your responsibility to warn or advise your black or African brother/sister. For you cannot build a family, community, nation and continent alone. We need each other.

In conclusion, let’s ask ourselves these questions: if God commands six days of work, why are we in church almost all week? Is religion making Africans lazy or are we just blind? Six days you shall work — why then do Africans misread God’s blueprint to productivity ? Are Africans worshipping God or justifying their laziness?