A member of the Ken Agyapong Campaign Team, Lawyer K.K. Serbeh, has issued a scathing response to Akbar Yussif Rohullah Khomeini, an aide to former Vice President Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia.
This follows Akbar’s sharp criticism of comments made by the legal practitioner regarding the historical dynamics within the largest opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).
In a strongly worded statement, Lawyer Serbeh described Akbar’s rejoinder as “disappointing both in tone and in substance,” accusing him of either “willful misreading” or making “a hasty attempt to score a point without properly engaging with the message.”
“My reflections were neither tribalistic nor exclusionary. They were rooted in history, guided by principle, and aimed at introspection,” Lawyer Serbeh clarified.
He stressed that his reference to the late S.D. Dombo was a call to recognise sacrifice, not to inflame tribal passions.
“It is a matter of record that S. D. Dombo’s decision to defer leadership of the United Party to Dr. K. A. Busia set a precedent… That is how we got the Kufuor-Aliu Mahama ticket, and later Akufo-Addo-Bawumia. This balance has defined the party’s top leadership for decades. To pretend this structural equilibrium does not exist is to deny the truth that underpins our political evolution,” he stressed.
Lawyer Serbeh expressed concern that someone in Akbar’s position would mischaracterise such historical facts.
“It is therefore intellectually dishonest, if not politically reckless, for Akbar to suggest that such a historical observation is bigotry. And I say this with every sense of restraint. Akbar ought to know better than to agitate sentiments that could further fracture the party at such a delicate hour,” he noted.
Serbeh also drew parallels between the first chairman of the first modern political party in Ghana, Paa Grant and NPP flagbearer hopeful Kennedy Agyapong.
“Men like Kennedy Agyapong have done for our modern party what Paa Grant did for the UGCC — not just giving money, but shaping ideas, building institutions, and carrying the party through the storm. This comparison is not tribal. It is historical. It is philosophical.”
Read the full statement here:
I have read Akbar’s response with careful attention and, to be honest, I find it disappointing both in tone and in substance. It is either a case of willful misreading or a hasty attempt to score a point without properly engaging with the message that was initially communicated. My reflections were neither tribalistic nor exclusionary. They were rooted in history, guided by principle, and aimed at introspection.
My reference to Dombo was a recognition of sacrifice, not an invitation to tribal polemics. It is a matter of record that S. D. Dombo’s decision to defer leadership of the United Party to Dr. K. A. Busia set a precedent for what would become a silent, though widely respected, arrangement within our party. This has consistently produced a pairing of Southern and Northern candidates, often Christian and Muslim. That is how we got the Kufuor-Aliu Mahama ticket, and later Akufo-Addo-Bawumia. This balance has defined the party’s top leadership for decades. To pretend this structural equilibrium does not exist is to deny the truth that underpins our political evolution.
When I spoke of inclusion, it was within this context. Not tokenism, not appeasement, but the outcome of an honourable act of deference which birthed a political understanding that continues to shape our internal architecture. If anyone should hold Dombo’s name in esteem, it should be the very men whose political careers were made possible by that precedent. That includes Aliu Mahama and Dr. Bawumia.
It is, therefore, intellectually dishonest, if not politically reckless, for Akbar to suggest that such a historical observation is bigotry. And I say this with every sense of restraint. Even more unfortunate is that this response comes from someone who occupies a formal role in Dr. Bawumia’s team. In that capacity, Akbar ought to know better than to agitate sentiments that could further fracture the party at such a delicate hour.
He speaks of numbers, and I must ask, is that what it has come to? That a proud tradition will now be reduced to tallying ethnic majorities and minorities as though we were calculating electoral spoils? When the NDC labelled the NPP an Akan party and cynically used that accusation to undermine us, where were these passionate voices like Akbar’s? We heard no such vigorous history lessons or spirited defences from that side. Why? Because the accusation suited their politics at the time, and they fully exploited it. Now, Akbar wants to lecture us on numerical contributions? The irony is loud.
Let us return to the point I raised, which Akbar so swiftly sidestepped. If our party can uphold an informal yet deeply respected arrangement of regional and religious balance born out of Dombo’s gesture, then surely it is time we looked again at the contributions of George Alfred Grant, popularly known as Paa Grant.
Paa Grant was the first chairman of the first modern political party in Ghana. He was not merely a figurehead. He was the financier, the backbone, and the elder who made things happen. It was his personal resources that made possible the famous Saltpond rally, the birthplace of the nationalist political movement in the Gold Coast, and it was at that rally that Dr. Danquah made his immortal declaration. Yet today, Paa Grant’s name barely receives a mention when we talk of our tradition.
If we will not honour Paa Grant, then how can we, in good conscience, claim to respect financiers and patriots who have poured their resources into this party since 1992? Men like Kennedy Agyapong, who has done for our modern party what Paa Grant did for the UGCC, not just giving money, but shaping ideas, building institutions, and carrying the party through the storm. This comparison is not tribal. It is historical. It is philosophical.
As the philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If the NPP forgets the pillars that have held it up and begins to ridicule their sacrifices through careless responses like Akbar’s, we will fracture the very foundation of our tradition.
I want to use this platform to urge Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, as he continues his campaign, to visit the tomb of Paa Grant and invoke the spirit of the one whose selfless life mirrors his own. Their stories share a rhythm: men of means, moved by duty, misunderstood in their time but vital to the survival of the cause. If Kennedy’s mission is to restore truth and justice within the NPP, then he must draw strength from the spirit of the man who first made our tradition possible.
Let those who have ears listen.
By: Ekow Annan/newsalertgh.com
