When Principles Change with Power

There is a Ghanaian proverb that says, “When the mouse laughs at the cat, there is a hole nearby.”

In our politics today, many are laughing, defending, and explaining. But the real question is simple. What hole are they hiding in?

This conversation is not about hate. It is not about party colours. It is about memory, consistency, and truth.

Not too long ago, His Excellency, President John Dramani Mahama, then candidate of the NDC, made a strong accusation against His Excellency the former President of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, then president, stating that this was a clear conflict of interest and that the President knew about it, insisting that when he claimed he was too old to be corrupt and would not steal public money, it was only because he knew his relatives would do it for him and that was exactly what was happening, adding that he could comfortably retire while people like Ofori Atta, Gabby, and others would look after him.

This statement was reported publicly and widely circulated. You can read it here:
[https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Akufo-Addo-knows-Ofori-Atta-Gabby-are-stealing-for-him-Mahama-1121081](https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Akufo-Addo-knows-Ofori-Atta-Gabby-are-stealing-for-him-Mahama-1121081)

That statement was not casual talk. It was a serious political charge. It shaped public opinion. It fed the narrative that power was being used to benefit family and close associates.

Pause and think about that.
A sitting or former President telling a nation that another President allows relatives to benefit from state resources is not a small claim. It sets a standard. It defines what is wrong. It tells the country what must never be tolerated.

Now, fast forward to today.
There is a Ghanaian proverb that says, “The one who fetches water is the same one who knows where it is muddy.”

We have lived through seasons where certain actions were loudly condemned, labeled as state capture, and used to rally public anger. Today, we are faced with a situation that demands the same level of scrutiny, the same honesty, and the same courage to call things by their name.

The issue before us is not about whether a Ghanaian businessman can succeed. No one questions the right of any Ghanaian, including Ibrahim Mahama, to build wealth, invest, and grow a company. In fact, many admire his business success and his acts of generosity. That is not the problem.

The real concern is the intersection of power, proximity, and privilege.

A company owned by the President’s brother, Engineers and Planners, has taken over the Damang mine after the state assumed control of the concession. At the same time, it is publicly known that the President has used his brother’s private jet for official duties, with the state covering some operational costs.

Each of these facts, taken alone, may be explained away. But when you place them side by side, the picture begins to raise deeper questions.

Another proverb says, “When the drumbeat changes, the dance must also change.” But in this case, it seems the dance has changed while the drumbeat has stayed the same.

Let us take a step back.
Not long ago, when discussions emerged about a government-linked sale of SSNIT hotels to a politically exposed individual like Bryan Acheampong, the argument from many quarters, especially within the NDC, was clear. It was not just about whether procedures were followed. It was about the optics. It was about the principle. It was about the danger of politically connected individuals benefiting from state assets.

The phrase used repeatedly was “state capture.”

When concerns were raised about Ken Ofori-Atta and Databank, the argument again was not limited to criminality. It was about conflict of interest. It was about the possibility that proximity to power could create unfair advantage.

Even narratives like the so-called “Agyapadie” were pushed to suggest a system where power could be used to benefit a connected few.

So what has changed?
Has the definition of conflict of interest changed?

Or has the beneficiary changed?
Because conflict of interest is not a complicated concept. It simply means a situation where personal relationships can influence, or appear to influence, public decisions. It includes actual conflict, potential conflict, and even apparent conflict.

That last part is where many are uncomfortable.

Because you do not need a document signed in secret to raise concern. You do not need a recording of instructions being given. Once a reasonable person can look at a situation and say, “This does not feel right,” the issue already exists.

If a referee is officiating a match involving his own brother’s team, the problem is not whether he has cheated. The problem is that he should not be there at all.

That is the standard that was preached.
But today, that same standard is being bent.

Another proverb says, “When a man says he will judge a case, he must first remove his own cloth from the line.”

Leadership demands distance from personal interest. Not closeness. Not overlap. Not explanation after the fact.

Another proverb reminds us, “The lizard that jumped from the high Iroko tree said it would praise itself if no one else did.” But in matters of governance, self-praise is not enough. Accountability must come from the people.

So let us ask the hard questions.
If it was wrong yesterday for politically exposed individuals to benefit from state-linked assets, why is it acceptable today?

If the argument was that even the appearance of conflict damages public trust, why are we now being told to ignore what is clearly visible?

If a President who once warned that relatives could be used to benefit from state resources now finds himself in a situation where his own brother is at the centre of a major state-backed concession, should we not ask whether his own words still hold meaning?

If this same situation had occurred under Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, would the response have been calm and measured, or loud and unforgiving?

If a President’s brother is already providing him with private jet access for official duties, does that not require a higher level of caution when state opportunities arise involving that same individual?

If we were told that Ghana must be protected from “family and friends government,” what should we call this?

Or is principle now selective?
Because the truth is uncomfortable.
You cannot accuse another leader of allowing family members to benefit from state power, and then turn around and defend a situation where your own brother is at the centre of a major state-backed concession.

That is not consistency.
That is contradiction.
And contradiction weakens trust.
Another proverb says, “The same fire that melts butter also hardens clay.”

When citizens begin to see double standards, when they feel that rules only apply to some and not others, frustration grows. And when frustration grows, trust in institutions begins to fade.

This is not about denying the capability of Engineers and Planners. It may very well be a strong and competent company. This is not about denying the right of a Ghanaian to do business.

This is about timing. This is about proximity. This is about perception.

Because in governance, perception is not a small thing. It is everything.

A decision can follow procedure and still be wrong in spirit.

A process can be legal and still be unfair in appearance.

A leader can explain, but still fail to convince.

So this is where we must all pause and reflect.

Are we defending principles, or are we defending personalities?

Are we demanding accountability, or are we excusing it?

Are we building a country where rules apply equally, or one where rules change depending on who benefits?

Another proverb says, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.”

Because at the end of the day, Ghana does not belong to any family. It does not belong to any party. It does not belong to one moment in time.

It belongs to all of us.
And if we truly believe that, then what was wrong yesterday cannot suddenly become right today.

If it was called state capture before, what do we call it now?

If it was conflict of interest then, what is it today?

And if we cannot answer these questions honestly, then perhaps the problem is not what is happening.

Perhaps the problem is what we have chosen to ignore.

What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Anything else is not leadership.
It is hypocrisy.
By Victor Raul Puobabangna Plance from Eggu in the Upper West Region of Ghana 🇬🇭

#Puobabangna