Protecting the Ballot is Not a Crime: Why the Attacks on Kwadwo Bamba Lack Merit

​Recent comments on Asempa FM’s Ekosi Sen program by a member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) national communication team have raised necessary conversations about electoral safety. The communicator argued that the newly elected First Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwadwo Fosu Boadu, popularly known as Kojo Bamba should face arrest and imprisonment if he acts to protect votes on election day. His reasoning was simple: because Bamba is not a sworn police officer, any effort by him or internal party security to guard ballots is illegal. However, this argument misses the fundamental meaning of self-defense and legitimate protection under Ghana's constitutional democracy.

​The claim that only security officers can protect people or property is simply incorrect because every citizen possesses the inherent right to self-defense and the protection of lawful property under the laws of Ghana. You do not need to wear a police uniform to stop someone from harming you, nor do you need a badge to prevent a criminal from stealing what belongs to your community. When Kwadwo Bamba campaigned on a pledge to guard the NPP's votes, he was not calling for lawlessness. He was promising that the party's hard-earned mandate would not be taken away by force or intimidation. Defending your democratic vote against illegal interference is an act of civic duty, not a crime.

​A clear distinction must be made between attacking someone and resisting an aggressive action. Kwadwo Bamba and his team are not stepping out to initiate violence or harass voters on election day, which means their stance remains purely reactive. If no political hooligans attempt to snatch ballot boxes or intimidate voters, everyone stays peaceful, and no resistance will ever occur. Bamba's commitment acts as a shield rather than a sword. Suggesting that a person should be prosecuted for planning to resist unlawful aggression turns logic upside down, treating the victim who defends themselves as the criminal while giving a free pass to the actual aggressors.

​The ideal scenario for any election is for state security agencies to handle all law enforcement fairly and impartially. The NPP and Kwadwo Bamba want the police service to do its job without bias, and when officers maintain order and protect every polling station, there is no need for private or party-level vigilance. However, challenges arise if state security falls short or ignores disruptive behavior by political thugs. If police officers stand aside while party hooligans misbehave, citizens cannot be expected to fold their arms and watch their rights be stripped away, so Bamba will act in those moments to ensure the party's ballots remain safe.

​Ghana made a firm choice over thirty years ago when it adopted the 1992 Constitution, rejecting the era of state-sponsored intimidation and unchecked political violence. Our constitutional democracy depends on free, fair, and transparent elections. Threatening to arrest leaders who promise to stand up against electoral misconduct short-changes our democratic principles. If political actors rely on police inaction to intimidate opponents, they drag the nation backward toward the dark times the country rejected decades ago.

​In conclusion, political rhetoric on the radio should not overshadow the fundamental rights guaranteed to every Ghanaian. Kwadwo Bamba’s call to safeguard the vote is rooted in self-defense, civic duty, and a desire to uphold the integrity of our elections. So long as state security performs its duties fairly, peace will reign across all polling stations, but where hooligans seek to disrupt the process, citizens reserve the right to defend their sovereign choice. Protecting the ballot is ultimately a defense of democracy itself, and because standing firm against unlawful aggression is not a crime, no legal threat can turn a peaceful defense of our democratic mandate into an offense.

   Comments0