Baba Jamal Mohammed Ahmed’s public statement following his appearance before the National Democratic Congress (NDC) committee investigating alleged vote-buying in the Ayawaso East primary raises more questions than it answers.
While he is within his rights to proclaim innocence, the decision to circulate a lengthy self-defence to the public appears unnecessary and misplaced at a time when the matter is before a party investigative body.
The issue before the committee is not Baba Jamal’s past electoral performances, his perceived popularity, or how graciously he accepted previous defeats. It is about what allegedly transpired during the most recent primary.
Recounting earlier losses and vote tallies does little to address the specific allegations under investigation. To the public, such narratives come across more as image management than accountability.
More troubling is the implicit assumption that acceptance of past defeats automatically rules out the possibility of wrongdoing in the present. Politics does not operate in a vacuum.
After two successive losses, it is not unreasonable for critics to question whether desperation to avoid a third defeat could have influenced conduct. That possibility, uncomfortable as it may be, is precisely why independent investigations exist and why they must be allowed to run their course without public pressure.
Ultimately, the public has no role to play in determining Baba Jamal’s innocence or guilt. That responsibility rests solely with the committee constituted by the party. What is required of the candidate is restraint, not persuasion.
Allowing the committee to do its work, without attempting to shape public sympathy or perception, would better serve both party integrity and democratic credibility. Until the findings are made public, personal testimonials however polished add little to the search for truth.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
