By Nelson Ayivor
Former New Patriotic Party (NPP) flagbearer aspirant, Arthur Kennedy, has launched a scathing critique of the party’s current leadership, accusing it of using “dubious and procedurally flawed,” tactics to silence internal dissent in the Frimpong-Boateng case.
Speaking in a widely circulated interview, Arthur Kennedy slammed the party’s move to expel Professor Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, describing the disciplinary proceedings as a vindictive attempt to mask deeper structural rot within the organization.
“The interview issues came at 10 pm, and by the next morning, a statement was already issued. When did the national executives meet to decide whether the Professor should be referred to the disciplinary committee? Even if he used the word ‘fake,’ it was meant to draw attention to the path the party is on.
“The important thing is to engage with the issues, not attack his person.”
The controversy erupted after Prof. Frimpong-Boateng, a former Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, described the NPP as “fake” during a recent media engagement.
In response, the party leadership initiated a swift expulsion process – a move Dr. Kennedy argued was “cooked and manufactured,” overnight without the necessary transparency or legitimate executive consultation. For Dr. Kennedy, the speed of the announcement, points to a targeted agenda rather than a genuine pursuit of party discipline.
Adding up to his defense of the renowned surgeon, Dr. Kennedy highlighted what he calls a “blatant double standard,” in how the NPP enforces its code of conduct. He pointed to prominent figures such as Bono Regional Chairman Kwame Baffoe (Abronye) and Kennedy Agyapong, both of whom have famously and openly criticized party leadership and government decisions without facing similar threats of expulsion.
“This inconsistency raises questions about fairness and accountability. We need to ask ourselves why some voices are targeted while others are not. Selective enforcement threatens the party’s credibility.”
According to Dr. Kennedy, this pattern has eroded the moral authority of the party’s disciplinary committee. He argued that the current leadership is repeating the same “manufactured and vindictive mistakes of the past,” referencing the controversial 2015 suspensions of Paul Afoko and Kwabena Agyapong.
Those decisions, he maintained, continue to haunt the party’s cohesion and serve as a blueprint for the current “political hit job,” against Prof. Frimpong-Boateng.
In a bold escalation of the debate, Dr. Kennedy suggested that if the NPP is truly “in the mood to discipline,” it should look directly at the leadership record of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
He argued that the genuine threats to the party’s survival were not the hard truths spoken by critics, but rather the governance failures, alleged corruption, and perceived arrogance that defined the previous administration. Dr. Kennedy insisted that accountability should not be a tool used only against those without the protection of the “inner circle.”
He challenged the party to critically examine why there were no significant cabinet reshuffles despite widespread public outcry and why the party’s core values seem to have shifted so drastically from those held by its founding members.
“If we are going to discipline people, then we should discipline people left, right and centre. By now we should be calling Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to the carpet for the government he led.”
The physician and political strategist warned that the NPP is currently paying a heavy price for its inability to tolerate constructive criticism, describing the party’s trajectory as a departure from its democratic roots, warning that the “cleansing” of senior members who speak truth to power will only lead to further isolation from the electorate.
By attacking the person of Prof. Frimpong-Boateng rather than addressing his claims of a “fake” party structure, Dr. Kennedy believes the NPP is confirming the very criticisms it seeks to silence. He urged the party to reconsider its path and choose engagement over expulsion if it hopes to survive the next political cycle.