When the Executive Secretary of the National Interest Movement steps in to criticize a senior parliamentarian—especially the Ranking Member of the Defence Committee—it signals that the issue has stirred quite a bit of public and political tension.
Allegations about two planes carrying suspicious cargo are serious, especially when they’re made publicly by a key figure in national security oversight. But if those claims weren’t backed by solid evidence, it’s understandable why the National Interest Movement would raise concerns about the potential consequences—like public panic, diplomatic fallout, or misinformation.
Susan Adu-Amankwah, contributing on Joy News’ Newsfile, questioned both the motivation and responsibility behind Reverend John Ntim Fordjour’s claims, made without proof that the planes were carrying cocaine and money.
“If he didn’t have evidence of cocaine and of money, what was he talking about?” she asked pointedly
Adu-Amankwah’s critique really cuts to the core of the issue: the dangerous precedent set when someone with political influence, like Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, uses their platform to make serious, unverified claims. As she pointed out, mentioning “suspicious flights” alongside high-stakes allegations like cocaine and money without proof could easily lead to public panic and unwarranted suspicion, not just locally but internationally.
The idea of misusing political privilege is also key here. When politicians make claims that could affect the country’s international reputation, especially in the sensitive areas of security and drug trafficking, they carry a huge responsibility. Making such allegations without evidence is seen as irresponsible—and can, in Adu-Amankwah’s view, serve to play politics with a much larger issue, which undermines the credibility of both the parliamentarian and the country.
This all feeds into concerns about accountability—if such claims are made, they must be backed up with substantial proof. Without it, they just become fuel for political maneuvering that doesn’t help address the real issues at hand.
Adu-Amankwah’s statement really underscores the responsibility that elected officials carry, especially when they’re in positions of power like being a Member of Parliament. The idea that “he’s no ordinary citizen” emphasizes that public servants, especially those receiving public funds, have an even higher standard to uphold when it comes to their actions and statements. They’re entrusted with the nation’s well-being and public trust, and with that comes the expectation that they exercise judgment and integrity, particularly when dealing with sensitive matters like national security.
The fact that MPs and other government officials are paid with taxpayer money only intensifies the call for accountability—their salary is essentially a public investment in their ability to serve the nation responsibly. When they make unsubstantiated claims, especially ones that can cause public panic or damage the country’s reputation, it raises serious concerns about their fitness for office.
In a situation like this, Adu-Amankwah’s statement could be a call for more scrutiny of MPs’ actions. It’s a reminder that political privilege should not be used carelessly or recklessly.
Adu-Amankwah’s comments really highlight the broader national consequences of careless political behavior. The emphasis on the fact that, at the end of the day, we’re all Ghanaians—regardless of political affiliation—serves as a powerful reminder that the actions of a single politician can reflect on the entire nation. When MPs go “hopping from station to station and grandstanding,” it not only undermines their personal credibility but can also damage the collective reputation of Ghana on the global stage.
Her point about Ghana’s international profile is also crucial. When Ghanaians step out into the world—whether as diplomats, business leaders, or ordinary citizens—they’re often seen through the lens of nationality rather than political affiliation. So, when a public figure in Ghana makes bold, unsubstantiated claims, it could unintentionally cast a shadow on every Ghanaian abroad, regardless of their personal political views or party allegiance.
Adu-Amankwah really drives home an important point here: national reputation and unity are bigger than any political divide. The world doesn’t see us as NPP, NDC, or independent—they see us as Ghanaians. She’s reminding everyone that when a politician speaks out of turn, especially on a sensitive issue like drug trafficking, they’re not just representing their party, but rather the entire nation. And the repercussions of that kind of grandstanding can impact everyone—whether or not they agree with the politician’s views.
The mention of drug issues being critical to national interest also hits home. The drug trade is a major problem globally, and in many countries, including Ghana, it has an outsized impact on youth. The consequences of drug-related crimes can harm the country’s reputation, development, and security. If unverified claims about drugs and suspicious flights are thrown out there, it can have a chilling effect on Ghana’s fight against the real issue.
Her point is also a call for responsible discourse: politicians should engage in debates and criticisms based on facts and evidence, especially when it comes to a matter as significant as drug trafficking. Making baseless claims, as she said, is doing harm not only to political opponents but to the entire country
Adu-Amankwah’s words are a powerful call for responsible leadership and evidence-based action when dealing with sensitive issues like drug trafficking. Her focus on the devastation caused by drugs, particularly the impact of Red on young people, is deeply significant. It underscores how much harm drugs already cause within Ghana’s communities—especially among youth—and how the introduction of other drugs could make an already tough situation even worse.
Her point about the government taking control and investigating legitimate suspicions is essential. Suspicion is one thing, but when a public figure makes bold, definitive statements without backing them up, it’s irresponsible—and that’s where her frustration lies. Politicians have a duty to present facts over speculation. The difference between a well-meaning citizen and a reckless one is the ability to gather evidence and act responsibly when making claims that could affect the broader publicThe message here is clear: don’t make unsubstantiated claims, especially on something as serious as drugs, unless you have real proof. Public figures need to realize that their words hold weight and can influence not just the political landscape, but the social and economic stability of the country as a whole..
