Richard Ahiagbah accuses Kennedy Agyapong of violating party constitution with critical remarks

By Yaw Opoku Amoako June 21, 2026

The New Patriotic Party’s Director of Communications has characterised recent statements by former presidential hopeful Kennedy Ohene Agyapong as breaches of party discipline, arguing that his public criticism and veiled threats constitute conduct incompatible with party membership.

Richard Ahiagbah made the assertion on Channel One TV on Saturday, June 20, responding to Agyapong’s recent complaints about the party’s inability to complete the Afari Military Hospital during its tenure in government, as well as his insinuation that he possesses damaging information about internal party misconduct that he may choose to divulge.

The remarks have ignited controversy within party circles, with grassroots supporters mobilising to file formal complaints and demand that disciplinary procedures be initiated against Agyapong.

Ahiagbah grounded his critique in the party’s foundational legal framework, specifically invoking Article 3 of the NPP Constitution — a provision that establishes clear expectations for member conduct.

“As a member your actions and inactions must promote and defend the good name of the party,” Ahiagbah stated, reading directly from the constitutional text.

He argued that Agyapong’s recent public pronouncements fall measurably short of this constitutional standard. Rather than safeguarding the party’s reputation, his words had the opposite effect.

“In the conduct that he’s put up in this matter, it is a conduct that is tantamount to not defending the good name of the party,” Ahiagbah said, before adding his characterisation: the behaviour qualifies as anti-party conduct.

On Potential Sanctions

Ahiagbah was careful to delineate his own authority. He stressed that determining appropriate punitive measures was not his prerogative. Instead, such determinations fall to the party’s designated disciplinary apparatus, which operates according to established constitutional procedures.

Depending on how a disciplinary hearing might conclude, outcomes could range from minor corrective measures to full expulsion from the party — a spectrum reflecting the severity of the alleged violation and the mitigating circumstances the respondent might present.

Ahiagbah also drew inference from Agyapong’s subsequent actions. The fact that he had reiterated and defended his original statements, rather than backing away from them, suggested they were uttered with deliberation and conviction — not casual remarks made in the heat of the moment.

The Path Forward

Should formal petitions have indeed been submitted against Agyapong, Ahiagbah argued, they deserve full consideration through the party’s established review mechanisms. No party member, he insisted, possesses immunity from the rules that bind all others.

“If petitions have indeed been filed against him, they should be allowed to go through the party’s laid-down procedures, stressing that no member is above the rules of the party,” he stated.