Obuasi SHS: The NDC’s Slap in the Face of Schoolgirls
For the girls at the centre of the Obuasi headmaster allegations, the National Democratic Congress'(NDC) decision to clear him to contest a party leadership position is a slap in the face. For their families, it is an insult to the trust they placed in the school system and for a governing party that celebrates women’s empowerment while Ghana has a female Vice-President from its ranks, it raises a damning question: where is its integrity when the protection of schoolgirls demands political restraint?
The NDC’s appeal to fairness and the presumption of innocence does not answer the central question: why is the party’s electoral timetable taking precedence over the public confidence and dignity of the alleged victims?
Yet, while the police and education authorities work to establish the facts, the National Democratic Congress has decided to allow him to contest its Juaben constituency chairmanship. The party reversed its earlier directive asking him to withdraw, citing fairness, natural justice and the presumption of innocence.
That decision is quite disappointing and below the expectations placed on a party in power.
The Calendar over conscience
The National Democratic Congress says it must protect the rights of an aspirant who has not been found guilty. That principle is fundamental. But the presumption of innocence protects a person from being treated as guilty before proof; it does not oblige a political party to clear him for leadership while serious allegations remain unresolved.
These are two different questions, and a party with lawyers in its leadership should understand the distinction.
The decision of the NDC party tells Ghanaians what the leaders in this country take them for.
No one is demanding that Abdulai be convicted by a party committee or condemned by public opinion. The question is why his political ambition cannot wait while investigators do their work. If the party can reconsider its decision when new evidence emerges, why is caution so difficult now?
Apparently, the internal electoral calendar must keep moving. The girls and their families must wait.
What a curious ordering of priorities at a time when the said party claims it supports the dignity and empowerment of women such that a female from the party is the vice president.
The height of betrayal to the victims
Imagine being a student who has reported alleged abuse by a person occupying a position of authority over you. Imagine the courage required to speak when the person you are accusing is a headmaster, someone whose position carries institutional power and influence. Then imagine learning that the governing party has decided the same person can proceed towards another leadership position before the investigations have concluded.
The party may insist that this is not an endorsement or exoneration. But institutions must understand that their actions communicate beyond the explanations accompanying them and to Ghanaians, it is clear.
To the alleged victims, this decision risks feeling like a slap in the face. To their parents, it risks becoming the height of insult: a painful reminder that their children’s welfare may not command the urgency they expected from those in authority.
The NDC’s public defence has placed considerable emphasis on the aspirant’s rights and the party’s internal processes. The girls deserve to know that their rights, safety and dignity matter just as much. Their families deserve more than a reminder that the accused is entitled to a fair hearing.
What does this say about the dignity of women in Ghana?
This controversy becomes even more uncomfortable for a party that has made history by electing Ghana’s first female Vice-President, Professor Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang.
What does the NDC’s handling of this case say about its commitment to women’s dignity and protection? Is women’s empowerment merely a political asset to be celebrated when it strengthens the party’s image, or is it a principle to be upheld when doing so becomes inconvenient?
The Vice-President’s historic achievement should be an opportunity to strengthen public confidence in women’s leadership and the protection of girls. It should not become a shield against scrutiny of the party’s other decisions.
The issue is not whether a party with a female Vice-President is automatically obliged to take one particular position in every disciplinary matter. It is whether its actions consistently reflect the values of dignity, fairness and protection it publicly champions.
A party cannot celebrate breaking a gender barrier at the highest level while leaving unanswered serious questions about how it responds to allegations involving the safety of schoolgirls. The contradiction deserves an explanation.
The signal to other potential complaints
The implications may extend beyond the current complainants.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) itself has warned against intimidation of those who come forward. That concern is significant. When a person facing serious allegations is allowed to pursue political advancement while investigations continue, other students, teachers or parents may question whether reporting misconduct will lead to meaningful protection.
This does not establish that the party has interfered with the investigation or that any witness has been intimidated. But it creates a legitimate concern about public confidence in the process.
The concern is heightened by the reported comment of the party’s Deputy National Communications Director that the agencies investigating the matter report to the government.
The Criminal Investigations Department must be allowed to investigate independently, without political pressure or interference. The government and the National Democratic Congress must ensure that their actions do not undermine that independence or create a perception that political connections might influence the outcome.
The party cannot simply tell the public to trust the process. It must behave in ways that make such trust reasonable.
The failure that preceded the political controversy
The NDC’s decision is not the only issue requiring answers. The circumstances preceding the headmaster’s interdiction raise equally serious questions about the response of education authorities and the judicial system.
A JoyNews investigation reported that complaints about alleged sexual misconduct had reached education officials months before the Education Ministry ordered Abdulai’s suspension. The documentary has also prompted questions about how earlier complaints were handled and whether the relevant authorities acted promptly. These claims require thorough investigation, not convenient dismissal.
The Ghana Education Service’s earlier committee, which investigated the August school disturbance, recommended reposting the headmaster and other staff following the riot. That inquiry concerned the disturbance; its recommendation should not be confused with a determination of the separate sexual misconduct allegations. The distinction makes it even more important that the new investigation be comprehensive.
If complaints were submitted and ignored, who received them? Why was decisive action delayed? Were the students protected while their concerns were being considered? Were previous allegations at another school properly investigated before Abdulai’s transfer and promotion? These questions have been raised publicly and deserve documented answers from the authorities.
It should not take an investigative documentary to force institutions responsible for safeguarding children into action. If the reports of earlier complaints are substantiated, the failure would not be limited to the person accused of misconduct. It would also involve those who had a duty to respond.
A government that cannot demonstrate that its institutions act promptly to protect vulnerable students leaves much to be desired. Interdiction is a beginning, not the end of accountability.
What the ordinary Ghanaian expects now
The National Democratic Congress should explain why it considers allowing Abdulai to contest before the investigations conclude to be the most responsible course. It should also address the concerns raised by the complainants and their families, rather than allowing the debate to revolve almost entirely around the aspirant’s rights and the party’s internal timetable.
The police investigation must be independent, thorough and timely. The Ghana Education Service must establish whether complaints were mishandled and whether any officials failed in their duties. Anyone found to have obstructed an investigation or deliberately ignored credible complaints must face appropriate consequences. If the allegations against Abdulai are proven, he must face the full rigours of the law, regardless of rank or political affiliation.
Schools must also provide safe reporting channels, protect students from retaliation and ensure that no complaint is buried to protect an individual or an institution’s reputation.
The fundamental principle is straightforward: fairness to the accused cannot mean indifference to the alleged victims. Both deserve due process, but the institutions involved must not lose sight of the special duty owed to children and students placed in their care.
The National Democratic Congress has the right to explain its decision. Ghanaians have the right to question it. And the party must accept that its commitment to women’s empowerment and accountability will be judged not only by its historic milestones, but by how it responds when girls need protection and their families demand answers.
A party’s integrity is tested when principle becomes inconvenient. In the Obuasi case, the question is whether the pursuit of an internal political contest should proceed as usual while the truth about allegations involving schoolgirls remains unresolved.
The girls deserve to be heard. Their families deserve answers. The authorities owe the public a credible investigation. And political leaders must show, through their decisions, that the safety and dignity of vulnerable students are not secondary considerations.
Ghana cannot afford another precedence of moral decadence.
By Hannah Agyemang
About The Author
