NPP GERMANY
PRESS RELEASE
12—01—2026
When The Watchdog Becomes The Lapdog: NPP GERMANY On Franklyn Cudjoe’s Theatre Of Convenient Patriotism
Franklyn Cudjoe has long marketed himself as Ghana’s uncompromising policy watchdog, the cerebral contrarian who speaks truth to power regardless of who occupies Jubilee House.
That brand, however, is fast collapsing under the weight of his own words. His recent public adulation of Sammy Gyamfi, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, and Bank of Ghana Governor Dr. Asiama is not just praise; it is a masterclass in political hypocrisy and intellectual sycophancy.
In a series of glowing posts, Cudjoe crowned these officials as “true patriots,” hailing their stewardship as though Ghana had stumbled into an economic renaissance.
Coming from the same man who built a reputation tearing into governments with surgical ferocity, the sudden switch from sceptic to cheerleader is jarring. One is forced to ask: what changed — the policies, or the politics?
For years, IMANI Africa, under Cudjoe’s leadership, positioned itself as allergic to propaganda and hostile to spin.
Government officials were routinely accused of massaging figures, exaggerating gains, and selling optimism where caution was required.
Yet here we have Cudjoe not interrogating numbers, but amplifying them — without caveats, without context, and without the rigour he once demanded of others.
His applause for GoldBod, in particular, reads less like independent analysis and more like a press release.
We are told the initiative has “brought substantial reserves” and erased the sins of the Gold-for-Oil programme. No granular data. No stress-testing of sustainability.
No probing questions about opportunity cost or long-term risk. Just applause.
This is especially rich given Cudjoe’s past posture on state-led resource interventions. When similar schemes were rolled out under previous administrations, IMANI did not hesitate to warn of opacity, politicisation, and fiscal recklessness.
Today, those same concerns are conspicuously absent. Evidently, bad policy only becomes bad when the “wrong” people are in charge.
Even more astonishing is his praise of the Finance Minister’s alleged reduction of Ghana’s debt from 61% to 45% of GDP in a single year — a claim so extraordinary it demands aggressive scrutiny.
Debt dynamics do not magically transform without structural shifts, accounting clarifications, or external relief factors. But instead of interrogating the mechanics, Cudjoe genuflects before the headline figure.
This is not policy analysis; it is economic populism dressed in intellectual robes.
When an analyst of Cudjoe’s stature fails to explain how such a dramatic turnaround occurred, or what trade-offs were involved, he abdicates his responsibility to the public.
Numbers without nuance are propaganda, not patriotism.
Perhaps the most revealing line in this entire episode is Cudjoe’s flippant suggestion that Ghana should now consider loaning money to the IMF.
It is the kind of statement designed for applause on social media, not serious economic discourse. The irony of a country freshly emerging from IMF supervision fantasising about becoming the Fund’s banker is either comic or reckless — possibly both.
This is where the charge of sycophancy sticks. True independence means being willing to disappoint those in power, not serenade them.
Yet Cudjoe’s tone suggests an eagerness to be seen as aligned with the new economic priesthood, baptising their actions as patriotic before the ink on their policies has even dried.
Defenders will argue that consistency should not mean permanent opposition, and that good policies deserve praise regardless of who implements them.
That is true — in principle. But praise without scrutiny is not balance; it is betrayal of one’s own standards. Cudjoe is not guilty of approving success; he is guilty of suspending disbelief.
Ghana does not need another chorus of elite voices clapping on cue.
It needs analysts who are stubborn, inconvenient, and allergic to hero worship.
When policy think-tank leaders begin to sound indistinguishable from party communicators, the entire civic ecosystem is poorer for it.
The tragedy here is not that Cudjoe praised government officials; it is that he did so in a way that abandons the very ethos that made his voice relevant.
The Franklyn Cudjoe of yesterday would have torn apart today’s Franklyn Cudjoe for intellectual laziness and selective outrage.
Patriotism, contrary to Cudjoe’s framing, is not measured by how loudly one praises officials, but by how relentlessly one questions them.
Calling powerful actors “true patriots” without subjecting their claims to hostile examination is not love of country; it is comfort with power.
Ghana’s public discourse is already polluted by partisan cheerleading masquerading as analysis.
When even supposed referees start picking sides — or worse, kneeling before the pitch — the public is left defenceless against narrative manipulation.
Franklyn Cudjoe must decide what he wants to be remembered as: a fearless policy critic who held every government to account, or a clever intellectual who mastered the art of bending principles to political convenience.
History is rarely kind to those who confuse access with influence, or applause with integrity.
God Bless Our Homeland Ghana!!!
Long Live Ghana, long live the Elephant Party!!!!
Kukruduuuu Eeeessshiii!!!
Signed:
Nana Osei Boateng
NPP GERMANY
Communications Director
