Trust, the cornerstone of relationships, is a delicate thread that, once severed, leaves wounds difficult to heal. The parable with the biblical narrative of Jesus and Judas adds a layer of depth to this exploration of betrayal. Judas, an intimate companion of Jesus, betrayed him, highlighting the painful reality that betrayal often comes from those closest to us. The fragility of trust is aptly captured in the observation that, without trust, betrayal cannot occur. It is a stark reminder that the only individuals capable of betraying us are the ones we trust implicitly.

Reflection on betrayals

In Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong’s case, the sense of betrayal may cut deep, as the very trust he placed in individuals proved to be a double-edged sword.

The analogy of stabbing someone in the back evokes a visceral image, emphasizing the malicious intent that often accompanies betrayal. The wounds inflicted on the heart, unlike those on the body, endure for a lifetime. Forgiving an enemy may be easier than forgiving a friend, as William Blake astutely pointed out, underscoring the profound emotional toll of betrayal by those considered friends.

Dear Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong, do not let betrayal destroy your trust in others. It should echo the resilience required to navigate the aftermath of such a profound breach. Indeed, everyone encounters at least one betrayal in their lifetime, and it becomes a shared experience that unites humanity. The challenge lies in preserving one’s ability to trust despite the scars left by betrayal.

Look, in contemplating betrayal, the reference to Joseph’s betrayal in the Bible adds a timeless dimension. Joseph’s own brothers betrayed him, selling him into slavery, yet he rose above the betrayal, ultimately forgiving them. This biblical narrative serves as a poignant reminder that, despite the agony of betrayal, the human spirit has the capacity to transcend it. In the intricate tapestry of human relationships, particularly politics, the ecstasy of betrayal may leave indelible marks, but it is the individual’s response that defines the narrative.

I pray Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong’s journey in navigating the betrayal from the MP of Babiani, Alfred Obeng, MP for Sefwi-Akontombra, Alex Tetteh Djornobuah, Robert Kutin Jnr, NPP Central Regional Chairman, Kwamena Duncan, former Central Regional Minister just to mention a few, will undoubtedly be a testament to the strength of his character and the resilience of the human spirit.

Cobras at work

What didn’t the aforementioned persons do to tarnish Ken’s image in the just-ended NPP flagbearer elections? The MP of Babiani, Alfred Obeng, betrayed Hon. Ken. He had forgotten that Ken campaigned for him to secure his parliamentary seat. But the MP turned against him during his presidential bid.

Ken campaigned for him in Bibiani; even leaving his place at 1:00am and for this man to tell him that he doesn’t know how to talk, is unpardonable! This man picks up a phone and calls delegates, telling them not to vote for Kennedy Agyapong but to vote for number two on the ballot. And then one of them asked him why, and he said Kennedy Agyapong doesn’t know how to talk.”

Truth is, when Obeng-Boateng faced career challenges, Ken offered support, even during late-night conversations.

Second, Alex Tetteh Djornobuah, MP for Sefwi-Akontombra accusations against Hon. Ken. because of internal party elections, he questioned Hon Agyapong’s associations with various government agencies and organizations, insinuating that Hon. Agyapong’s success is primarily due to his connections and the monetary resources at his disposal. He even expressed his disbelief as to why Hon. Agyapong has not resigned from his role at the Ghana Gas Company till date.

Even more troubling, Mr. Tetteh extended his attacks to include serious allegations against Ken Agyapong’s wife. He claimed that she was awarded meter contracts during the tenure of President Kufuor, and these contracts were allegedly renewed when the NPP came to power once again. Additionally, he criticizes the appointment of Hon Agyapong’s wife as the Board Chairman at the Ghana Shippers Authority, suggesting that it is a result of favoritism. The Sefwi-Akontombra MP referenced a conversation with his pastor, who questioned the wisdom of electing someone who allegedly insults women to lead the NPP party into 2024.

The stark reality is that, had it not been for the instrumental support of Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, Mr. Tetteh might not have secured his parliamentary seat. Yet, today, we find him engaging in a campaign that tarnishes the image of the very person who aided his political aspiration. Indeed, betrayal is real!

Third is the betrayal from Robert Kutin Jnr, NPP Central Regional Chairman. Fourth is, Kwamena Duncan, former Central Regional Minister. Speaking on Peace FM’s Kookrokoo morning show, Kwamena Duncan said Bawumia unlike other flagbearer aspirants, realizes the need not to use the internal elections to attack NPP members unnecessarily. He was joined by Allotey Jacobs, another panel member on the show in commending Dr Bawumia. Duncan said, but for the fact that he was nearing pension, he would have given birth to a boy and named him “Alhaji Mahamudu Bawumia”. He even went to the extent of chastising Hon. Ken.

Had it not been Ken Agyapong’s intervention, Kwamena Duncan would not have been selected by the president, as the then Central Regional Minister. Ken and Chairman Kutin, don’t like positions, so they went to the President with their list to negotiate. I can tell you the truth, the only person that was mentioned by President Akufo-Addo without the influence of Ken and chairman Kutin is Wireku Brobbey. Everybody was negotiated for by chairman Kutin and Hon Ken. Although he has betrayed Ken but life moves on.

In the case of Chairman Kutin, although he did not show open bias but behind the scenes, he was calling delegates on phone and urging them to vote for the number 2 position candidate. He did a phone call to one of the delegates without knowing that, that person was close to Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong. Shocking by what the delegate knew Ken has contributed to Chairman Kutin’s political life in the past, he revealed to the former, how the Central Regional Chairman could be campaigning against the bid of Hon. Ken Agyapong.
It is also alleged that, another person being not happy about the silent campaign of Chairman Kutin against Hon. Agyapong, reminded him to vote for him since the Assin Central M.P. supported him financially during his recent Chairmanship bid. In response, Mr. Kutin told the person that, Hon. Agyapong also supported his(Mr. Kutin’s) opponent financially.
This gives some credence to the fact that, Chairman Kutin in spite of all the good relations and the assistance he has received from Ken, voted against him.

Saboteurs in PHD Team

Betrayal often finds its way into the most unexpected places, and unfortunately, it found its way in the case of Hon. Ken Agyapong’s campaign team. Several team members entrusted with pivotal roles failed to deliver on the crucial D-day, November 4. The challenge of making accreditations readily available hindered Ken’s agents, impeding their effectiveness. Those who couldn’t execute the task should not have earned Ken’s trust in the first place.

Transport money allocated to share with delegates wasn’t distributed equitably. Selfish interests took precedence for some team players, jeopardizing Ken’s chances in the presidential elections. Additionally, entitlement became a divisive force among Ken’s team members. Rather than working collectively, some sought personal recognition, undermining the unity essential for success in the election process.

The issue extended to individuals falsely claiming allegiance to the PHD team, infiltrating with intentions to sabotage. Exploiting Ken’s open-door policy, these individuals tarnished Hon. Ken’s chances, betraying the trust placed in them.


Amidst these challenges, appreciation is due to all members of the PHD Team who dedicated their time, resources, and efforts throughout the campaign process. Despite setbacks, their commitment deserves acknowledgment.


As a suggestion for future political analysis, Hon. Ken Agyapong’s political journey could serve as a valuable case study for Political Science departments in Ghanaian universities. Ken’s experiences, encompassing both triumphs and betrayals, offer insights that could broaden the minds of students studying politics.

In the end, the story of Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong’s campaign should serve as a testament to the complexities of political endeavors, emphasizing the importance of trust, unity, and the resilience required to navigate the challenging landscape of elections.


In a nutshell, loyalty forms the foundation of many human relationships. Whether in personal connections, or political affiliations, the concept of loyalty implies steadfast allegiance and support. However, the assertion that we shouldn’t compromise loyalty demands a nuanced exploration.

In personal relationships, loyalty engenders trust and deepens emotional connections. It implies standing by someone through thick and thin, fostering a sense of security and mutual understanding. In friendships, families, and romantic partnerships, unwavering loyalty often leads to stronger bonds and enduring connections.

In the realm of politics, loyalty can play a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics between citizens and their leaders. When constituents remain loyal to politicians, it can provide stability and a sense of continuity. It also fosters a sense of unity and shared purpose, crucial for the functioning of any political system.

However, the call for not compromising loyalty should be examined critically. Blind allegiance, without a willingness to question or hold accountable, can lead to complacency and a lack of progress. In personal relationships, it may result in turning a blind eye to harmful behaviors or stifling personal growth. Professionally, unwavering loyalty may prevent individuals from seeking new opportunities for fear of betraying their current employer.

In politics, an unquestioning loyalty to leaders can erode the democratic principles of checks and balances. Citizens must be willing to question authority, hold politicians accountable, and demand transparency. A healthy democracy thrives on an engaged and informed citizenry rather than passive followers.

Therefore, while loyalty undoubtedly holds merit, a careful balance is necessary. Individuals and societies should encourage loyalty, but not at the expense of critical thinking, accountability, and the pursuit of truth. True loyalty should be based on shared values, mutual respect, and a commitment to growth, ensuring that it enhances rather than hinders the well-being of individuals and the collective.

By: Prince Adjei, Guy Gee.

Recommended for you