Dr. John Kingsley Krugu, former Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, has delivered a pointed rebuke to those opposing Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia based solely on his ethnic identity, calling such reasoning an emotional inheritance of hatred that perpetuates dangerous divisions.
In a statement addressing the longstanding Mamprusi and Kusasi conflict that has plagued the Bawku area for decades, Dr. Krugu, himself a Kusasi and New Patriotic Party stalwart, argued that political opposition should rest on substantive grounds like policies, vision, and integrity rather than tribal affiliation.
“Refusing to support Dr Bawumia simply because he is a Mamprusi is not political wisdom; it is an emotional inheritance of hate,” Dr. Krugu wrote. He warned that such thinking keeps the Kusasi and Mamprusi divide alive and poisons the future that communities claim to defend.
The statement comes as faceless actors have reportedly exploited Dr. Bawumia’s Mamprusi ethnicity as a campaign tool in areas affected by the chieftaincy conflict. Dr. Krugu’s intervention represents a rare public acknowledgment from within the NPP of how ethnic tensions intersect with electoral politics in northern Ghana.
Dr. Krugu, who served as the NPP’s 2024 parliamentary candidate for Zebilla in the Upper East Region, emphasized that Kusasis retain every right to self determination, but tribal hatred cannot be part of that agenda. He described ethnic animosity as slow suicide that postpones today’s conflicts for children to fight tomorrow with sharper weapons and colder hearts.
The distinction he draws is significant. Self determination and cultural preservation are legitimate political goals, he argues, but opposition rooted in ethnic prejudice undermines those very objectives. It’s a nuanced position that acknowledges historical grievances while rejecting hatred as a political strategy.
“If any Kusasi chooses not to support Bawumia, let it be because of his policies, his vision, his integrity, his empathy, or his accountability, not his tribe,” Dr. Krugu stated. He called the lazy excuse that “he is a Mamprusi” too shallow for a people as proud and intelligent as Kusasis, adding that such thinking teaches children to hate before they learn to think.
The Bawku chieftaincy conflict has claimed numerous lives over the years and remains one of Ghana’s most persistent security challenges. Competition over traditional authority between Mamprusi and Kusasi communities has produced cycles of violence that periodically flare despite government interventions and peacekeeping efforts.
What makes Dr. Krugu’s statement notable isn’t just the message but the messenger. As a Kusasi political figure within the same party as Dr. Bawumia, he’s challenging his own community’s potential prejudices from a position of ethnic solidarity rather than as an outsider. That internal critique carries different weight than external condemnation might.
His warning about intergenerational transmission of hatred speaks to broader concerns about how political conflicts become entrenched. When ethnic animosity gets woven into political identity and passed down through families, it becomes increasingly difficult to break cycles of violence and mistrust.
Dr. Krugu framed his appeal as a matter of leadership that demands more than cheap politics. He called for Kusasis to be principled without being prejudiced, to defend heritage without destroying humanity. The formulation suggests he sees no contradiction between ethnic pride and political pragmatism.
Whether his message resonates beyond his immediate circles remains uncertain. Tribal politics in Ghana’s northern regions carry deep historical roots and genuine grievances that won’t dissolve through appeals to reason alone. Economic marginalization, resource competition, and institutional neglect have all contributed to ethnic tensions that predate current political actors.
Still, Dr. Krugu’s willingness to publicly challenge tribal voting patterns within his own community represents a notable intervention. It signals recognition that ethnic polarization threatens not just electoral outcomes but the social fabric necessary for development and security.
The timing of his statement, coming amid ongoing security concerns in Bawku and broader national political discussions, suggests strategic calculation alongside principled objection. By speaking out, Dr. Krugu positions himself as a voice for reconciliation while potentially complicating narratives that frame the conflict in purely ethnic terms.
His call to break the chain in this generation, for the peace of Kusaug, the unity of the North, and the dignity of children, invokes future stakes that transcend immediate political contests. Whether that long term perspective gains traction in communities shaped by immediate security threats and historical grievances will test the limits of reasoned political discourse.
