This question sits at the heart of one of the most troubling contradictions exposed during the New Patriotic Party’s flagbearer contest. For months, party members were lectured on the sacredness of neutrality. MPs, especially those in leadership, were told to stay above factional alignment to protect party unity and ensure a fair contest.

Few preached this doctrine more forcefully than Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

Publicly, he styled himself as a custodian of fairness and discipline. Privately and practically, however, his conduct revealed something else entirely. What played out during the primaries was not neutrality, but a carefully managed hypocrisy.

Neutrality in Speech, Partisanship in Practice

While preaching neutrality, Afenyo-Markin was demonstrably working against Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and aligning himself with Kennedy Agyapong. This alignment was not speculative, it was visible through political coordination, messaging patterns, and the conduct of those closest to him.

More damning was the behavior of his aides and close associates, who repeatedly deployed despicable, demeaning, and inflammatory language against Dr. Bawumia. Threatening a campaign against Dr. Bawumia in the general elections. These attacks were neither isolated nor accidental. Yet, at no point were they condemned or restrained.

Leadership does not end with personal restraint, it includes responsibility for the political machinery one commands. Silence in the face of sustained attacks is not neutrality, it is tacit approval.

Election Day and the Theatre of Denial

On Election Day, concerns were raised regarding intimidation of delegates in Effutu Constituency. Rather than address the substance of these concerns with openness, Afenyo-Markin issued a lengthy statement dismissing all allegations as spurious, vile, and the product of adversaries plots.

In that statement, he presented himself as a model of compliance, claiming strict adherence to Electoral Commission and party guidelines and denying any conduct that could even remotely be construed as undue influence.

What the statement carefully avoided, however, was the broader question of political influence exercised long before Election Day. Neutrality is not measured only by physical distance from a polling booth, it is measured by the signals leadership sends over time, the alliances it nurtures, and the atmosphere it creates.

The Numbers That Exposed the Fiction

Beyond rhetoric and rebuttals, election results themselves can be revealing.

In Effutu Constituency, Afenyo-Markin’s own political stronghold, the outcome of the primaries was staggering. Kennedy Agyapong polled about 600 votes, while Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia secured just 78 votes.

Politics is not exact science, but margins of this magnitude do not emerge in a vacuum. Such an outcome cannot reasonably be dismissed as coincidence, especially in the constituency of a senior party leader who publicly championed neutrality.

Delegates are not blind. They read power. They read cues. They understand where leadership stands, regardless of what is said at press conferences. The Effutu results did not merely reflect delegate preference, they exposed the reality behind the rhetoric.

Neutrality was spoken. Hypocrisy was practiced.

After the Defeat, Honesty Arrives Too Late

Following the primaries, Afenyo-Markin convened a so-called stakeholder meeting and reportedly remarked that “a man must not forget his friends.”

With that single statement, the entire neutrality narrative collapsed.

If friendship and loyalty were central, why were they denied when transparency was demanded? Why was this honesty absent when legitimate concerns were raised? Why hide behind neutrality only to later justify partisan allegiance?

You cannot impose neutrality as doctrine, violate it in practice, and then celebrate loyalty after the fact. That is not leadership, it is convenience masquerading as principle.

The Core Hypocrisy

The pattern is now unmistakable, and this is precisely how trust erodes and factionalism deepens within a political party.

Conclusion

Dr Mahamudu Bawumia contested this primary without covert schemes or enforced loyalties. His campaign rested on ideas, policy, and character. That contrast is why the hypocrisy surrounding neutrality is so stark.

The NPP deserves parliamentary leadership that is honest about its positions and courageous enough to own them publicly. Neutrality that exists only in speeches is not neutrality at all, it is politics without integrity.

And credibility, once lost, cannot be recovered by statements.