This post is inspired by something my sister, Sandra Ewool, wrote on her Facebook timeline. Following the 2024 elections, political commentators and opposition voices endlessly mocked H.E. Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, claiming that "even his own Muslims" rejected him at the polls.

For months, critics argued that shared religious identity provided no political advantage and that Muslim voters owed him no allegiance based on faith alone.

That argument was entirely fair. Political choices are personal, and no candidate is automatically entitled to votes based on religious affiliation.

However, a stark double standard has emerged. In the wake of recent reckless statements by a local Imam, critics are suddenly eager to emphasise Dr Bawumia’s Muslim identity.

The same figure whose faith was declared irrelevant during the election is now expected to answer for the utterances of other individual Muslims. This shift reveals a clear hypocrisy in political discourse.

At the Ballot Box: Critics argue that Muslim voters are independent individuals who owe Dr Bawumia no political loyalty simply because he shares their faith.

During Controversy: Critics demand that Dr Bawumia act as a collective proxy, taking responsibility for the actions and words of any Muslim figure.

Individual responsibility cannot be transferred through religious association. If a public figure or religious leader makes an irresponsible statement, hold that specific individual accountable.

Dr Bawumia does not inherit the personal liability of every Muslim in the country, just as he was not granted their automatic political backing at the polls.

Commentators cannot strip away a politician’s religious identity when it serves a political narrative, only to weaponise that same identity when a public controversy arises. It is time to pick a principle and stick to it.