Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has issued a stark warning to President John Dramani Mahama, urging him to resist the influence of sycophants and prioritize substantive governance over political rhetoric.
Referencing a cautionary statement made years ago by the late economist Cadman Mills, Amidu criticized the culture of blind loyalty within Ghana’s political leadership, which he argued has historically derailed accountability and progress.
“When Cadman Mills called out sycophancy during your previous administration, your allies vilified him. But he was right—those who flatter without conscience will praise you into failure if you let them,” Amidu stated. His remarks underscored a recurring tension in Ghanaian politics, where critiques of leadership are often dismissed as disloyalty rather than constructive dissent.
Amidu further challenged Mahama to break from what he described as a cyclical pattern of governance marked by reliance on external loans and bailouts. He dismissed the president’s recent characterization of Ghana as an “economic crime scene” as a recycled justification for austerity measures, noting that successive governments since 2001 have employed similar narratives to rationalize borrowing or seeking relief programs like HIPC. “Ghanaians elected you to solve problems, not to condition them for another round of debt. Deliver on your promises—walk your pre-election can-do talk,” Amidu asserted.
The critique comes amid renewed public skepticism about political accountability. Amidu emphasized that voters are disillusioned with leaders who deflect responsibility by blaming predecessors. “Every government under the 1992 Constitution has played this blame game. The electorate isn’t naïve—they want to know what you are doing differently,” he said, calling for transparency and measurable reforms rather than “worn-out excuses.”
Political analysts suggest Amidu’s comments reflect broader frustrations over Ghana’s entrenched economic challenges and the perceived gap between campaign pledges and actionable policies. As Mahama navigates his administration’s priorities, observers note that the public’s patience for rhetorical pivots has worn thin, with demands for tangible solutions growing louder. The caution against sycophants, meanwhile, serves as a reminder of the risks of insulating leadership from critical voices—a dilemma that has plagued administrations across the political spectrum.
Amidu’s intervention highlights a pivotal test for Mahama: balancing political survival with the urgent need to address systemic issues, all while resisting the seductive ease of surrounding oneself with uncritical allies. For many Ghanaians, the stakes extend beyond partisan loyalty—they hinge on whether the government can translate self-awareness into meaningful change.