Beyond the Forms: What Bawumia, Ken, Bryan, Kwabena Agyepong, Adutwum’s Speeches Reveal About 2028

The race for the soul of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has begun, not with votes, but with words. As the nomination forms were filed and the speeches delivered on Tuesday, August 26, Wednesday, August 27, and Thursday, August 28, 2025 at NPP Headquarters, Asylum Down, Accra, it became clear that this contest is more than a routine flagbearer battle. Indeed, it is a struggle for the future identity of the “Elephant.” I observed, listened to, and understood the vision and messages each of the five presidential hopefuls presented.

I observed how Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia carried the cadence of ‘The Prepared Custodian of Tradition and Ideas’—a resilient, idea-driven, unifying leader who embodies the values of the NPP’s forefathers, champions the grassroots, and positions himself as the most tested and ready candidate for 2028, reinforced by his technocratic assurances and vision for the party’s future.

I observed Kennedy Agyapong deliver a raw, fiery, and unapologetically direct speech, less polished rhetoric, more of a voice of the outsider. Centered on fairness, courage, and jobs for Ghana’s youth. I observed the “defiance in Ken Agyapong’s firebrand rhetoric”. I observed the grassroots fervor Bryan Acheampong invoked, the nostalgic call for renewal by Ing. Kwabena Agyepong, and the visionary reformist tone of Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum. Simply put, I observed Bawumia as “the technocrat,” Ken as “the rebel firebrand,” Bryan as “the grassroots commander,” Kwabena as “the reformist traditionalist,” Adutwum as “the visionary educator”.

I can truly say and I believe many would agree that these were not mere campaign promises but competing blueprints for 2028 and beyond. These speeches were not just ceremonial remarks, they were declarations of war, veiled appeals to history, and coded messages to party delegates who hold the keys to power. Each aspirant sought to etch his vision into the conscience of the NPP faithful, positioning himself as the antidote to Ghana’s present uncertainties and the vessel for the party’s rebirth.

All five presidential hopefuls met the challenge head-on, submitting their forms neatly within the stipulated one-month window, with the final deadline landing on Thursday, August 28, 2025. With the paperwork behind them, I can carefully say the stage is now set for the party’s primaries, slated for January 31, 2026, where the next flagbearer will be chosen to steer the NPP into the national contest.

According to the Party, vetting of the aspirants will take place from September 15 to 22, 2025, while the recommendations of the vetting committee will be submitted to the National Council (NC) and the National Executive Committee (NEC) on September 29, 2025. Any aggrieved aspirants may submit a petition between September 30 and October 3, 2025, for the NEC and the NC to consider on October 7, 2025.

The names of qualified aspirants will be published on October 8, 2025, with balloting for positions set for October 10, 2025. The party will publish the notice of poll on October 17, 2025, with the election fixed for January 31, 2026. And in the event of a run-off, the party has set February 14, 2026, for that purpose.

Objectives of analysis

This comparative analysis delves into the voices of ambition, dissecting not just the promises made but the potency of each message to shape the future. At the heart of this analysis is a simple but pressing question: Who can truly lead the Elephant? Who has the rhetoric, the record, and the resonance with both grassroots and national sentiment to march the NPP into 2028 united, formidable, and victorious?

Each speech was more than a ceremonial declaration; it was a coded message to delegates, a test of loyalty to the party’s past, and a promise of leadership for the future. The piece will dig beneath the applause lines to interrogate the depth of policy focus, the emotional pull of rhetoric, and the subtle strategies aspirants used to define themselves in contrast to their rivals. It is, in essence, a search for the figure whose words did not only echo within party headquarters but also carried the weight of a national agenda.

Framework for analysis

This piece is structured around the twin pillars of substance and style. Substance lies in the issues the aspirants chose to emphasise, whether the economy, jobs, corruption, governance, or unity etc, and how convincingly they framed these as answers to Ghana’s current challenges. Style lies in rhetoric, tone, and the use of political symbolism, from slogans that electrify the grassroots to messages that reach beyond the party faithful. An equally critical dimension is party positioning: which aspirants clung tightly to Akufo-Addo’s legacy, and which dared to present themselves as reformers ready to chart a new path.

Their strategies also matter. Some speeches were designed narrowly to capture delegates’ loyalty, while others reached further, carefully calibrated for national appeal. Leadership images emerged in different forms—the technocrat who thrives on competence, the unifier who seeks to heal divisions, the grassroots mobilizer who rallies the base, the disciplinarian who promises, the reformer who promises new direction, and the visionary who promises progress.

In weighing these elements side by side, the analysis will measure which aspirant projected not just ambition, but the credibility and resonance of a leader ready for 2028.

Expected outcome

In the end, this piece will not merely catalogue who spoke well. It will reveal who went beyond reciting familiar slogans and dared to present a compelling national story. It will distinguish between those who sounded like ordinary contestants in a party primary and those who looked and spoke like future presidents. Above all, it will expose the aspirants who showed the rare ability to bridge the cracks within the NPP, inspire the rank and file, and reach into the hearts of floating voters. The result will be a clear picture of which candidate, through words and strategy, appears most capable of leading the NPP into battle with the NDC in 2028—and standing tall as a leader for Ghana.

Bawumia’ s speech

Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia’s speech was more than a box-ticking exercise; it was an attempt to write himself into the story of the New Patriotic Party’s future. From the opening “Kukrudu!” to the closing “Let’s Win with Bawumia,” I listened to an address that blended mourning and memory with loyalty, innovation, and vision. If there was one thing he [Bawumia] wanted to leave with the faithful, it was this: that he is the “party’s most prepared, most tested, and most inevitable choice for 2028”.

What stands out immediately is his decision to begin with solemnity: a moment of silence for the late Ernest Yaw Kumi and other fallen party members. This was not accidental, it framed him as respectful, empathetic, and in touch with the human cost of political service. Before delving into politics, he positioned himself as a man of duty and compassion.

From there, he reached for history. He carefully tied his own story to the grand arc of the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition, calling on the names of Danquah, Paa Willie, Victor Owusu, Adu Boahen, Kufuor, and Akufo-Addo. But it wasn’t just name-dropping. Each figure was paired with a value—intellect, humility, courage, resilience and in doing so, Bawumia cast himself as heir to those virtues. He wasn’t simply asking for trust as an individual; he was claiming the weight of the party’s DNA. He was presenting himself as the custodian of tradition, ready to carry forward a heritage that stretches back decades.

Then came the technocrat. This is where Bawumia is most comfortable, and it showed. He reeled off policies like a man revisiting his résumé: GhanaCard, mobile money interoperability, paperless ports, Agenda 111, drone delivery of medicine, and countless digitalisation projects. Over and over, he highlighted how Ghana had been “first in Africa” under his watch. The point wasn’t subtle: he is not the noisy populist, not the man throwing around money, but the man of ideas, systems, and results. “I demonstrate my strength by getting results, not by making noise or insults or bragging about money,” he told all gathered in what sounded both like self-definition and a jab at rivals. Lol, that is just on a lighter note!

The most emotional moment came when he reminded the party of his sacrifices. He spoke of leaving secure jobs abroad, enduring ridicule, standing as the star witness in the 2013 election petition, and even conceding defeat in 2024 to protect national peace. In these moments, he painted himself not just as a candidate but as a loyal soldier who had given his all for the NPP. His unspoken argument was simple: after so much sacrifice, he has earned the right to lead.

But Bawumia wasn’t there to dwell on the past. He pushed a message of unity, cautioning against tribal digs, factional attacks, and needless infighting. “Our true Opponent is not within. Our true Opponent is out there!!!” he thundered. It was both a rallying cry and a defensive shield. By calling himself the unity candidate, he implied that those who attack him are dividing the party for selfish gain. I didn’t stop listening.

On policy, he rolled out what he termed as “Rich Ideas”. There was talk of a flat tax system, credit access, constituency-based budgeting, grassroots empowerment, local procurement, and a more digital, inclusive economy. The balance was intentional. He wanted to speak the language of modern governance while still showing he understood the frustrations of the party’s rank and file, many of whom feel sidelined in recent years.

The speech ended on an almost lyrical note. He recalled the sacrifices he had made, assured the party that he would never shrink from duty, and then rallied them with the words: “Let’s Win Together.” It was more than an election slogan. It was a call for survival, unity, and destiny.

The verdict

Bawumia’s speech was not the fireworks of Ken Agyapong, the raw energy of Bryan Acheampong, the nostalgic call for renewal of Ing. Kwabena Agyepong, or the visionary reformist tone of Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum. It was calm, deliberate, and calculated. He projected three clear images: the custodian of tradition, the technocrat of results, and the unifier above faction. It was continuity laced with reform, humility paired with competence, unity strengthened by resolve.

Without a doubt, it succeeded as a positioning speech; it was a masterclass in political showmanship. Bawumia looked less like an aspirant fighting for recognition and more like a candidate already rehearsing for 2028.

In politics, speeches often fade once the applause dies. But in this contest, Bawumia’s words did more—they redefined him from an aspirant into the NPP’s most “credible and winnable” torchbearer for 2028.

Ken Agyapong

Kennedy Agyapong’s nomination filing speech was less a carefully polished political script and more a raw, impassioned plea. Where others came with structured policy roadmaps or moral reflection, Ken came with fire—the voice of an outsider rallying against intimidation, unfairness, and the hollow promises of politics. Ken’s address was about courage: a refusal to be cowed, a cry for fairness, and an insistence on jobs for Ghana’s restless youth.

He opened with his characteristic bluntness, warning against intimidation and selfishness within the party, and calling for fairness from the election committee. This was no statesman’s sermon. It was a protest speech from a man who has built his political brand on saying the unsayable. For Ken, the legitimacy of the process mattered as much as the outcome. “If there will be unity, there should be fairness,” he told those gathered, making his speech as much a warning to the party establishment as a pitch to the grassroots.

But the heart of his message was unemployment. In one of the speech’s more passionate moments, Ken hammered home a line he has repeated on campaign grounds: “Any human being without a job has no life. Do you want life? Then go for jobs.” It was not polished rhetoric—it was visceral. He positioned himself not as a theorist of ideas but as a doer, a businessman who had created jobs before and could do so again. His critique of “rhetoric” was a direct shot at technocrats and traditional politicians whom he accused of talking without delivering.
What made Ken’s delivery distinct was its rawness. He begged, repeated, improvised. Some say this was undisciplined and others say, it was authentic, a reflection of the way he connects with ordinary people who want honesty more than oratory.

Yet beneath the fire, he also struck a note of unity. He reminded party executives and aspirants that “without unity, none of the candidates can win.” For a man often cast as divisive, this was an attempt to reframe himself as both fighter and unifier—a paradox he has yet to fully resolve.

The verdict

Hon. Ken Agyapong’s speech is passionate but scattered, emotional but unsubstantial, repetitive but unconvincing. It lacks structure, strong policy grounding, and polished delivery, which reduces its persuasive power. Ken Agyapong’s speech was passionate, populist, and unapologetically raw. It had what his supporters love: energy, authenticity, and an unfiltered voice. His constant emphasis on jobs made his pitch relatable, and his attack on intimidation resonated with a base that distrusts the establishment.

However, his speech moves from intimidation → unemployment → Bible verse → apology → unity → fairness. His usage of “I’m begging you, I’m begging you”, “Do you want life? Do you want life?”, and “unity, unity” are repeated without adding fresh weight. It reduces rhetorical sharpness and sounds more like pleading than persuasion. There was too much heavy reliance on appeals to fear (“don’t listen to intimidation”), hope (“do you want life?”), but thin on data, policy, or evidence. Emotional rhetoric is powerful but unsustainable without substance.

Again, he claims unemployment is the biggest challenge and says only he can solve it. However, he provides no ‘clear policy direction, strategy, or data evidence’ of how his business record translates into national economic solutions. On one hand, he says “don’t listen to rhetorics” but then proceeds with mostly rhetoric. He talks about unity but earlier stirs division by framing other aspirants as selfish or incapable.

In summary, the risk in Kennedy Agyapong’s speech, however, is that raw passion without a clear policy framework may not persuade those beyond his core supporters. Could his heavy reliance on repetition and emotional appeals easily be dismissed as populism?

Bryan Acheampong

Dr. Bryan Acheampong’s nomination speech was not a firebrand performance, nor was it an overly polished technocratic address. Instead, it was the speech of a man trying to position himself as both a builder and a disciplinarian—someone who knows the grassroots pulse of the NPP and believes he has the strength to channel it into victory.

He opened with the language of faith and service, evoking humility and destiny rather than drama. His declaration was clear: this was not just about becoming flagbearer but about offering himself, once again, in the spirit of duty—“for party, for country, for a future that must belong to all of us.” He leaned on his personal story to build a connection.

The son of a teacher, raised in modest circumstances at Mile 7, now a businessman and minister, he framed his journey as proof that he understood the struggles of ordinary Ghanaians. It was a narrative designed to resonate with delegates who want to see themselves reflected in their leaders. “I know what it means to build from the ground up,” he insisted, reminding those present that one opportunity can transform not only an individual but an entire family.

Where his tone carried the most force was in his insistence on unity and discipline. Bryan was explicit: his campaign would not be one of insults, backbiting, or personal attacks. Filing his forms, he described it as “more than a bid for leadership—it was a declaration of unity and a disciplined campaign”. For a party that has often been plagued by factionalism and bruising internal contests, that was a calculated positioning. He was not just selling himself; he was selling a culture of order.

Substantively, Bryan highlighted three priorities—jobs, food security, and infrastructure. It was not a sprawling manifesto but a tightly focused pitch, signalling that he intends to anchor his campaign on bread-and-butter issues rather than broad philosophical appeals. Perhaps this reflected his ministerial portfolio at the Agricultural Ministry, where food and productivity remain pressing challenges. It also reinforced his image as a practical doer rather than a lofty dreamer.

What gave the speech its texture was his repeated emphasis on the grassroots. Acheampong cast the base of the party not just as voters but as “the heart and soul” of the NPP, promising to reignite their energy and mobilise the youth. His language suggested a candidate aware that without the energy of foot soldiers, no flagbearer, no matter how polished, can win.

Yet, the speech was not without its risks. He seemed to be pitching himself as the steady hand—the candidate who can impose order, rebuild broken structures, and marshal the grassroots into a disciplined machine capable of winning 2028.

The verdict

Bryan Acheampong’s speech was disciplined, rooted in personal testimony, and focused on unity. It was not a performance designed for headlines or slogans but a pitch to the party’s conscience about rebuilding from within. His strength lies in his grassroots grounding and his promise of order in a party that often struggles with its internal battles. His challenge will be whether discipline and structure alone can generate the momentum and passion needed to carry both delegates and voters in 2028.

Bryan’s speech feels flat. It lacks the razzmatazz of crowd-pulling slogans — nothing quotable or chantable for the grassroots. Jobs, food security, and infrastructure are overused campaign tropes. There’s nothing fresh or uniquely “Bryan Acheampong” here. A strong candidate should bring a signature theme. Too much biography, too little vision: While the backstory is useful, it takes up too much space compared to actual forward-looking policy or party strategy.

I believe that the audiences (for that matter NPP people) already know his background — they want to hear his distinct path for NPP and Ghana. Bryan’s speech is safe, polished, and grounded in humility. However, it falls short of electrifying rhetoric and distinctive vision. It positions him as steady, competent, and disciplined, but not yet as the inspirational standard-bearer NPP delegates might crave in 2028. In short, it reads more like a ministerial address than a crowd-charging flagbearer declaration.

Adutwum

Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum’s nomination speech was less about fire and fury and more about vision and values. He spoke not as a career politician hungry for office but as a teacher who sees politics as an extension of the classroom, a place where dreams are nurtured and destinies are shaped. Adutwum’s message was about opportunity, hope, and the belief that education can be the great equaliser.

He framed his candidacy as both personal and national, weaving his own life story into Ghana’s larger narrative. The son of uneducated parents, raised in Bosomtwe, who rose to become Minister of Education—he called it the “Ghanaian dream.” His story was his argument: if the system could create such a path for him, it could do the same for millions of children. It was not just political rhetoric; it was testimony.

What stood out was his choice of enemy. For Adutwum, the fight is not against party rivals or political opponents but against poverty itself. He declared it a “cancer” that must be eradicated, promising bold measures that go beyond what Ghanaians think is possible. This framing allowed him to rise above factional contest and speak to a shared national struggle, one that transcends partisan divides.

True to his identity, he leaned heavily on education as both legacy and promise. STEM, once an obscure policy acronym, is now a household term in Ghana because of his leadership. He positioned himself as the candidate who could turn knowledge into national prosperity, linking classrooms to opportunity, and dreams to development.

But Adutwum also went beyond policy. He pledged a campaign of dignity, clean, issue-based, and free of acrimony. In a political environment often defined by insults, money, and intimidation, his insistence on respect and civility was striking. He urged party delegates to join what he called “the beautiful train of transformation,” assuring that “his campaign is a movement of hope rather than a contest of egos”.

The close of his speech was not about attacking others but about situating Ghana in history. From Nkrumah to Kufuor, he acknowledged the contributions of past leaders, but argued that now was the moment to seize destiny. “The time to defeat poverty is now,” he reiterated.

The verdict

Adutwum’s speech was measured, personal, and uplifting. It lacked the firebrand electricity of Ken Agyapong or the moral sting of Kwabena Agyepong, but it carried quiet conviction. His strength lies in narrative—his personal story as proof of possibility, and in tone, which was calm, unifying, and almost pastoral. But remember that if you are part of his critics, then he emphasised during his nomination speech that “I am a man of steel”. And this is profound!

The risk, however, is he may not ignite the grassroots in the same way as more populist rhetoric. His reliance on education and personal story, while inspiring, may not satisfy voters who want hard promises on jobs, the economy, and daily bread. Yet in a crowded field, Adutwum distinguishes himself by refusing to fight dirty and by presenting politics as a continuation of his lifelong mission: teaching, inspiring, and lifting others up.

If the NPP is searching for a candidate who embodies humility, discipline, and a reformist but unifying vision, then Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum will not be easy to overlook.

Kwabena Agyepong

Ing. Kwabena Agyei Agyepong’s nomination speech felt less like the typical political pitch and more like a moral plea. He spoke not as a man hungry for power but as someone trying to remind his party and the country of what politics was supposed to mean in the first place. His was about conscience, memory, and the urgent need for renewal.

He opened by framing the moment as both personal and collective: this was not just his ambition but a reaffirmation of NPP’s founding values—service, sacrifice, and selflessness. It was a deliberate contrast to the politics of today, which he painted as corrupted by money and stripped of principle. His language carried the weight of disillusionment, yet it was laced with hope. He wasn’t just declaring his candidacy; he was sounding an alarm.

What gave his speech moral punch was the raw honesty about Ghana’s failures. He painted a stark picture of the nation: polluted rivers, galamsey-ravaged farmlands, slums sprawling without order, a disillusioned youth, and a democracy that has not delivered the dividends promised at independence. Unlike many candidates who gloss over the ugly parts, Ing. Agyepong leaned into them. His tone was not detached; it was pained. “My heart continues to bleed over the trajectory of our beloved country,” he confessed. It wasn’t rhetoric for applause, it sounded like a lament. I watched him during his delivery.

But the most striking element was his apology. Saying sorry to displaced families, to chiefs ignored in land matters, to youth robbed of opportunities by galamsey and corruption was wise. In a political culture where apology is often seen as weakness, this was a bold departure. He reframed it as strength: the beginning of justice, not the end.

The centrepiece of his vision was land. He positioned property rights and land justice as both an economic and moral frontier. His “National Property Justice Initiative” was his big idea: reforming land tenure laws, ensuring fair compensation, creating youth oversight in mining communities, and funding civic education on land stewardship. It was specific, it was policy-driven, but it was also deeply symbolic. For Ing. Agyepong, land was not just soil, it was history, identity, and dignity. He was signalling that leadership must return to protecting the vulnerable, not enriching the powerful.

Where Agyepong sounded most passionate, though, was in his attack on the monetisation of politics. He condemned the creeping culture of auctioning leadership to the highest bidder, insisting that the UP tradition was never about money but about ideas, volunteerism, and service. This was a clear shot at the party’s current direction, where money increasingly determines candidacy. It was also a subtle appeal to grassroots delegates tired of being reduced to bargaining chips.

His speech ended with a call to roots and renewal—regeneration of the NPP, restoration of noble politics, and a return to leadership defined by character, empathy, and integrity. Kwabena Agyepong came across as the party elder speaking from a place of duty rather than ambition.

The verdict

Agyepong’s speech was sober, heartfelt, and different from the rest. It lacked the razzmatazz of crowd-pulling slogans, but it carried moral gravity. KAA speech was serious, measured, or policy-heavy but didn’t have the kind of memorable buzzwords or electrifying rhetoric that create instant excitement in a political gathering.

He spoke with the authority of experience and the humility of someone who has seen the party’s highs and lows. His risk, however, is that speeches like this often resonate more with elites and reform-minded thinkers than with the raw, restless grassroots who want energy and charisma.

Yet, in this field, he may stand out precisely because he is not trying to sound like everyone else. His call was not just to win an election but to restore meaning to politics itself. If the NPP is truly searching for a renewal of its values, then his voice will not be easy to ignore.

Best wishes

I wish Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, Dr. Bryan Acheampong, Kwabena Agyepong, and Dr. Yaw Osei Adutwum the best in the NPP flagbearer contest. It marks not only a test of individual ambition but also a testament to the party’s democratic traditions. Each of these aspirants brings a unique vision, experience, and energy to the table. In their different ways, they represent the breadth and diversity of thought within the Elephant family. What unites them, however, is a common desire to serve Ghana and to see the NPP remain strong, united, and prepared to meet the aspirations of the Ghanaian people.

May their campaigns be conducted with dignity, their supporters remain peaceful, and their visions enrich the democratic conversation within our party and our country. On January 31, 2026, only one will be chosen to lead, but all five have already contributed to deepening the democratic spirit of the NPP. May the will of the delegates prevail, and may the NPP emerge from this process more united, more focused, and more ready to serve Ghana come 2028.

The writer is a media practitioner, political commentator, youth activist, and the news editor of the Daily Statesman.