Dr. Bryan Acheampong, a key figure within the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and former Minister for Food and Agriculture, has stated that he financed 27 out of the 33 NPP parliamentary candidates in Ghana’s Eastern Region during the 2024 general elections. According to his remarks, each candidate received GHS 100,000 monthly, while he also distributed GHS 2 million to 26,000 NPP polling station executives in November 2024. These claims, made public on social media, have sparked discussions about the scale of financial influence in Ghanaian politics.
The 2024 elections, held on 7 December, were marred by allegations of electoral irregularities, including an accused illegal voter transfer scheme that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) claimed was orchestrated by the NPP. This backdrop of contention highlights the strategic importance of financial resources in securing electoral success, as exemplified by Dr. Acheampong’s reported contributions.
Dr. Acheampong, who represents the Abetifi Constituency and has a background as an entrepreneur and philanthropist, announced his intention to contest the 2028 presidential primaries of the NPP earlier this year. His financial support for the 2024 elections is seen as a move to consolidate his influence within the party, a practice that, while not uncommon, raises questions about the ethics and sustainability of such political financing.
Recent updates indicate that the NPP opened nominations for the 2026 presidential primaries on 29 July 2025, with the process set to close on 28 August 2025. Aspirants, including Dr. Acheampong, are required to pay a fee of GHS 100,000 for the forms and GHS 500,000 to file their nominations, further underscoring the resource-intensive nature of Ghanaian political contests.
The scale of Dr. Acheampong’s claimed financial support—amounting to significant sums distributed across candidates and party executives—has prompted calls for transparency and investigation into the sources of such funds. Critics argue that such practices could undermine the democratic process, while supporters view it as a necessary investment in party infrastructure and electoral strategy.
Readers are encouraged to view the original post for further context: