In the 2020 parliamentary elections, Honorable Abdulai Abanga of the NPP defeated Dr Robert Kuganab Lem, the then-incumbent NDC MP of Binduri to snatch the only seat for NPP in the Upper East Region.

Since then, it’s been a blame game and the NDC in Binduri has become a tale of two different factions. One faction living on unsubstantiated fabrications but relying heavily on the support of some people in higher offices to punish those that don’t agree with them, while the other faction has all the evidence on the ground as their support but is still not being listened to.

A parliamentary candidate who lost in some polling stations in his own electoral area has been able to convince some people that his defeat was due to the work of his parliamentary primaries opponent who rather won for the PC in all the polling stations of his electoral area where he is very influential. Isn’t it funny then to assume that the PC was blaming his primaries opponent for damage done in the PC’s own Backyard?

How could somebody not cause your defeat in his electoral area but rather come to your electoral area to cause your defeat? Even the then constituency secretary Imoro Mahamadu who wrote the report and then turned witness against all those who were suspended could not win for the PC in all the polling stations of his electoral area yet blamed somebody who won in all his boxes.

In the same report which dashed out suspensions to party loyalists for minor offences, the report also said “The MP’s efforts at uniting the party after the primaries were not diligently handled. The MP lacked the needed diplomacy and political language, another contributing factor to the MP’s defeat was his bad utterances. The perceptions about the PC in Binduri from the testimonies before the committee be brought to the attention of the PC for a possible change”.

If an old man of his age who had the main responsibility of uniting the party should be given the opportunity for possible change as recommended by the report, what prevents them from giving far younger men the opportunity for possible change?

With regards to Simon Azimbe, the report listed one of his crimes to be “Simon Azimbe failed to whip his supporters, some of whom were executives of the party into campaigning for the party’s parliamentary candidate”. With the former MP, they said “was not diligently handled” but they didn’t hesitate to use “failed to whip” when it came to Simon Azimbe. Whoever coined the phrase “What is good for the goose is good for the Gander” probably had the case of Binduri NDC in mind.

One of the reasons the report gave to justify the suspension of Mr. Simon Azimbe Aruk was that “Simon Azimbe as the Presiding Member of the Binduri Assembly walked the PC out of an Assembly meeting”. This is a lie that could easily have been crosschecked with the district assembly. In fact, the assembly members who were all present on the day of the said incident wrote a letter to the committee to alert them that nothing of such happened that day.

While writing this article as a follow-up to my earlier one “Binduri NDC: Understanding The Power Play and Emergence of Camps in Binduri NDC”, I sighted two rejoinders by Mr. Bernard Abindaw and Awinbugri Ateawini Musah. Their rejoinders came at a perfect time and fit as perfect examples to further explain what I mean by a faction living on unsubstantiated fabrications.

Permit me to respond to their rejoinders and in the process, enable you to understand the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Bernard Abindaw, thanks for making time to read my rather long explanation of what is currently happening in Binduri NDC. I had so much to write but I had to end it at some point and wait for an opportunity like what you have presented me. I am much grateful.

Before I move on to respond to the points you raised, let me draw our reader’s attention to the fact that all that you were able to achieve with your 6 points rejoinder was to say that there were attempts by Regional Chairman Dr Robert Kuganab Lem and the Secretary Imoro Mahamadu to get Simon Aruk Azimbe on board.

I rather expected you to respond to the several more important easy to prove facts I raised like Simon Azimbe winning in all his electoral areas while the parliamentary candidate and his secretary lost four polling stations in their own electoral area.

But it is understandable that you had to respond even when you had nothing concrete to dispute the issues I raised. Almost all the issues raised can easily be verified on the ground by any interested party who decides to crosscheck our facts.

I am compelled to respond to all your six points in a single paragraph since it was almost a repetition of the same issue. What was the importance of saying there were attempts to get Simon Azimbe on board without being able to draw the much-needed conclusion that “but he refused”? I am very sure our readers will at this point realize that if indeed Simon had rejected any such advances, then you surely would have captured it to make a point? “Your argument has fallen flat”.

Granted that all that you said about efforts to get Simon on board are true, did he refuse any such offer? The essence of any such move will have been to get Simon to campaign, and there is enough evidence available that he did campaign and even joined the PC at some campaign grounds even when the PC was doing his best to avoid him. At the Tempielim mini durbar, immediately Simon Azimbe took the microphone to speak, Dr Kuganab and his followers left the venue without a word to Simon. They moved on to their next location leaving Simon Azimbe behind. This can be confirmed on the grounds.

The people of Binduri and interested parties at this point should have gone beyond just listening to accusations and speculations like what you have just done, to rather looking at the bare facts available everywhere on the grounds. Let me advise that in your next response if you ever get anything to write again please state issues that can be verified by any interested party. Let me give you some instances and facts that can be verified on the ground to prove that your six points were not relevant to the issue at hand.

1. There were 4 main reconciliatory meetings intended to reconcile the former PC and other aspirants but none of such meetings was attended by the PC. This can be verified on the grounds
2. Simon Azimbe was a member of the Campaign team of concerned elders. He was even the one driving the concerned elders around to campaign. This can be verified on the grounds.
3. Simon Azimbe supported some electoral areas Atuba, Nafkologa and Nayoko) with money and materials and this can be verified on the ground.
4. Simon Azimbe carried out vigorous campaigns in his electoral area using his own resources, in compliance with the former PC’s main strategy that each leader should work at his home or ward and ensure victory. In the end, the presidential candidate and the PC won in all the branches of Simon Azimbe’s electoral area. While losing in his own Electoral area
5. Simon Azimbe joined the PC’s Campaign Team in some mini-durbars organized at the community level, Tempielim and Narango to be precise.

If Simon Azimbe did all this which can be confirmed on the ground how will he have rejected or refused any offer to do what he was already doing?

Anybody who has read Mr Awinbugri Ateawinni’ response will agree with me that he only tried to write the history of Binduri NDC in the way that he understands it. Everybody is titled to their opinion so I will only entreat that if he wants to respond to any of the evidence-based arguments that I have made he shouldn’t focus on history writing but rather present an evidence-based argument. We have since moved on from the blame game which they won to an evidence-based analysis of issues in Binduri NDC.

I also come in peace but hoping to spark the brains that will ask further questions beyond the mere allegations and lies peddled against party members that have served the party diligently for these years. Others are providing facts that can be verified on the grounds while others are writing history and just putting words together to end in an accusation.

NDC should reconsider their decision to suspend Simon Aruk Azimbe and the six other executives because the evidence on the ground doesn’t support the accusations and decision to suspend them. Binduri NDC is cracked beyond repair and needs quick fixing which can only start with bringing everybody on board.