The statement made by Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh, commonly known as NAPO, which described a vote for former President John Dramani Mahama or the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as “haram,” has generated significant controversy and raised some concerns across the political spectrum.

As a prominent political figure and a member of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dr. Opoku Prempeh’s remarks, particularly the use of religious terminology, were not only unguarded but also reckless and irresponsible.

This article seeks to address the troubling nature of the statement and highlight the potential consequences of such divisive rhetoric in a multi-religious society like Ghana. And this has become necessary because it is increasingly becoming commonplace to see some politicians playing the religious card on political platforms.

To describe a political choice as “haram,” a term derived from Islamic jurisprudence meaning “forbidden” or “unlawful” in the context of Islamic law, is highly inappropriate and problematic.

While it is clear that Dr. Opoku Prempeh intended to invoke moral judgment regarding the NDC and its leadership, his choice of words undermines the principle of religious neutrality in Ghana’s politics.

The Constitution of Ghana guarantees freedom of religion, and this includes a firm commitment to preventing religious intolerance in public life. By suggesting that casting a vote for a particular political party is “haram,” Dr. Opoku Prempeh dangerously conflates political allegiance with religious doctrine.

Ghana, a country with a significant Muslim population, must be especially vigilant about the potential for such statements to fuel unnecessary tensions between religious communities.

This rhetoric could easily be misinterpreted as an attempt to alienate Muslim voters who may support the NDC or its leader, and who should not have to choose between their faith and their political preferences. When political figures resort to religious language in the context of electoral choices, they risk sowing discord and undermining the social cohesion that Ghana has worked so hard to maintain.

It is highly ironic that Dr. Opoku, as a Christian, would make such an unqualified statement, especially considering that recent census data indicates that the majority of Ghanaians identify as Christians. This raises important questions about the implications of religious rhetoric in political discourse.

For instance, one might ask how the public would respond if a prominent Christian figure such as John Mahama were to similarly proclaim that supporting Bawumia is inherently heretical. Such statements could easily polarize the electorate and contribute to the politicization of religious identity, undermining the pluralistic foundations of the democratic process.

Ghana is a model of religious tolerance in West Africa, where Christians, Muslims, and traditional African religious practitioners co-exist harmoniously in most areas of life. This peaceful coexistence must be preserved, especially as the nation approaches a highly charged electoral season. Any statement that attempts to turn the political discourse into a religious war is a threat to national unity. Statements such as the one made by Dr. Opoku Prempeh can easily be misused by extremists or political agitators to exploit religious sentiments for personal gain, sowing division and conflict in the process.

The use of religious language in political campaigns can escalate existing tensions, especially if religious leaders or groups begin to take sides. The risk is not limited to inter-party rivalry, but extends to interfaith hostility that could have far-reaching consequences. It is not difficult to imagine how the “haram” comment could be distorted by the opposition or other interested parties to fuel religious resentment.

It is incumbent upon leaders like Dr. Opoku Prempeh to demonstrate a higher level of responsibility and maturity, especially in the lead-up to elections. Politicians should focus on policies, ideas, and values that promote the common good, rather than resorting to divisive rhetoric that pits one group against another. Elections are about choices, and while candidates and their supporters may have legitimate differences of opinion, these should be debated in a way that fosters inclusivity and unity rather than conflict.

Leaders must recognize the power of their words, especially when addressing sensitive matters such as religion. Instead of using terms like “haram” to label political opponents, leaders should strive to create an atmosphere where dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding take precedence over the politics of fear and division.

Dr. Opoku Prempeh’s statement, although made in the heat of political competition, has the potential to do lasting harm to Ghana’s religious harmony. Such remarks are unproductive and damaging to the spirit of peaceful democratic participation that Ghana has worked so hard to cultivate.

As we approach the next general elections, it is essential for all political leaders to prioritize unity, inclusivity, and respect for the diverse religious and cultural fabric of the nation. Political parties and their leaders should be reminded that they are stewards of the country’s stability and that their rhetoric must be carefully weighed to avoid exacerbating social divisions.

It is through responsible leadership that Ghana will continue to shine as an example of democracy and religious tolerance in Africa. It is time for all of us, particularly those in leadership, to rise above divisive politics and foster an environment that celebrates Ghana’s rich diversity, upholds our constitutional values, and prioritizes the welfare of all citizens—regardless of their political or religious affiliations.