Minority criticises Bawumia's national address, labels it repetitive

Ghanaian

The Minority in Parliament has launched a scathing criticism against the flagbearer of the New Patriotic Party, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, following his recent policy address ahead of the 2024 General Elections.

In a public address on Wednesday, February 7, 2024, Dr. Bawumia outlined plans to abolish certain taxes, including the e-levy, emission levy, and bet taxes. He also proposed governing

Read full articlewith 50 Ministers and introducing a flat tax regime, among other interventions.

However, the Minority caucus has expressed skepticism, asserting that the Vice President lacks a coherent vision for the country.

During a caucus meeting, the Minority Leader, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, vehemently opposed Dr. Bawumia’s speech, claiming that the Vice President already possesses the authority to remove taxes but has failed to do so.

Dr. Forson argued that the proposed tax cuts were already articulated by the flagbearer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), John Dramani Mahama, making Dr. Bawumia’s stance appear as mere replication.

Dr. Forson emphasised, “It should be noted that our vice president currently has the power to remove any taxes if he so wishes. This is obviously for the simple reason that our vice president is the chairman of the Economic Management Team. He chairs the deliberation of all economic policies at his office. Aside from that he is also a member of the Akufo-Addo cabinet, In fact, he is the second commander-In-Chief in the Akufo-Addo’s cabinet.

“So all of these economic policies President Akufo-Addo has implemented since 2017 were actually supervised by our Vice President. And it should be noted, that his position has further been strengthened because he is now the leader of the NPP, the governing NPP.”

Meanwhile, the Member of Parliament for Wa Central, Dr. Rashid Pelpuo, has expressed astonishment at the timing and content of Dr. Bawumia’s promises.

He remarked, “I was more shocked to find that key promises he made about taxes were done because he [claims] he was an adviser or is an adviser.”