By Philip Tengzu, GNA
Wa (UW/R), Jan. 5, GNA – Mr Alois Kog Kyaakpier Mohl, a New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary aspirant for the Nandom Constituency, says he will appeal his disqualification by the vetting committee from contesting in the upcoming primary.
Mr Mohl had filed a contest against Mr Ambrose Dery, the incumbent Member of Parliament (MP), also the Minister of the Interior, but his ambition was cut short by the disqualification.
He told the Ghana News Agency (GNA) in an interview after the vetting in Wa on Thursday, January 4, 2024.
The Nandom Constituency Executives of the NPP had accused Mr Mohl of consistently campaigning against the party’s parliamentary candidate in the 2012, 2016 and 2020 general election.
A letter signed by Mr Martin Wuoyang, the Constituency Secretary, reminding Mr Mohl of the forfeiture of his membership after he declared his intentions to contest in the primary.
However, Mr Mohl accused the vetting committee of preconceiving his disqualification due to the demeanor and utterances of the members.
“It is in their power to take a decision and they have so ruled that they cannot vet me because they said I refused to respond to the forfeiture letter.”
“I am and I have always been a man of law, I am a very peaceful person … and I call on my supporters that nobody is going to engage in destructive actions.”
He expressed confidence that the Appeals Committee of the party “will do that which is just and fair not to me but to the party.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Tanko Daniel Dawda, the Upper West Regional Secretary of the NPP and a member of the vetting committee, said the disqualification was based on the allegations levelled against Mr Mohl in the forfeiture petition.
The allegations were that he did not attend party meetings and had “consistently campaigned against the Member of Parliament anytime he put up himself to contest on behalf of the party.”
When asked whether the committee had proof of the allegations against the candidate, Dr Dawda said the minutes of the meetings presented to the vetting committee were enough to support the allegation.
“There was no need for any other evidence,” he said.
“We would have insisted on hardcore evidence if the applicant had also applied (responded to the forfeiture letter) denying those allegations, which he didn’t do, so what are you going to base on?”
GNA