Speaking on the controversy, Nketiah questioned why sections of the political class are quick to condemn Mahama for decisions that mirror actions taken under former President Nana Akufo-Addo.
So why the double standards now?” he reportedly asked, arguing that consistency in political judgment is crucial for a healthy democracy.
The debate centers on allegations that certain individuals or groups were overlooked in recent ministerial considerations, sparking dissatisfaction within political circles.
Critics claim the move signals exclusion, while defenders insist presidential appointments are guided by strategy, competence, and broader national interest.
Nketiah’s remarks suggest the backlash may be politically motivated rather than principled. He maintains that governance decisions, including ministerial selections, are executive prerogatives and should not be reduced to factional grievances.
Political analysts say the controversy reflects the broader tension that often follows changes in leadership — where expectations clash with political realities.
Appointments can unite a party, but they can just as easily expose underlying rivalries.
As the conversation intensifies, the central question remains: is the criticism rooted in fairness, or is it fueled by shifting political loyalties?