Speaking in a sharply worded statement, Solomon Owusu accused the former President of applying double standards, asking why Akufo-Addo went ahead to sign the controversial Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy) into law while the matter was still before the court, yet refused to assent to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, citing an ongoing court process.
According to Owusu, the contradiction raises serious concerns about consistency in leadership and respect for democratic principles.
“Why did Akufo-Addo pass the E-Levy when the issue was in court, but when it comes to LGBT, he says the issue is in court?” Owusu questioned.
His remarks have reignited public debate over Akufo-Addo’s decisions on both matters.
The E-Levy, introduced by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government, sparked massive national backlash when it was passed in 2022.
Despite legal challenges and public outrage, President Akufo-Addo assented to the bill, making it law even while opposition lawmakers contested its legality in court.
On the other hand, when Parliament passed the anti-LGBTQ+ bill in 2024, many Ghanaians expected the President to swiftly sign it into law due to the overwhelming public support it enjoyed.
However, Akufo-Addo declined to act immediately, insisting he would wait for the Supreme Court to determine pending legal challenges.
To critics like Solomon Owusu, that explanation does not hold up.
Many political observers say the comparison is difficult to ignore. In one case, the President appeared ready to act despite judicial challenges; in the other, the same judicial process was used as justification for delay.
This has fueled suspicions that political convenience, rather than constitutional consistency, influenced the decisions.
Supporters of Akufo-Addo argue that the legal and constitutional contexts of the two bills were different and that the President acted within the law in both cases.
But opponents insist that the contrast sends the wrong signal and undermines public confidence in the fairness of executive decision-making.
Solomon Owusu’s statement is already generating heated reactions online, with many Ghanaians debating whether the former President selectively applied constitutional principles based on political interests.
As public scrutiny intensifies, the bigger question remains: Was Akufo-Addo upholding the law equally, or choosing when the law should matter?
That question may continue to haunt the former President long after leaving office.