Kwadwo Poku’s recent commentary on Dr Mahamudu Bawumia’s electoral performance in Zongo communities is not only misleading but is a textbook example of selective reporting, factual distortion, and statistical manipulation. His attempt to portray strength in Zongo constituencies by citing a handful of polling stations lacks analytical rigour, contextual understanding, and integrity. It must be emphasised that Bryan’s statement was in reference to zongo communities and not polling stations in zongos. There are about 3000 zongo communities nationwide, according to the Zongo Development Authority, with over 3000 polling stations. Therefore, any accurate and unbiased analysis must be done within this context. Indeed, the aggregated votes in all the zongos show that Bawumia lost all except the Efutu Zongo Community. This is a game of facts and not rumbling.

To begin, Poku’s claim that John Mahama received zero votes in the Abetifi Constituency is demonstrably false. The official results published by the Electoral Commission of Ghana show that no polling station in Abetifi recorded zero votes for Mahama. The specific mention of Zongo Mosque, Kwahu Tafo, as a zero-vote station for Mahama is either a fabrication or a gross misreading of certified results. This is verifiable public data, and any analyst committed to truth would reference it.

Even if we momentarily entertain the accuracy of that single polling station, the broader issue lies in Poku’s methodology. He references just 22 polling stations to make sweeping claims about Zongo voter behaviour while ignoring the existence of over 3,000 polling stations located in Zongo communities nationwide. This is not statistical analysis; it is cherry-picking. Any credible assessment of electoral performance must be based on comprehensive data, not isolated anecdotes.

One of the most glaring examples of misinformation is Poku’s claim regarding the Malam Adam Primary – New Zongo 1 polling station. He falsely stated that Dr. Bawumia received 71 votes while John Mahama received only 1. The official Electoral Commission results show that while DMB indeed received 71 votes, Mahama received 241 votes, a significant margin that completely undermines Poku’s narrative. This is not a minor error; it is a deliberate distortion aimed at misleading the public.

Poku also misrepresents the Aboabo community in Adansi Asokwa Constituency, labelling it as a Zongo enclave. In reality, Aboabo in Adansi Asokwa District is a typical Akan community, not a Zongo settlement. This is a verifiable demographic fact, and such mischaracterisation further exposes the lack of research and cultural understanding in Poku’s analysis.

In his grossly deceptive narrative, there has been an attempt to classify every community where there is a mosque as a zongo community. This is factually inaccurate and a deliberate calculation to throw dust in the eyes of his unsuspecting readers. A mosque situated in Ajiringano can not make Ajiringano a zongo community. He should tell that to the Marines.

Dr. Bawumia publicly committed to delivering Zongo and Northern votes for the NPP. What the millions of NPP supporters expected was just that, and not an attempt to whitewash a rather wishy-washy electoral performance.

Instead, what I find is a troubling counter-narrative. In constituencies such as Bawku Central, Dr Bawumia recorded zero votes in at least 19 polling stations, and these are northern communities, many of which are located in core Zongo communities. Examples include:

	JM	DMB
Abagre Palace North – Natinga	332	0
Deese Central Mosque	158	0
Modibo’s Mosque	177	0
Natinga Primary School	219	0
Zongo Mosque – Bawku	312	0

These figures, drawn from certified polling station results, challenge the narrative of Zongo dominance and demand a more honest reckoning with the facts.

If zero-vote polling stations are to be used as a metric of political strength or weakness, then both candidates must be evaluated by the same standard. The selective use of data to discredit one candidate while shielding another from scrutiny undermines democratic discourse and erodes public trust.

If Kwadwo Poku is truly committed to defending Dr. Bawumia’s performance in Zongo communities, then he must publish the complete results from all Zongo polling stations across Ghana. Anything less is a disservice to the electorate and a distortion of the democratic process.

Until such transparency is provided, his claims remain unsubstantiated, misleading, and politically expedient.