Government spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu has accused the New Patriotic Party (NPP) of selective outrage and duplicity in its response to criticism of judges.

Speaking in an interview on Joy FM’s Top Story on Wednesday, May 13, Kwakye Ofosu questioned why individuals linked to the NPP who have criticised judges have not faced the same legal scrutiny as members of the then opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) and journalists, some of whom were imprisoned in the widely reported Muntie 3 case.

"Were members of the NDC and journalists who spoke against judges not imprisoned in the Montie 3 case in this country? Did Nana B and his colleagues in the NPP not praise it?” he asked.

He asked whether members of the NDC and journalists who spoke against judges were not jailed in the Muntie 3 case, and suggested that some NPP figures had previously supported the outcome.

Kwakye Ofosu argued that the principle of consistency must apply across the political divide, adding that if NDC-affiliated individuals and journalists were punished for criticising judges, then similar standards should apply to others accused of similar conduct.

He further stressed that the government has no role in judicial proceedings, noting that cases involving attacks on judges are handled independently by the courts.

“These matters have nothing to do with government. Abronye did not attack the President or any member of the government. He attacked a judge, and the judge is taking action against him. So in what way do you draw government into this?” he asked.

He maintained that the current matter should not be linked to government responsibility, insisting that individuals are entitled to pursue legal action where appropriate.

“I examine all these matters, I look at the track record of the NPP, and I see that what they are doing is just an exercise in duplicity. It is not a display of commitment to upholding free speech because they do not respect free speech,” he stated.

Kwakye Ofosu also accused the NPP of misrepresenting its commitment to free speech, arguing that its conduct reflects inconsistency rather than principle.