IMANI Africa President Franklin Cudjoe has intensified debate over the legacy of Ghana’s first President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, insisting that the former leader’s record of one-party rule and political repression was far more severe than governance concerns raised under the current Fourth Republic.

In a Facebook post, Mr Cudjoe compared public frustration with former President Nana Akufo-Addo’s administration to what he described as the “full-blown authoritarian” nature of Nkrumah’s rule, arguing that historical context matters when assessing Ghana’s political past.

Referencing comments previously made by activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor — who openly criticised Akufo-Addo’s leadership and at one point suggested the possibility of a coup amid dissatisfaction with governance — Mr Cudjoe said such reactions would have been far more extreme under Nkrumah.

“Not long ago, highly unsatisfied with aspects of Nana Addo’s governance style, our brother Oliver Barker-Vormawor shouted ‘coup’ and suggested the Ghana Army was useless in the face of naked power,” he wrote.

“Now know that the governance sins of Nana Addo come nowhere near the full-blown authoritarian decisions of Nkrumah — one-party state, declaring himself president for life, etc. Had Oliver lived under Nkrumah, he would have become a guerrilla fighter.”

Mr Cudjoe has consistently maintained that Nkrumah governed as a dictator, citing the 1964 referendum that made him President for Life and the subsequent declaration of Ghana as a one-party state under the Convention People’s Party (CPP).

He has also pointed to laws such as the Preventive Detention Act, which allowed for the arrest and detention of political opponents without trial, as evidence of suppressed civil liberties.

While acknowledging Nkrumah’s Pan-African vision and contributions to continental liberation struggles, the policy analyst argues that these achievements should not overshadow what he views as democratic backsliding and economic mismanagement during the First Republic.

His latest remarks have reignited longstanding debates about how Ghana should assess Nkrumah’s legacy — as a visionary nation-builder or an authoritarian leader whose governance curtailed freedoms.

The discussion continues to divide public opinion, with some defending Nkrumah’s role in laying the foundations of modern Ghana, while others, like Mr Cudjoe, stress the importance of confronting the excesses of his rule.

Read: Franklin Cudjoe defends ‘Nkrumah was a dictator’ claim, cites one-party rule, detentions, economic mismanagement