<<Print>>

Dr Benjamin Kunbour, Former Majority leader and Former Minister of Interior has spoken to the issue of the controversial ‘boot for boot’ comment by former President John Mahama, saying the latter's comments were "preconditioned".

The former President was severely censured after he stated that the NDC will match the New Patriotic Party (NPP) boot for boot in 2020.

Mahama, while reacting to the violence that marred the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election which led to some members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) sustaining injuries, said: “NDC is not going to joke in 2020, and he is sounding a warning to the NPP that he and his party will match NPP boot for boot.”

”I want to sound a caution that NDC has a revolutionary root and when it comes to unleashing violence, no one can beat us to that. It is just that we are mindful of this country’s democracy and that is why we must be the first to respect it. That is why we are acting as a party that is docile and respecting the rule of law. But if we believe that the government cannot protect our people and we believe that the government is using its vigilante groups and illegal forces to intimidate and harass and injure our people, then we may have to advise ourselves,” he added.

Some political pundits took the former President to the cleaners for passing those comments. The National Peace Council and other civil society organisations demanded that he apologises.

Speaking to this in an interview on Class FM, Monday, Dr Kunbour wondered why the former President is being criticised.

According to him, if there is no 'boot', there will not be 'boot for boot'.

“If there is no boot, there will be no boot-for-boot. So, don’t jump away from the fact that that statement is hinged and preconditioned on the fact that there are boots on the ground. So, I thought that we will be saying that we don’t want any boots at all to make a boot-for-boot unnecessary. That for me is a way you handle these types of things, but when you go to deal with the boot-for-boot and you don’t look for the fact that it was because there were boots that is why there is another boot that is where you lose the argument,” he indicated.