Power Is Temporary; Institutions Are Permanent- Stop The Politics Of Renaming National Institutions

The recurring saga of renaming and, in some cases, reversing the names of public institutions in Ghana raises serious questions about political motive, patriotism, and national interest. While the issue may appear trivial to some, it speaks volumes about how political power is often wrongly exercised, with public institutions sometimes reduced to tools for partisan self-glorification.

This is not the first time the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has engaged in such practices. Indeed, renaming public institutions appears almost like a trademark of the party. Under the administration of President J.A. Kuffour, although two new stadia were built and named, existing ones were also renamed in ways that sparked public debate. To date, many people still question why the Tamale Sports Stadium was not named after the revered Ya-Naa or a sports personality from the northern sector, as was done elsewhere. After all, the North has produced outstanding sports figures such as Abedi Pele, Coach Malik, Coach Ibrahim (the “Golden Boy”), and many others who contributed immensely to sports development and inspired countless young people across the country. Or is it that the NPP could not find any of its members in the North worthy of such recognition? Your guess is as good as mine!

It is not far from the truth to suggest that the party may even be discriminatory against its own supporters. This is because the history of Ghanaian politics, especially in the North, cannot be complete without the mention of the great Jateo Kaleo. Yet, under two NPP administrations aligned with his political tradition, not even a principal street has been named after this towering figure who inspired many young people in the Upper West Region into education and politics. This smacks of political hypocrisy and a deliberate refusal to honour national heroes. Didn't they even attempt to alter the narrative of who founded this country to appease their fathers and grandfathers? Had they stayed longer in power, they might have caused even greater distortion and damage to Ghana’s rich and internationally respected history. The so-called “Akyem Mafia” is indeed a threat to our national historical narrative and must be watched with eagle eyes. We are Ghanaians, and no tribe hates another, but the actions and inactions of some individuals remain deeply questionable.

What is even more pathetic about the whole issue is that it is on public record that governments under the National Democratic Congress (NDC), from the Rawlings era through subsequent administrations, established more new public universities than the NPP. Yet successive NDC governments did not seek to rename these institutions after party stalwarts simply because they held power. This restraint stands in sharp contrast to recent developments under the NPP, whose record largely reflects upgrading, merging, or granting autonomy to existing institutions rather than building entirely new universities from scratch. Yet they have a penchant for renaming existing institutions even after mere renovation works.

Against this background, it becomes difficult to justify the NPP’s persistent enthusiasm for renaming public universities. To borrow a simple analogy, it is like a child being born with a given name, only for another person, who neither carried the pregnancy nor delivered the baby, to later insist on renaming that child, not out of necessity but merely to advertise unearned loyalty. What is even more appalling is that these renamings do not translate into any tangible benefits for the institutions or the public.

Beyond the issue of renaming rather than building, some of the new names themselves are confusing to the public. For instance, the renaming of the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) to a name that shares the same acronym as a commercial bank has created unnecessary confusion. Many Ghanaians are comfortable with the old name, BNI rather than the NIB.

A responsible government is expected to establish institutions, name them appropriately to reflect their functions and national interest, and then take credit for doing so. Even if it may not amount to a crime, it is morally questionable to use public institutions—national assets funded by taxpayers—as instruments for scoring cheap political points. Names matter. They carry historical, social, and emotional weight. They shape identity, inspire values, and influence future generations who look up to these names as symbols of excellence and service.

One of the most troubling aspects of this renaming culture is the lack of broad consultation. Decisions of such national importance are often taken with minimal engagement with key stakeholders—traditional authorities, academic communities, alumni, civil society, and host communities. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction, with many questioning the criteria used in selecting certain individuals for such high honours.

In some cases, the inconsistencies are glaring. Former President Dr Hilla Limann—widely regarded as a statesman of integrity and national stature—was associated with a technical university, while C. K. Tedam was honoured with a fully-fledged public university. To many observers, this disparity is not only laughable but also undermines the very essence of honouring national contributors. It reinforces the perception that such decisions are driven less by objective national contribution and more by partisan loyalty.

If there is currently no clear legal framework guiding how public institutions should be named, then the time has come for Ghana to enact one. A well-defined policy would protect national institutions from whimsical renaming whenever political power changes hands and ensure fairness, consistency, and national cohesion.

Wider consultations would allow names that resonate with the history, culture, and identity of host regions and communities, rather than imposing figures whose relevance may be politically convenient but socially disconnected. Ghana has no shortage of men and women—past and present—whose sacrifices to education, democracy, and national unity cut across party lines.

Ultimately, both the NDC and the NPP must appreciate one fundamental truth: public institutions do not belong to political parties; they belong to the people of Ghana. Their names should therefore reflect national or regional interest, not narrow political calculations. Until we rise above partisan instincts in matters of public symbolism, the cycle of renaming and reversal will continue, leaving behind not honour but division and ridicule.

While the reversal of some controversial names is a step in the right direction, something must be done to prevent such occurrences in the future. National consultation, guided by law and principle, must be the way forward if we truly wish to honour our national heroes—not merely political loyalists.

The Trial News