The right to demonstrate

We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast and our trust fixed on God. St Francis de Sales.

 Myles Munroe has argued that “the greatness of a man is measured by the way he treats the little man. Compassion for the weak is a sign of greatness.” That is how those in exercising state authority at all levels must relate to the average Ghanaian. That is the foundation of our Constitution that we are all equal before the law. That is why many Ghanaians are exercised and irked about the high-handedness displayed by the police in dealing with the groups of protesters who wanted to drum home the necessity for a new voters register.

Article 15 (1) and (2) provides that the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable and that no person shall, whether or not he is arrested, restricted or detained, be subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and any other condition that detracts or is likely to detract from his dignity and worth as a human being. Since the sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in the Constitution, all public officials and public office holders must at all time be mindful of their relationship with the people. We must act lawfully and professionally in all things but never take the law into our own hands because it is convenient to do so.

The matter of the mayhem and brutalities meted out to some hapless protesters because some of them deviated from the agreed routes is a matter within the public domain. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo challenged the President to comment on the matter and President John Mahama has given his clear verdict.  What the police did has no place in our constitutional democracy. That is, as it should be. When public officials offend the sensibilities of the people, they must be told in no uncertain terms and made to respect the rule of law and due process.

To those who, for political considerations, have commended the police for the brutalities, it is imperative that as a people, we hold on to principles which we can defend at all times. That is how viable democratic institutions are built.  That also means that those in leadership positions in such public institutions, especially those intended to uphold the integrity of the state, would not rush to approve the conduct of their members before they undertake painstaking investigations into such conduct.

Last Saturday, I engaged two police officers who were involved in the mayhem and their attitude, going every length to justify the reprisals, pointed to the fact that we have a long way to go in appreciating that the Public Order Law does not confer on the police the power to approve or refuse citizens the right to protest. They said that the police were stoned copiously by the protestors, some of whom had pepper spray and that a number of police personnel were injured. They accused the media of reporting only one side of the matter to the detriment of the police personnel whose lives were endangered by the protestors. Unfortunately, despite the claims by the police that they were provoked and that they acted to defend themselves and protect public property, no evidence has been placed in the public domain to establish the culpability of the demonstrators and justify the brutalities.

That is where the danger is. Often when such acts of brutalities have been visited on our people, the insinuation is that political leadership is behind such atrocities. But where police personnel have deep-seated sentiments of ill feeling and false understanding of their role in the process of legitimately embarking on a demonstration, their frustrations will be translated into inhuman treatment of citizens in the name of the maintenance of law and order.

The Police Service must educate police personnel to appreciate the essence of the Public Order Law, (Act 491) as their duty is to facilitate the right of demonstrators, for as long as the public interest is not under threat. The right to demonstrate is an inalienable right just as the right to life and free speech. Even our judges must exercise circumspection in denying anybody the right to demonstrate at the place and time so desired, unless there is an overriding public interest to be safeguarded. Such a public interest must be openly admitted and understood by the majority of our people but not limited to the thoughts of the judge, because a right is a right, not a privilege.