Eye of hyena is on lizard; eye of lizard is on ant …

In every election year, one or the other of presidential candidates hitherto widely credited with possessing the power of words and admirable debating skills suddenly chickens out of a public debate when he sees the strongest among his opponents spoiling for a fight. 

That’s my definition of a bully: one who yearns for a fight when they see someone they can beat.

An Ethiopian proverb describes this character-trait in humans. It says, “The eye of the hyena is on the lizard, the eye of the lizard is on the ant and the eye of the ant is on the leaf”. This human characteristic rears its ugly head every four years in Ghana.

Former President John Mahama is the quintessential debator; he is every opponent’s nightmare when it comes to debates. So why is he, in 2024, chickening out of the IEA Debate?

The answer was given by his Head of Communication, Sammy Gyamfi, in an interview on an FM station last Wednesday.

I have had occasion to express admiration for this gentleman’s ability to dismantle his opponents’ arguments but last Wednesday, for the first time, he lost me. He did not impress me with his reasons for Mahama’s refusal to debate Bawumia; if anything, they are the very reasons why JDM should.

Concluding that he finally got Mahama where it hurts, President Akufo Addo is spoiling for a fight. During a meeting with chiefs in Tamale this week, he taunted: “Why is John Mahama running away from a debate? Bawumia says he’s ready any day for the debate.”

Reverse to 2016. The IEA organised an ‘Evening with Presidential Candidates’ after apparently clearing the date with the parties and the aspirants. Mahama who had earlier pulled out, had a change of mind.

Strangely, as soon as Mahama changed his mind, Akufo-Addo also changed his mind: he declined to take part in the debate due to what he called, “pre-arranged engagements.”

His spokesperson, Mustapha Hamid, was reported (‘Daily Guide’, October 26, 2016) as saying “If President Mahama is truly serious about debating Nana Akufo-Adoo, he should have written an official letter to NPP challenging its presidential candidate to a debate.”

Then Professor Mike Aaron Oquaye waded into the fray. He told the media  (October 21, 2016) that the call for a one-on-one debate with Akufo-Addo “is an attempt to score cheap political points”.

Didn’t the Ethiopian sages say it? Now to the current issue before Parliament.

The Minority Leader, Cassiel Ato Forson, on Tuesday tabled a motion (an original thinking of Haruna Iddrisu) invoking Article 97 (1)(g) of the Constitution to vacate the seats of three Majority MPs and one NDC MP who, he said, had crossed carpet.

If the motion succeeds, the NDC, currently at 137 MPs, will become the Majority party.

When the matter came up at Parliament on Tuesday, the Speaker listened to both sides but announced that he needed two days to make an informed ruling. 

Even before the ink had dried on the paper on which the Speaker’s promise was written, the Majority Leader, Afenyo-Markin, announced that he had filed an injunction application at the Supreme Court in response to the Minority's efforts to declare the seats of Independent candidates vacant.

Here is what gives me worry. In the first place, what is the Majority Leader asking the Supreme Court to injunct? The Speaker had barely spoken, let alone made a ruling. 
As a nation, we should be worried.

Are these references to the Supreme Court to injunct decisions of Parliament not becoming one too many?

Far from suggesting that we should stifle speech or block out contrary opinions, I see a situation in which an injunction will be sought any time a decision is about to be taken that is feared not to favour one side of the House.

The most retrogressive example is the LGBTQI++ Bill which stands injuncted since March 2024 when it was passed by Parliament.

Two Ghanaians have filed suits challenging the passage of the bill and its possible assent by the President.

Six months after the cases went to the Supreme Court, sponsors of the bill are crying foul. Three weeks ago, they announced that they were planning to protest against the Chief Justice on September 17.

This threat brought out a revelation by the Judicial Service of Ghana that parties involved in the cases “have not completed the work they are to do before a hearing by the Supreme Court can be conducted.”

God have mercy on Ghana! What it means is that since the court is not compelling the parties to expedite the processes, so long will the bill NEVER go to the President for signature or otherwise.

As a nation, we stand the danger of falling victim to legal acrobatics.