Ignorance cannot shield the corrupt
According to a report on Achimota School lands which was published in the Daily Graphic on March 9, some school lands were sold to private developers by “the Elders of Osu” who claimed that the land was compulsorily acquired and therefore by law should revert to the owners if the land was not being used for the purpose for which it was compulsorily acquired and paid for.
Advertisement
Achimota School claimed that its lands were acquired by normal purchase in 1921 and four thousand Pounds Sterling (₤4,000) was paid to the owners. The matter went to court and a legal officer of the Lands Commission stated in court that the State “had no evidence to adduce in defence and therefore the court could go ahead and make a ruling”.
The court then ruled in favour of the Osu Mankralo and the land was handed back to the original owners. That was how it came to pass that some Achimota School lands were sold.
The Attorney-General, Mrs Appiah-Oppong, has however “filed an application at the court praying that the decision be set aside and declared null and void”. But why should the busy Attorney-General be given this unnecessary extra work because of the strange and ignorant behaviour of a lawyer paid from state funds?
The action of the attorney at Lands Commission has been described by the responsible Minister Nii Osah Mills as “bizarre and beyond comprehension”.
Obviously similar acts occur and these betray the confidence of the people in the legal system. At the bottom of much current official impropriety is the flouting of age-old administrative rules.
In the “bad old days” the attorney who misled the court would be sacked for infringing the administrative rules and procedures while proceedings on “corruption” were levelled against him at the courts, if necessary. Perhaps the rules have been changed and if they have, new appropriate ones should have been installed.
In the past, as Principal Secretary (now Chief Director) I advised Ministers and even President Nkrumah when I believed a measure or proposals were not in accordance with the law. High officials in the service were expected to be conversant with basics of the law.
Other Trending Stories
Moreover they were expected to consult the Attorney-General’s office on matters which had legal implications.
For convenience some Ministries and Departments and even projects were provided with legal officers. But for major decisions especially those involving commitments by the state, the Attorney-General’s office had to be consulted.
And so it was that I struck a special relationship with A.N.E. Amissah and Kofi Tetteh of the Attorney-General’s office. I found them to be brilliant lawyers. They advised me on the phone and I agreed to not disclose that I had consulted them.
Proper consultations involved writing to the office. They would deal with the matter and submit their studied and considered views to the Attorney-General who would then submit proper formal advice.
This naturally took time and President Nkrumah often wanted his proposals or instructions carried out “yesterday”.
It is not easy being the head of a state institution. And those who by character or upbringing cannot cope should not be forced into that position. I ask you dear reader, how do you expect the Auditor’s Report to be dealt with one year after the shortcomings or corrupt deals are revealed.
If individuals in institutions do not transfer revenue collected to the appropriate quarters and therefore a health insurance scheme breaks down, how is a report laid before parliament a year later expected to rectify the situation? In my time the head of the institution dealt with all flouting of the rules.
The auditor or his officials brought infringement of the rules to the notice of the head of the institution and the matter was dealt with even if it meant demotion or dismissal of an official. One did not wait for a massive report by the Auditor-General which surfaces when those involved, have left the scene, have enjoyed their loot or are dead.
Where an institution is involved the state should have the guts to demand compliance with the rules and procedures or change the heads of the organisations involved.
This means the government should not interfere with the running of institutions or the action of the heads of state organisations unless it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
Private enterprise is not the answer to bad state companies and organisations.
If that were the case, we might as well privatise the army and the security services. Rules and procedures should be followed and those who flout these should face the prescribed consequences irrespective of connections and inadequate understanding.
Advertisement
Much of corruption can be stopped in their tracks if administrative rules and procedures are followed.