Speaking truth to corruption
It is close to a norm now. Anytime our President is out of the country, there is bound to be some juicy headline for discussion. President John Mahama’s recent visit to London has been no exception. The President joined a host of other nations at the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit held in London.
Advertisement
The summit was a scene to behold. The self-righteous nations were out there as usual to pontificate on the essence and value of uprooting corruption everywhere but in their own court yards and their satellite overseas territories.
Then there were the consistently accused-tired and battered states, mostly from the African continent representing in their numbers as usual to make commitments they don’t intend to keep.
On the sidelines of the summit, our President granted an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In the course of the interview, President Mahama was asked “What about you Mr. President. Have you been offered a bribe before?” Of course the President gave the responses the whole country thought he would give - and it is that he has never taken a bribe before.
The question was a difficult question. Either way it was going to be problematic. It was both a moral and legal landmine. For the purposes of assumption, what if the President had lied. Can a lie ever be justified in any situation?
Those with the good fortune of having read some philosophy would remember Emmanuel Kant. The basic premise of Kant’s view is that the truth should be told always irrespective of the circumstances and situation.
He therefore proceeds by asserting that if a murderer knocks at your door in search of someone who has just entered your room, irrespective of the consequences you are duty bound to tell the truth to the murderer.
Imagine what the reaction of the Ghanaian media would have been if the President admitted that he had taken a bribe before. It would have not only been hot news but something that might knock the President off the political highway.
Other Trending Stories
The question posed to the President was similar to one posed to an unmarried gospel musician recently as to whether he was a virgin or not.
If the President had admitted that he had accepted a bribe before, may be it would have been a national humiliation. For one thing the President is no ordinary being in the constitutional scheme of things.
To borrow the words of the South African Chief Justice, Mogoeng CJ in the Nkandla case, the president is the first citizen of this country and occupies a position indispensable for the effective governance of our democratic country.
The Chief Justice further noted, “Whoever or whatever poses a threat to our sovereignty, peace and prosperity, he must fight. To him is the executive authority of the entire Republic primarily entrusted. He initiates and gives the final stamp of approval to all national legislation.
“And almost all the key role players in the realisation of our constitutional vision and the aspirations of all our people are appointed and may ultimately be removed by him. Unsurprisingly the nation pins its hopes on him to steer the country in the right direction and accelerate our journey towards a peaceful, just and prosperous destination, that all other progress-driven nations strive towards on a daily basis.”
The court emphasise: “he (the president) is a constitutional being by design, a national pathfinder, the quintessential commander-in-chief of state affairs and the personification of this nation’s constitutional project.”
Like earlier indicated, the above quote is an extract from a decision of the South African Constitutional Court in which Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters and some other persons successfully brought Jacob Zuma on his knees (at least temporarily) when the court finally pronounced that Zuma was guilty of abusing his office.
But the description given to the role of the South African President in those metaphoric terms is apposite in our Ghanaian context as well.
To be real, President Mahama is not our co-equal. For President Mahama therefore to admit to any such act or activity would have dimmed the hope and confidence that was imposed in him upon being sworn into office. But what if he said, “I have taken a bribe before”.
Would that have helped in the fight against corruption? Would an ounce of openness and honesty in the dreary and dark landscape of corruption not made a lot of difference? I strongly believe so.
At the very least, we would have started a frank and genuine conversation about a situation that is all over us and yet no one is willing to admit to. We like to slide past it and hope there is no clanging when we get close.
But this is not the last of it. Definitely not, so long as corruption exists.
Advertisement