In recent times, following the implementation of the additional GH¢1 per litre of fuel, there has been pressure from certain groups and political office holders to cajole transport operators against any attempt to increase transport fares.
In the specific instance of COPEX, it has threatened legal action to compel transport operators and driver unions to prevent any increase in lorry fares.
There is also the Municipal Chief Executive of Sunyani, who threatened to deal with any attempt to increase lorry fares under the fees and charges regulations of the assembly. They may be speaking in the interest of the public, but walking on slippery legal slopes.
The 1992 Constitution imposes an obligation on the media, thus "All agencies of the mass media shall, at all times, be free to uphold the principles, provisions and objectives of this Constitution and shall uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people of Ghana."
This means that the media have a duty to point out the gaps between legality, the rule of law, due process, as against impunity and arbitrariness in dealing with all matters of public interest and policies, programmes and projects which relate to democracy, peace and development.
We in the media cannot ignore this obligation when one group of citizens baselessly threaten another group of Ghanaians due to populist emotions and sentimentality.
Under Article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, it is provided that "No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law".
Simply put, the Constitution says nobody can be prosecuted for any conduct that has not been specifically described as criminal or unlawful.
So, under what legislation or common law will the action of COPEX be grounded and how would the trial proceed?
Significantly
More significantly, what informed the MCE of Sunyani that a law that allows the assembly to determine the cost of prices for the goods or services it renders to the public can be used to compel third parties to operate within the charges approved by the assembly?
When the government recently, through a certificate of urgency, amended the Energy Sector Levies Act to impose a cedi per litre on petrol and diesel, there was no public consultation on the process.
It was only when it generated public outcry that the government engaged stakeholders on the necessity for the tax and explained its essence towards national development.
When the protestations became diffuse and saturated, and in the face of the Israel-Iran conflict, the government temporarily suspended the implementation of the tax until July 16.
Since the average Ghanaian buys fuel in gallons, the drivers have realised that they are now paying GH¢4.50 per gallon of fuel as additional tax, thus eroding any gains from the fall in world market prices and the appreciation of the cedi against the dollar.
It was the fall in crude oil prices, complemented by the appreciating cedi, which appeased the transport unions to agree to a decrease in transport fares.
Unions
The transport operators and drivers’ unions had indicated that if the new prices affected their cost of operations, they would not hesitate to increase lorry fares.
This was upon the assurance from government officials and party communicators that there would be no increase in the cost of fuel.
But that was a dysfunctional gamble, on the false belief that fuel prices were going to be reduced such that with the implementation of the tax, the next window would go down, such that when the tax was added, it would remain as it was in the existing window.
That is yet to happen.
Instead of appealing to the transport unions to engage with the government to ensure that any increase in fares did not affect the economic fundamentals and the gains so far recorded, especially where lorry fares have implications for price increases in all manner of goods and services to spiral inflation, some have resorted to intimidation and threats.
The Sunyani MCE not only threatened to prosecute all drivers who increase their fares, but also possibly ban them and cited his authority from the fees and charges regulation of the assembly.
Then came the threat of COPEX to initiate a legal action against any increase in transport fares when the laws of Ghana are clear.
We have long gone beyond the period of price controls into the era of free market or price deregulation.
So, how would the MCE and COPEX execute their agenda except to issue empty threats and hollow intimidation?
If district assemblies have the power to determine lorry fares, then what would happen to transport unions that provide services across districts and regions?
Not even the Ministry of Transport is clothed with the power and authority to determine transport fares.
It is through mutual respect and recognition, deliberations and appeals, dialogue, not coercion, threats or intimidation that the transport unions are persuaded to agree to the costs.
Otherwise, what is the fare per kilometre for intra-city and long-distance travel? It is simply a matter of consideration of the national interest and the public good that the driver and transport unions submit to negotiations.
Even the prices of fuel are not determined by the government. So how can lorry fares be decided by district assemblies?
That is why any statement threatening driver and transport unions that they do not have the power and authority to fix transport fares and if they do, they would be dealt with according to the law, is not just an empty bluff but a confusion between populism and legality.
Example
If there is any example, we must look at the approach of the Ghana Union of Traders Association, which has been appealing to its members to reduce their prices to reflect the appreciation of the cedi and in ensuring that whatever economic gains that have accrued to us as a nation must be distributed equitably, if not equally, to benefit all our people.
Any resort to impunity or arbitrariness, threats or intimidation, whatever the objective, benign or malevolent, must not be entertained.
No individual is bigger than the law and we should never tolerate political leaders who think they are a law unto themselves by using intimidation, populism and threats where no crime has been committed, instead of resorting to dialogue.
Correction
In last weeks column, a portion that was attributed to General Arnol Quainoo read thus “fire, not an inferno, not a conflaguration.”
It should have rather read “... fire; no, an inferno; no, a conflaguration”
The erior was as a result of the printer’s devil and is regrettable.
