Throwing basin, water,baby away

Dr Martin Luther King is an apostle of non-violent struggle to promote a just and equitable society. He insists that it is not worth any human dignity to sacrifice justice in the name of pursuing peace.

He argues that "true peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" and further that "an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

Dr King maintains that there is nothing more obnoxious than doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

The meaning I glean from him is that any action or policy, driven more by emotions than thorough rational and objective analysis, has its foundations in violence.  

Indeed, life is not just about promoting peace and eliminating conflict, but creating a society that is fair and equitable for all.

To Dr King, if peace means accepting injustice, exploitation or segregation, then it is not worth it.

True peace demands standing up against evil and fighting for what is right.

That requires that the motivation behind our actions must be of significance and noble. 

In politics, numbers count; however, where numbers have been applied to set standards, numbers become subservient to the standards agreed upon which then become superior.

That is why, even though democracy began with numbers, today, democracy is more about rules and regulations than numbers.

Both the Committee of Experts and members of the Consultative Assembly, who developed the 1992 Constitution of the country, foresaw that certain matters may come up in our governance which may not be resolved exclusively by applying rules and regulations, that is why numbers were introduced.

On matters which do not affect the core of the democratic ethos, the numbers are set as a simple majority, but where they touch on the core of democracy, the numbers are set at not less than two-thirds of all Members of Parliament (MPs) or through a national referendum at which a percentage of all registered voters must exercise the franchise and an agreed percentage of the votes must go a certain way before a decision could be made. 

Concern

Our elders have noted that where the surface of the drum is available, we do not beat the sides. My concern is about the submission made in Parliament to the effect that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is an unnecessary aberration and a dysfunctional drain on our resources, and must be scrapped for its function to be performed by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

The Leader of Parliament, who made the proposal, got the ears of many in the House.

But that is where the number games could be applied democratically but in a violent manner. 

We must not forget that Ghana became a one-party state through the votes of MPs.

Those of us who have lived through the Fourth Republic may appreciate why the Attorney-General is the most unsuitable public officer to fight corruption and corruptible practices in the country.

Attorney-Generals

We have seen Attorney-Generals overlooking corruption or fighting it, depending on whether the suspect is from the party of the Executive or Minority.

What better example than an Attorney-General who vows to deploy all legal means for the repatriation of a citizen needed to help in investigations into suspected corruption, but has no interest in pursuing the extradition of another Ghanaian, convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for corruption.

We know of the selective trials that have taken place in this country since we entered the Fourth Republic and what politicians have said about the bias of the Attorney-General.

We must know about the convictions of Mr Victor Selormey, Dr George Sipa Yankey and Mr Ibrahim Adam, that noble gentleman and a good friend of mine from Tamale, with the acquittal of Mr Kwesi Ahwoi.

Whilst the convictions were described as partisan bigotry, the acquittal was seen as victory for judicial independence.

We must equally be reminded about the numerous attempts to try Dr Charles Yves Wereko Brobby and Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, who played noble roles in the 50th anniversary of our independence and provided tangible infrastructure that today stand as monuments, memorial grounds for national celebrations throughout the regions that existed at the time, in spite of express provisions about the non-prosecution of witnesses before committees of enquiries.

We have seen how in less than a month in office, the Attorney-General discontinued actions at the Superior Courts including one at the Supreme Court against the numerous press conferences cataloguing findings of corruption against some functionaries of the past government, even when charges have not been preferred against them before any court of competent jurisdiction.

Suggestion

Thus, except for partisan considerations due to the numbers of MPs on both sides of Parliament, any suggestion that the Office of the Special Prosecutor must be abolished and the functions transferred to the office of the Attorney-General is flawed and misguided since as a people and country, we have decried the situation where the Attorney-General is also Minister of Justice.

We have advocated the decoupling of the two offices to make the Attorney-General independent and insulated from Government control.

Even if the Special Prosecutor has been found to be incompetent, by any due process and the rule of law, that will not require the dismantling of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Why should it be Parliament that initiates debate to abolish a public institution meant to redeem us from the entanglement and enmeshment of corruption, if indeed we are serious about fighting the canker which has destroyed every facet of our public lives?

Is it because of the remote cause that the Leader of Parliament, Mr Mahama Ayariga, personally suffered what some described as unwarranted persecution from Mr Martin Amidu, or that the immediate cause is the arrest of Mr Martin Kpebu by Mr Kissi Agyebeng?

I attracted Mr. Agyebeng’s ire when as Chairman of the National Media Commission, I had counselled the Ghana Journalists Association at a meeting not to overhype the unconscionable murder of Ahmed Suale, since that was not the only unresolved murder in our country.

He was counsel in the matter and eventually, I was persuaded to leave the meeting due to the uncontrollable outbursts coming from his assigns.

But despite my personal experience, there has not been any due process to evaluate his performance or assess the essence of the office, to warrant  Parliament embarking on an uninformed, disinformed and malinformed crusade to oust him and abolish the office.