KB Asante: Voice From Afar column

As a people Ghanaians tend to blame their implements when they do shoddy work.  In the field of governance when something unwelcome occurs we want the law to be amended so that the actions of the President and institutions are circumscribed by legislation and procedures to avoid recurrence.  But such new laws and procedures often stifle initiative.

There is so much talk and writing about leadership these days.  But no amount of teaching can make a leader of a man or woman who has no guts.  The leader must believe in something above self and be resolute in its promotion.

With regard to national leadership the President chosen by the people for the people should promote the national interest vigorously and passionately.  He or she has the whole state apparatus to consult. 

But such consultations should not delay action or blunt decision.  And we the people should not confuse leadership.  The recent suggestion that the select committee of Parliament should have been consulted before visas were granted to the Guantanamo visitors was an example of the confusion of thought and lack of knowledge with which some of the highly educated sometimes muddle the atmosphere.

The President should consult according to custom and his aides, and officials, including civil servants, have a duty to advise him politely to follow the laws, rules and regulations.  Sometimes they have to consult and inform while they carry out the President’s directives. Aides and officials should study their President and assist him to do his duty.

An example may illustrate the point.  President Nkrumah, for example, was always in a hurry.  He comes to the office at 7.30 a.m. and gives instruction or suggests action to be taken sometimes by noon. But that never gave the official licence to flout the rules and procedures.  Once he asked me to accompany a young army officer on a delicate mission to Uganda.  We were to go the next day!  It was clear to me that he had not made the necessary consultations with the Minister of Defence or the army hierarchy.  I did not know the officer concerned.  But I consulted the Army Telephone Directory and rang the officer, one Major Addo.  I told him he was travelling the next day.  It was an advance warning and he did not know of the matter until he was properly informed.  He thanked me.

When I rang the Chief of Defence Staff and asked him to warn the officer, the Army Chief was furious.  People like me caused confusion by advising the President wrongly, he lamented.  Such a matter should be referred to him and he would make the appropriate choice after discussions with his senior officials.  The General did not believe me when I said I did not advise the President and did not know Major Dan Addo.

I managed to contain my temper and rang off politely.  I conveyed the intentions of the President to his Minister of Defence, Mr Kofi Baako.  The Minister, who knew his President well, was courteous and he thanked me.  Eventually the mission took place and was successful.  Such episodes should be fruitful case-studies by our academics and administrators.

Another example in this domain was even more difficult to deal with as I could not consult or inform those who might be expected to know.  I was to advise and work with the Army Chief of Staff, General Bawa, on a delicate mission.  An air convoy was to carry some equipment secretly to an African country.  I kept my eyes and ears opened and suspected some leakage of information.  Therefore on the eve of the operation I asked General Bawa to let the air convoy leave with empty boxes and without the equipment or any arms.  The General complied.

Next day President Nkrumah called me in an agitated mood.  The air convoy had been forced to land on an unfriendly territory and the international press had been summoned to view Ghana’s treachery and flouting of UN and international rules.  To the embarrassment of Ghana’s detractors nothing untoward was seen on the aircraft.  President Nkrumah was unpleasant with the representatives of the missions concerned in Accra.  Incidentally he never asked me why I did not comply with his instructions.

Perhaps the President was right in not consulting fully on this matter.  Not all his aides should know all about the delicate matters of state.  I related the story to a meeting on strategy at GIMPA some years ago.  General Ashley-Lassen (who was No. 2 in General Acheampong’s government) said he was one of the pilots in the convoy.  He did not know the real purpose of the convoy!

 My little experience and knowledge of what happened in other countries was that a President could not make a fetish of consultations to frustrate delicate or prompt action in the national interest.  His aides and senior officials should advise him about the necessary consultations or do it for him in appropriate circumstances.  Aides and senior officials should know what the national interest is and promote it while they advance the aims and objectives of the President.

It is a pity that not all who followed us in the civil service had the good fortune of learning from seniors like the then Head of The Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet, Enoch Okoh, T.K. Impraim, his Deputy and Michael Dei-Anang, ambassador, special duties.  I did not know it all when I joined the Service.  I steeped myself in the civil service culture and learnt from my superiors.

We the people should know something about the Constitution and what the President can do and cannot do.  Even some of our Ministers at times give the wrong impression about the role of cabinet, for example.  The President need not go by Cabinet decision.  He need not consult Cabinet on every issue.  It is the Cabinet Minister who resigns when he or she feels strongly about a “wrong” Presidential decision.

We need a President who consults as necessary but who also acts with determination and confidence when necessary.  To do this properly he or she must be disciplined, stay in the office as long as necessary and confront those who claim to know with a meeting of peers and experts.

The office of the President should be a citadel of knowledge, rigorous assessment and purposeful action.  Presidential decisions, properly packaged and explained, should inspire confidence.