KB Asante: Voice From Afar column

To the learned, it is whether a prima face case has been established. To the layman, it is whether the case should “go to court”. I have held the view since President Nkrumah removed a Chief Justice that judges should not be involved in advising whether there are sufficient grounds for prosecution or “court action”. I was, therefore, surprised to read Musah Jafaru’s article in the Daily Graphic of September 24 about investigating the head of the Human Rights Commission.

Mr Jafaru quoted Article 146 of the Constitution which stated that if the President received a petition for the removal of a Superior Court Justice other than the Chief Justice, he shall refer the petition to the Chief Justice who shall determine whether there is a prima facie case.

For some reasons, this clause has never caught my attention. How can the Chief Justice, who may eventually be involved in the final ruling, pronounce on the merits of reports or allegations?  Obviously, an astute Chief Justice such as ours will make appropriate investigations before advising the President. But is this the role of the Chief Justice?  What are the criminal investigators there for? Why can’t the President make the difficult decision to refer the matter to the Supreme Court or a special tribunal? 

It is true that a committee is set up to go into the matter and the President is required to act in accordance with its recommendations and that no further court action is envisaged. To my mind, however, it would be difficult for the Chief Justice to be involved in any challenges of the decisions of the committee.

I believe that the President should consult the Attorney General and other legal advisers to determine whether a prima facie case has been made against high legal functionaries. Those who may eventually judge the case should not be involved in a prior determination of guilt.

Kwame Nkrumah consulted the Chief Justice before giving the Attorney General the go ahead with the prosecution of Kofi Crabbe, Ako Adjei and Tawiah Adamafio.   The Chief Justice was given the dossier of the case and he returned it with the advice that there was sufficient evidence to secure conviction.President Nkrumah was, therefore, enraged when the three were acquitted at the first trial.  He believed that the course of justice had been perverted.He appointed another Chief Justice.  The state appealed and the accused were convicted.

In my view, the accused were properly discharged at the first trial. President Nkrumah was himself not happy at the evidence, that was why he consulted the Chief Justice.I am of the view that the President should not have involved the Chief Justice in assessing the evidence. And the Chief Justice should not have allowed himself to be involved.  

Our legal experts would do well to have a look at the involvement of the judiciary in pre-court assessment or advice on legal issues.

Postscript

I have a high regard for journalists.  Anyone who tries to write purposefully on issues will appreciate the difficulty of their task which sometimes ends them in prison or even death.  I was, therefore, surprised to find that Citi FM, which I considered among the best, has through unpardonable illiteracy attributed to me a comment I never made.

I believe that there should be a focus on a particular attribute when we have a holiday to celebrate the life of a national hero. I, therefore, suggested that on Nkrumah’s birthday anniversary, we might go to our various work places and offices at 7:30 a.m., discharge a few tasks and round off the celebration by a party to which all contribute in drinks and “small chops”.

It may be a silly suggestion but I think we should focus on a particular attribute or quality. Nkrumah’s punctuality in going to the office when we started work at 7:30 a.m contributed a great deal to his phenomenal output. Today, many in high offices stroll to the office at 9:00 a.m. when they are supposed to start work at 8:00 a.m.

I believe we should stress the work ethic of Kwame Nkrumah. We cannot make much progress if we do not keep to time.

Incidentally, a holiday is not really enjoyed when we sit at home doing nothing.  Perhaps, that was why the ignorant journalist took it that by suggesting that we go to the office at 7:30,  I was advocating that the holiday on Nkrumah’s birthday should be abolished.

In many countries, parents take their children to the seaside or country side on holidays.  In Ghana, most people cannot afford family outings on holidays.  The young men used to enjoy the holiday at drinking bars.  Many cannot afford that enjoyment today.  We should not make holidays boredom. Holidays in honour of the great should be purposeful.  They should stress aspects of character we should emulate.