Written by Asare Otchere-Darko Monday, 29 March 2010 18:25
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
Monday, March 29, 2010
No Ambiguity in NPP Constitution On Election Of Flagbearer
Written by Asare Otchere-Darko Monday, 29 March 2010 18:25
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
Saturday, March 20, 2010
JAKE, DELAY APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES UNTIL FLAGBEARER IS CHOSEN
JAKE, DELAY APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES UNTIL FLAGBEARER IS CHOSEN
ASARE OTCHERE-DARKO
The intense lobbying started even before the Sunday thanksgiving service in Kumasi the morning after the National Conference which elected the new national officers of the New Patriotic Party.
The 2009 constitutional amendments of the NPP were well-thought through and far reaching. Apart from transferring more power to the rank and file, it introduced something that the NDC were first off the mark on – having deputies appointed for positions such as organisers from the constituency, through the regional to the national level.
Thus, apart from the 10 who won elective office at the Baba Yara Stadium last month, there are still 8 important deputy positions to fill. These are two deputy General Secretaries, two deputy National Organisers, two deputy Women’s Organisers and two deputy Youth Organisers.
The fundamental reason is to use the deputy positions to fill certain gaps which the election might not have taken care of. These are two fold: first is regional/ethnic/religious or gender balance and the second is expertise.
For instance, Sir John, as General Secretary may require two deputies, one in charge of administration and the other to focus on operations. The issue with having a deputy for Operations is to properly define that role so that it does not conflict with that of National Organiser. Alternatively the decision can be made to have two deputy General Secretaries with one in charge of the northern sector of the country and the other in charge of the southern sector.
This northern/southern division of responsibilities is even more necessary for the position of National Organiser. The position of organiser also calls for two sets of skills: a person who can think, plan and draw up organising strategies and a person who can get his hands dirty, go down to the ground to lead the actual grassroots mobilisation, train them and keep them fuelled, equipped and motivated.
The positions of Deputy Women’s Organisers give the party the opportunity to target some three female constituencies: the educated woman who is between 16-38 years of age; the rural, poor and large pool of women within the informal sector and; lastly, the significant group of religious women.
One of the deputy Youth Organiser positions must almost certainly go to a young woman who can also serve as a point of attraction for young women to the party.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the new national officers are spending more time entertaining aspiring deputies and their lobbyists than they certainly bargained for. The aspirants make an interesting bunch: those who contested for other party positions and lost, former office holders, those who believe they can do the job but had neither the stomach or resources to contest and those who are being pushed or encouraged by potential flagbearers to presumably serve their sponsors’ interest or bridge ‘divisions’.
With Jake, the veteran campaign guru, as National Chairman, and learning from the difficulties of past campaigns, especially 2008, there is a general determination on the part of Jake, all office holders in the party and even one or two aspiring presidential candidates to keep the 2012 campaign team lean and mean, using the recognised party structures.
This means that, for a start, the constitution of membership of national office holders of the party must have the experience, competence and balance required for an effective national campaign. What would ensure every gap is filled in this equation is the appointment of deputies.
Appointment of deputies should not be determined by who the substantive office holder merely thinks he can work with; it should be about who can help the party mount a winning campaign. It is the responsibility of the substantive heads to build, encourage and maintain a working environment of teamwork and camaraderie, devoid of their personal idiosyncrasies, whims and predilections.
In choosing who the deputies must be, the last thing the party should consider is how that could help resolve ‘divisions’ in the party. That would be a useless consideration which may even come back to hurt the party. Positions of importance must be held by people who want to work with all their heart, mind and strength.
How then can the party ensure this? I believe by simply delaying the appointment of deputies until the National Congress to elect the 2012 president candidate takes place and the flagbearer chosen.
By and large, those so-called divisions in the NPP are based on who becomes the next presidential candidate of the party. Those who say the divisions are based on Akyem vs Ashanti or UNC vs PFP should stop abusing history.
There is nothing in the leadership line-up of the two defunct parties to support this. Both UNC and PFP were dominated by Ashantis. The population of Akyems in Ghana is so small in comparison to pose any serious hegemonical challenge to Ashantis. The statistics show that Nana Akufo-Addo draws his biggest support from Ashanti. The Akyem vs Ashanti conflict is a convenient lie for those within and without the party who believe they can benefit from fanning it. Let the question of who leads the NPP be settled and see how exposed the ethno-mongers would be.
That question could be answered by June (before the World Cup) or latest at the end of July. In fact, the party needs to answer that question as soon as it is practical for minds to concentrate, not only on unity, but on the more pressing issue of the fiction of non-partisan district assembly elections which take place in August.
If the idea is to get the 2012 campaign ran from the party headquarters then the choice of deputies must be informed by one thing only: those who can do the job of winning 2012.
So Jake and co should seriously consider the call to put off the appointment of deputies until the flagbearer is chosen. If the party could go 18 years without deputies then it could surely do a few months without it.
qanawu.blogspot.com
ASARE OTCHERE-DARKO
The intense lobbying started even before the Sunday thanksgiving service in Kumasi the morning after the National Conference which elected the new national officers of the New Patriotic Party.
The 2009 constitutional amendments of the NPP were well-thought through and far reaching. Apart from transferring more power to the rank and file, it introduced something that the NDC were first off the mark on – having deputies appointed for positions such as organisers from the constituency, through the regional to the national level.
Thus, apart from the 10 who won elective office at the Baba Yara Stadium last month, there are still 8 important deputy positions to fill. These are two deputy General Secretaries, two deputy National Organisers, two deputy Women’s Organisers and two deputy Youth Organisers.
The fundamental reason is to use the deputy positions to fill certain gaps which the election might not have taken care of. These are two fold: first is regional/ethnic/religious or gender balance and the second is expertise.
For instance, Sir John, as General Secretary may require two deputies, one in charge of administration and the other to focus on operations. The issue with having a deputy for Operations is to properly define that role so that it does not conflict with that of National Organiser. Alternatively the decision can be made to have two deputy General Secretaries with one in charge of the northern sector of the country and the other in charge of the southern sector.
This northern/southern division of responsibilities is even more necessary for the position of National Organiser. The position of organiser also calls for two sets of skills: a person who can think, plan and draw up organising strategies and a person who can get his hands dirty, go down to the ground to lead the actual grassroots mobilisation, train them and keep them fuelled, equipped and motivated.
The positions of Deputy Women’s Organisers give the party the opportunity to target some three female constituencies: the educated woman who is between 16-38 years of age; the rural, poor and large pool of women within the informal sector and; lastly, the significant group of religious women.
One of the deputy Youth Organiser positions must almost certainly go to a young woman who can also serve as a point of attraction for young women to the party.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the new national officers are spending more time entertaining aspiring deputies and their lobbyists than they certainly bargained for. The aspirants make an interesting bunch: those who contested for other party positions and lost, former office holders, those who believe they can do the job but had neither the stomach or resources to contest and those who are being pushed or encouraged by potential flagbearers to presumably serve their sponsors’ interest or bridge ‘divisions’.
With Jake, the veteran campaign guru, as National Chairman, and learning from the difficulties of past campaigns, especially 2008, there is a general determination on the part of Jake, all office holders in the party and even one or two aspiring presidential candidates to keep the 2012 campaign team lean and mean, using the recognised party structures.
This means that, for a start, the constitution of membership of national office holders of the party must have the experience, competence and balance required for an effective national campaign. What would ensure every gap is filled in this equation is the appointment of deputies.
Appointment of deputies should not be determined by who the substantive office holder merely thinks he can work with; it should be about who can help the party mount a winning campaign. It is the responsibility of the substantive heads to build, encourage and maintain a working environment of teamwork and camaraderie, devoid of their personal idiosyncrasies, whims and predilections.
In choosing who the deputies must be, the last thing the party should consider is how that could help resolve ‘divisions’ in the party. That would be a useless consideration which may even come back to hurt the party. Positions of importance must be held by people who want to work with all their heart, mind and strength.
How then can the party ensure this? I believe by simply delaying the appointment of deputies until the National Congress to elect the 2012 president candidate takes place and the flagbearer chosen.
By and large, those so-called divisions in the NPP are based on who becomes the next presidential candidate of the party. Those who say the divisions are based on Akyem vs Ashanti or UNC vs PFP should stop abusing history.
There is nothing in the leadership line-up of the two defunct parties to support this. Both UNC and PFP were dominated by Ashantis. The population of Akyems in Ghana is so small in comparison to pose any serious hegemonical challenge to Ashantis. The statistics show that Nana Akufo-Addo draws his biggest support from Ashanti. The Akyem vs Ashanti conflict is a convenient lie for those within and without the party who believe they can benefit from fanning it. Let the question of who leads the NPP be settled and see how exposed the ethno-mongers would be.
That question could be answered by June (before the World Cup) or latest at the end of July. In fact, the party needs to answer that question as soon as it is practical for minds to concentrate, not only on unity, but on the more pressing issue of the fiction of non-partisan district assembly elections which take place in August.
If the idea is to get the 2012 campaign ran from the party headquarters then the choice of deputies must be informed by one thing only: those who can do the job of winning 2012.
So Jake and co should seriously consider the call to put off the appointment of deputies until the flagbearer is chosen. If the party could go 18 years without deputies then it could surely do a few months without it.
qanawu.blogspot.com
Friday, March 19, 2010
JOHN MAHAMA, YOUR KOREAN DEAL DOESN’T ADD UP
I was on Metro TV’s Good Morning Ghana with the Spokesperson to the Vice President of the Republic and he made some comments which I found most lamentable and I hope his boss shares this view.
John Abu Jinapor was asked by Shamima Muslim, the host, to comment on the visit to Ghana of John Clark QC, the lead counsel in the Mabey & Johnson criminal trial in the United Kingdom last year, where some Ghanaian government officials were among those mentioned by directors of M&J to have been receivers of bribes in the UK company’s bid to win multi-million pound contracts in Ghana in the past.
The man who speaks for our Vice President, John Mahama, described Mr Hardy as a discredited lawyer. “If I were the Danquah Institute I would not have invited this character to Ghana to deliver a lecture,” the young JJ said, with contempt in his voice and on his face.
On the same day, another NDC paper, The Post, had described Mr Hardy as a half-backed lawyer because a colleague apparently instructed by George Sipa-Yankey, the respected Owen Davies QC, who joint-heads the Garden Court chambers with the able Courtenay Griffiths QC (Charles Taylor’s lawyer), had, on instructions of the Ghanaian official, written a letter complaining about the name-dropping method of the prosecution.
Frankly, this reaction from Ghana’s ruling party, particularly, the Spokesperson, threw me into a funk. Was Mr Jinapor expressing the sentiments of the Castle to Mr Hardy’s visit? His comments that Mr Hardy was brought to Ghana “clandestinely” to, effectively, cause damage to the Government perhaps exposes his bosses’ sincere commitment to the fight against corruption. I could only ask: what does that say about our President’s commitment to fighting corruption?
According JJ and people who think like him, Mr Hardy’s crime was for mentioning the names of the Ghanaian public officials in court. The directors of M&J had confessed to bribing foreign public officials and volunteered documents, including payments made into personal bank accounts, as evidence of some of the individuals they allegedly bribed. Have the Ghanaians cited denied receiving any of the funds mentioned.
It is true that they were not given a right to reply because they were not parties to the case. That is rather unfortunate but they have every opportunity to ‘correct’ that.
It does not stop any of them from suing the directors of M&J in a UK court for defamation. One would also expect that the decision by CHRAJ to investigate the matter in Ghana should be seen as offering an opportunity to those who have been wrongly accused to clear their names.
John Jinapor and those who think like him have every right to describe the British as hypocrites for anonymising the names of the M&J directors (even under the pretext of pending individual prosecutions) and gleefully naming the foreign officials.
But, they should do their party’s stated commitment to fighting corruption a favour by, first, not discrediting an accomplished professional like John Hardy, and, second, by urging government to bring down the implicated M&J directors to Ghana to face prosecution. Thei anger should be directed at the directors who named their heroes rather than the prosecutor who used the information for the Crown’s case.
Ghana was the actual victim of the corruption to which the directors have confessed. The UK was not a direct victim. We have an extradition treaty with the UK, which is usually invoked for the benefit of the foreign party. For a change, this is an opportunity to invoke it for our benefit and bring those people to book right here in Ghana.
Indeed, Government would be better advised to not set loose its serial callers and hounds like JJ to use ‘half-baked’ reasoning to attack the character and integrity of John Hardy. They should, like CHRAJ, see how they can possibly benefit from the experience of people like John Hardy, to begin the process of extradition for those former directors to face trial here.
Mr Hardy, a recorder (part time judge) and Queen’s Counsel, can never be the sort of character the Spokesperson of the Vice President was struggling to portray him. He is a well-respected international criminal law specialist, an expert on mutual legal assistance, the very area that CHRAJ says it’s been struggling to get information from the UK SFO. His meeting with CHRAJ this morning is, at least, a clear indication that Emile Short and his team see his value to our national efforts against corruption.
He has instructed in a number of lengthy and complex fraud prosecutions as well as continuing his criminal practice, particularly in extradition where his expertise spans over 15 years.
He also appears for both prosecution and defence in major criminal trials and has extensive experience in money laundering cases. His lectures in Ghana were just following a trend. He is in demand as an expert witness on matters of United Kingdom extradition and criminal law in foreign jurisdictions, as well as being a regular contributor to lectures and seminars around the world.
Now let me move to the essence of the trip that Mr Jinapor accompanied his boss to Korea. John Mahama, we are told, went to Korea to sign an MoU for 200,000 affordable homes, valued at $10 billion to be built by STX, a Korean company. This is a five-year project that should lead to 40,000 additional homes built between now and 2015 yearly. This would be a major boost to tackling our housing deficit and I pray for its success.
But, how affordable is this deal? Secondly, we are dealing with a company which claims to have assets of about $2.6 billion and debts of some $7 billion. This is surely a company in crisis which is looking to Ghana for some miraculous salvation.
We are also told that the MoU requires the Government of Ghana to buy 90,000 of the homes in advance. Already it is music to the years of the police, prison guards, etc. Decent accommodation at last! The first 30,000 would go to the security agencies, with 20,000 for the Police Service.
But, let us apply the brakes and wipe the windscreen a bit. That Government pre-financing could cost Ghana $4.5 billion. From where does the Mills-Mahama government intend to raise that kind of money? We need to know now where and how.
This $4.5 billion would more than double Ghana's total external debt! Our total foreign exchange reserves are less than $2.5 billion! Something does not add up. If we had that kind of money why should we not be looking at building the units ourselves? If the Koreans are giving us a loan, we need to what the terms are.
Could, as predicted by the President, this trip by the Veep really be the final nail in the coffin of this Korean deal, meaning it has only exposed it as unreal?
Moreover, the $50,000 price tag at current HFC cedi mortgage rates over 15 years means that workers will pay some 15 million cedis monthly! How many workers can afford this? The questions only expose the lack of transparency surrounding this deal which has received more positive publicity than the IFC and CNTC loans put together.
The Koreans see this deal as good because it provides the company which is currently in a financial bind with some much needed liquidity from the upfront payment. If we have that kind of loose money lying around let us for a change believe in Ghana and make this project home-grown, because, after all, technology can be bought.
My advice to Government is to make the details of the MoU public and to stop the cheap politics and provide details of how this wonderful project would see the light of day rather than being coffin-nailed. As it is now, some things just don’t add up. qanawu@gmail.com
John Abu Jinapor was asked by Shamima Muslim, the host, to comment on the visit to Ghana of John Clark QC, the lead counsel in the Mabey & Johnson criminal trial in the United Kingdom last year, where some Ghanaian government officials were among those mentioned by directors of M&J to have been receivers of bribes in the UK company’s bid to win multi-million pound contracts in Ghana in the past.
The man who speaks for our Vice President, John Mahama, described Mr Hardy as a discredited lawyer. “If I were the Danquah Institute I would not have invited this character to Ghana to deliver a lecture,” the young JJ said, with contempt in his voice and on his face.
On the same day, another NDC paper, The Post, had described Mr Hardy as a half-backed lawyer because a colleague apparently instructed by George Sipa-Yankey, the respected Owen Davies QC, who joint-heads the Garden Court chambers with the able Courtenay Griffiths QC (Charles Taylor’s lawyer), had, on instructions of the Ghanaian official, written a letter complaining about the name-dropping method of the prosecution.
Frankly, this reaction from Ghana’s ruling party, particularly, the Spokesperson, threw me into a funk. Was Mr Jinapor expressing the sentiments of the Castle to Mr Hardy’s visit? His comments that Mr Hardy was brought to Ghana “clandestinely” to, effectively, cause damage to the Government perhaps exposes his bosses’ sincere commitment to the fight against corruption. I could only ask: what does that say about our President’s commitment to fighting corruption?
According JJ and people who think like him, Mr Hardy’s crime was for mentioning the names of the Ghanaian public officials in court. The directors of M&J had confessed to bribing foreign public officials and volunteered documents, including payments made into personal bank accounts, as evidence of some of the individuals they allegedly bribed. Have the Ghanaians cited denied receiving any of the funds mentioned.
It is true that they were not given a right to reply because they were not parties to the case. That is rather unfortunate but they have every opportunity to ‘correct’ that.
It does not stop any of them from suing the directors of M&J in a UK court for defamation. One would also expect that the decision by CHRAJ to investigate the matter in Ghana should be seen as offering an opportunity to those who have been wrongly accused to clear their names.
John Jinapor and those who think like him have every right to describe the British as hypocrites for anonymising the names of the M&J directors (even under the pretext of pending individual prosecutions) and gleefully naming the foreign officials.
But, they should do their party’s stated commitment to fighting corruption a favour by, first, not discrediting an accomplished professional like John Hardy, and, second, by urging government to bring down the implicated M&J directors to Ghana to face prosecution. Thei anger should be directed at the directors who named their heroes rather than the prosecutor who used the information for the Crown’s case.
Ghana was the actual victim of the corruption to which the directors have confessed. The UK was not a direct victim. We have an extradition treaty with the UK, which is usually invoked for the benefit of the foreign party. For a change, this is an opportunity to invoke it for our benefit and bring those people to book right here in Ghana.
Indeed, Government would be better advised to not set loose its serial callers and hounds like JJ to use ‘half-baked’ reasoning to attack the character and integrity of John Hardy. They should, like CHRAJ, see how they can possibly benefit from the experience of people like John Hardy, to begin the process of extradition for those former directors to face trial here.
Mr Hardy, a recorder (part time judge) and Queen’s Counsel, can never be the sort of character the Spokesperson of the Vice President was struggling to portray him. He is a well-respected international criminal law specialist, an expert on mutual legal assistance, the very area that CHRAJ says it’s been struggling to get information from the UK SFO. His meeting with CHRAJ this morning is, at least, a clear indication that Emile Short and his team see his value to our national efforts against corruption.
He has instructed in a number of lengthy and complex fraud prosecutions as well as continuing his criminal practice, particularly in extradition where his expertise spans over 15 years.
He also appears for both prosecution and defence in major criminal trials and has extensive experience in money laundering cases. His lectures in Ghana were just following a trend. He is in demand as an expert witness on matters of United Kingdom extradition and criminal law in foreign jurisdictions, as well as being a regular contributor to lectures and seminars around the world.
Now let me move to the essence of the trip that Mr Jinapor accompanied his boss to Korea. John Mahama, we are told, went to Korea to sign an MoU for 200,000 affordable homes, valued at $10 billion to be built by STX, a Korean company. This is a five-year project that should lead to 40,000 additional homes built between now and 2015 yearly. This would be a major boost to tackling our housing deficit and I pray for its success.
But, how affordable is this deal? Secondly, we are dealing with a company which claims to have assets of about $2.6 billion and debts of some $7 billion. This is surely a company in crisis which is looking to Ghana for some miraculous salvation.
We are also told that the MoU requires the Government of Ghana to buy 90,000 of the homes in advance. Already it is music to the years of the police, prison guards, etc. Decent accommodation at last! The first 30,000 would go to the security agencies, with 20,000 for the Police Service.
But, let us apply the brakes and wipe the windscreen a bit. That Government pre-financing could cost Ghana $4.5 billion. From where does the Mills-Mahama government intend to raise that kind of money? We need to know now where and how.
This $4.5 billion would more than double Ghana's total external debt! Our total foreign exchange reserves are less than $2.5 billion! Something does not add up. If we had that kind of money why should we not be looking at building the units ourselves? If the Koreans are giving us a loan, we need to what the terms are.
Could, as predicted by the President, this trip by the Veep really be the final nail in the coffin of this Korean deal, meaning it has only exposed it as unreal?
Moreover, the $50,000 price tag at current HFC cedi mortgage rates over 15 years means that workers will pay some 15 million cedis monthly! How many workers can afford this? The questions only expose the lack of transparency surrounding this deal which has received more positive publicity than the IFC and CNTC loans put together.
The Koreans see this deal as good because it provides the company which is currently in a financial bind with some much needed liquidity from the upfront payment. If we have that kind of loose money lying around let us for a change believe in Ghana and make this project home-grown, because, after all, technology can be bought.
My advice to Government is to make the details of the MoU public and to stop the cheap politics and provide details of how this wonderful project would see the light of day rather than being coffin-nailed. As it is now, some things just don’t add up. qanawu@gmail.com
AKUFO-ADDO, BETTY, MILLS AND PARTISAN CLEANSING
Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko
On 24th December, 2009, I saw Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu and his wife Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu being among a group of beautiful people enjoying a special carol night in the house of Mr and Mrs Edward Akufo-Addo Jr. Three months later I am surprise to hear her opting to defend her cordial relationship with the Akufo-Addos and others in the NPP by telling what has been pointed out to be a lie about Nana Akufo-Addo.
“I was virtually hounded out of the Ministry of Justice by this same man who people say is my best friend. I had to leave the Ministry of Justice because I was attacked time and time again in 2000/2001 by the former Minister of Justice…I don’t think Nana would deny that. I don’t think that he can deny that he put extreme pressure on me to leave. He said that I was just too prominent a member of the NDC to be head of a division in the Ministry of Justice and so I had to leave… What happened to me was unpardonable. The hurt that it caused me and my family; I had to leave my family, I had to leave my husband, leave my children and leave Ghana in order to sustain myself. What happened to me, I will never do to any other state Attorney or any other public servant.”
The statement above is culled from a 60-minute interview that Attorney General Betty Mould Iddrisu, who last year held a press conference to inform Ghanaians that prosecutions were to flow this year on some 49 corruption cases, granted to Radio Gold Tuesday morning.
The response was straight to the point. “The Office of Nana Akufo-Addo wishes to place on record that this is an unfortunate, even if she sees it as a convenient, lie. Far from hounding her out of office, not only did she continue to act as Head of the International Law Division during the entire two-year period of his tenure as Attorney-General, Nana Akufo-Addo actually left the current Attorney-General behind at the Attorney-General’s Office when he left in March 2003 to take up his new responsibilities as Foreign Minister. Subsequently, he accepted her request for a reference letter to support her application for an international job. In fact, he gave her a glowing reference because he was satisfied about her competence and fitness for the job.”
But, Feisty Betty did not leave it there. In a press release, she shifted blame on to her colleague Ministers and investigators. She said, despite a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Ministers to provide her with documentary evidence on the 49 identified corruption cases arising out of the Transitional Team;s report, only the Transport Minister has been forthcoming, explaining why charges are reportedly prepared on Ghana International Airline dealings. Again, the CID, BNI, SFO and investigators, generally, have not been able to provide her office with enough evidence for her to prosecute the said cases.
Now, let us go back to Pretty (or is it Petty) Betty. According to the Attorney-General’s own CV, she worked with “Ghana’s Ministry of Justice from 1978 until her appointment at the Commonwealth Secretariat in November 2003. At the Justice Ministry, she headed the Industrial Property Law Division and was later appointed Ghana’s Copyright Administrator before leaving for the Commonwealth job, after serving as Head of the Ministry’s International Law Division.”
If Akufo-Addo left Betty behind and she stayed at post under another NPP A-G Papa Owusu-Ankomah for another 8 months before leaving for a more lucrative post at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, then how could she have been hounded out of office by her former boss?
And, why would she not go to Dr Obed Asamoah (the A-G before 2001) or Papa, her last boss, for a reference but chose rather perversely to go to the Foreign Ministry to seek a glowing reference from the very man who tormented her?
One would have thought her game was up. But, no! Not Betty. She has hit back saying she stands by her claim 100%. But, there is a subtle but significant shift. Her latest story is that, whilst working under Akufo-Addo, he kept harassing her that President Kufuor wanted her out. She said, for the two years that Nana was her boss, each time Nana met her at the office, he would say “Are you still here? There is too much pressure from the President and sections of government. Each time I go to the Castle, the President keeps asking me about you.”
Hmmm. So, both her immediate boss, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Republic wanted or reassigned or sacked and they could not do it for nearly 3 years until she resigned to take up another job in November 2003? President Mills must be thinking what a wimp his predecessor was. Why not? It took President Mills just a couple of months to get rid of people like Prof Ken Attafuah and several Chief Directors.
Now, let us take our time and analyse the facts well. (P)NDC had been in office 19 years. The impression in 2001 was that the civil service had been ‘bastardised’ and (P)NDC-ized and the whole government machinery had been booby-trapped against the new NPP government; there were moles everywhere. This mainly motivated the unhealthy ‘proceed-on-leave’ syndrome.
When Nana Akufo-Addo became the Attorney-General in 2001, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, then head of the International Law Division, was among the complement of staff he met at the Office of the Attorney General. Instructively, no significant personnel change took place in that sensitive office.
As his statement Tuesday points out, “It was common knowledge that Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was the wife of the former Defence Minister in the previous NDC administration, Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu. This fact led to some lobbying from some quarters for her to be reassigned to another portfolio within the civil service. Nana Akufo-Addo resisted such calls and defended his decision to maintain her at post on the ground that he had no reason to believe that her political affiliation was affecting either her professional judgment or her competence. Indeed, Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was given additional duties in charge of the de-confiscation of assets.”
It seems the more people seek to destroy Akufo-Addo the more they expose his virtues. This is a man who has been bastardised as a firebrand who would fire, arrest and jail his political opponents. Yet, his actions give an entirely different picture.
But, like the astute politician that he is, Nana Akufo-Addo used the Betty opportunity to attack him to hit back at President Mills, who preaches virtue but apparently not to the hearing of his government.
“Unlike the culture of partisan cleansing that competent Ghanaians in the public service have experienced under the current Mills administration, Nana Akufo-Addo stood firm to his principles that insofar as the Constitution of the Republic gave every Ghanaian the right to join a political party of their choice, he was not going to relieve any officer serving under him of their position solely on the basis of their political party membership, affiliation or sympathies,” the statement from Nana’s office read.
The statement goes on to advise President Mills that like Akufo-Addo, for the NDC, “the only relevant consideration” in appointments must be “competence and professionalism and so long as” public servants do “not allow their political sympathies to affect their competence, professionalism and judgment,” President Mills ought to have worked with the likes of Ken Attafuah.
While the response from Nana office concedes that there was pressure to get rid of Betty, the facts show that Nana did not get rid of her. There are hundreds of examples of Ghanaians who have been literally hounded and chased out of office in this era of a ‘Better Ghana’.
In fact, I remember when the pressure was fully on Nana’s neck in 2002-2003, with NPP hardliners calling for prosecutions to flow and NDC crying persecution, some procedural blunders led to some powerful calls for Nana to be sacked or reassigned. Betty’s current predicament is familiar territory. Nana’s friendship with people like Kojo Tsikata and ET Mensah were often cited as reasons for his ‘reluctance’ to act on prepared dockets.
I got to know of Betty Mould’s sensitive position at that time. People could not understand why she was still at post at the time Tsatsu was ‘winning’ interlocutory judgments in court. The charge was that the A-G’s was infested with NDC people. In fact, Betty today admits that even as a civil servant and against the rules she was a “too prominent member of the NDC.”
There were ‘strange’ and embarrassing happenings. On March 12, 2002, the NPP Government issued a public apology and added that it saw the distasteful attempt attempt to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), in Church was “a calculated move to embarrass it.”
Presidential Spokesman, Kwabena Agyepong, said there were certain elements within the security system bent on giving credence to the accusation by the NDC that the government was harassing former NDC government officials.
“The Attorney-General was emphatic on the day in question that they should not serve Mr Tsikata at the Church. For them to have gone back on his word to create a scene at the Church should be viewed as nothing but a calculated attempt to embarrass the government and to give it a bad name,” he said.
Two days later, it was reported that the Police Service had interdicted Police Commissioner in-charge of Legal and Prosecutions, Sam Awotwi, following the attempt by two policemen to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata in Church. The policemen involved, Detective Chief Inspector Hope Nyadi and Detective Inspector Ashitey Annang, were also interdicted.
The previous evening a security source purportedly told “The Evening News” that they were also investigating whether the interdicted Sam Awotwi’s “long association with the former GNPC boss might have influenced his role in the authorised arrest of Mr Tsikata”!
Such was the atmosphere in Ghana. Again, this happened two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fast Track High Court was unconstitutional. It may comfort Betty to know that the pressure then was not only on Nana to resign, on March 2, 2002, the NDC called for the resignation of Chief Justice Edward K. Wiredu for setting up the ‘unconstitutional’ Fast Track Court.
On that same day, Tsatsu was back in court challenging the constitutionality of the charges against him. Before his plea could be taken, his counsel, EVO Dankwah, raised a preliminary objection that the act purportedly committed by his client was not an offence since it was committed in February 1993, whereas the law under which his client was purportedly charged came into effect in July of that year. The court agreed.
The Judge said, “I must tell the Director of Public Prosecutions that, our laws are stable and under no stretch of imagination could in or about February mean July.” It was difficult to convince the NPP that their celebrated lawyer Akufo-Addo could make such mistakes. The NDC elements of mischief were busily at work at the A-G’s.
There was another if not a more very basic error which only led NPP people to speculate even further that the NDC people at the A-G’s were deliberately doing what Kwabena Agyepong was accusing Sam Awotwi of doing. The summons which ordered Tsatsu's appearance before the FTC was issued in the name of the President and not the Republic.
“How could it be forgotten that by the Courts Act justice must be exercised in the name of the Republic and not the President? Did the A-G's office not know that by summoning Tsatsu in the name of the President, the independence of the judiciary was likely to be compromised? How come that this could not be detected by the whole machinery of the office the A-G? Was the A-G expecting us to believe him when he said that this error could not be traced to his office?” the Voice newspaper asked in its front page comment calling for Nana’s head.
Betty should take some advice from the concluding words of Nana’s statement, “While Nana Akufo-Addo may empathise with her predicament, whereby influential persons within the NDC are baying for her blood because of her alleged slowness in bringing former NPP government officials to trial, he believes that there are more responsible ways of handling the pressure than resorting to unnecessary fabrications.”
Who knows, may be Betty will follow her tormentor to the Foreign Ministry and make her presidential bid from there.
On 24th December, 2009, I saw Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu and his wife Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu being among a group of beautiful people enjoying a special carol night in the house of Mr and Mrs Edward Akufo-Addo Jr. Three months later I am surprise to hear her opting to defend her cordial relationship with the Akufo-Addos and others in the NPP by telling what has been pointed out to be a lie about Nana Akufo-Addo.
“I was virtually hounded out of the Ministry of Justice by this same man who people say is my best friend. I had to leave the Ministry of Justice because I was attacked time and time again in 2000/2001 by the former Minister of Justice…I don’t think Nana would deny that. I don’t think that he can deny that he put extreme pressure on me to leave. He said that I was just too prominent a member of the NDC to be head of a division in the Ministry of Justice and so I had to leave… What happened to me was unpardonable. The hurt that it caused me and my family; I had to leave my family, I had to leave my husband, leave my children and leave Ghana in order to sustain myself. What happened to me, I will never do to any other state Attorney or any other public servant.”
The statement above is culled from a 60-minute interview that Attorney General Betty Mould Iddrisu, who last year held a press conference to inform Ghanaians that prosecutions were to flow this year on some 49 corruption cases, granted to Radio Gold Tuesday morning.
The response was straight to the point. “The Office of Nana Akufo-Addo wishes to place on record that this is an unfortunate, even if she sees it as a convenient, lie. Far from hounding her out of office, not only did she continue to act as Head of the International Law Division during the entire two-year period of his tenure as Attorney-General, Nana Akufo-Addo actually left the current Attorney-General behind at the Attorney-General’s Office when he left in March 2003 to take up his new responsibilities as Foreign Minister. Subsequently, he accepted her request for a reference letter to support her application for an international job. In fact, he gave her a glowing reference because he was satisfied about her competence and fitness for the job.”
But, Feisty Betty did not leave it there. In a press release, she shifted blame on to her colleague Ministers and investigators. She said, despite a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Ministers to provide her with documentary evidence on the 49 identified corruption cases arising out of the Transitional Team;s report, only the Transport Minister has been forthcoming, explaining why charges are reportedly prepared on Ghana International Airline dealings. Again, the CID, BNI, SFO and investigators, generally, have not been able to provide her office with enough evidence for her to prosecute the said cases.
Now, let us go back to Pretty (or is it Petty) Betty. According to the Attorney-General’s own CV, she worked with “Ghana’s Ministry of Justice from 1978 until her appointment at the Commonwealth Secretariat in November 2003. At the Justice Ministry, she headed the Industrial Property Law Division and was later appointed Ghana’s Copyright Administrator before leaving for the Commonwealth job, after serving as Head of the Ministry’s International Law Division.”
If Akufo-Addo left Betty behind and she stayed at post under another NPP A-G Papa Owusu-Ankomah for another 8 months before leaving for a more lucrative post at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, then how could she have been hounded out of office by her former boss?
And, why would she not go to Dr Obed Asamoah (the A-G before 2001) or Papa, her last boss, for a reference but chose rather perversely to go to the Foreign Ministry to seek a glowing reference from the very man who tormented her?
One would have thought her game was up. But, no! Not Betty. She has hit back saying she stands by her claim 100%. But, there is a subtle but significant shift. Her latest story is that, whilst working under Akufo-Addo, he kept harassing her that President Kufuor wanted her out. She said, for the two years that Nana was her boss, each time Nana met her at the office, he would say “Are you still here? There is too much pressure from the President and sections of government. Each time I go to the Castle, the President keeps asking me about you.”
Hmmm. So, both her immediate boss, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Republic wanted or reassigned or sacked and they could not do it for nearly 3 years until she resigned to take up another job in November 2003? President Mills must be thinking what a wimp his predecessor was. Why not? It took President Mills just a couple of months to get rid of people like Prof Ken Attafuah and several Chief Directors.
Now, let us take our time and analyse the facts well. (P)NDC had been in office 19 years. The impression in 2001 was that the civil service had been ‘bastardised’ and (P)NDC-ized and the whole government machinery had been booby-trapped against the new NPP government; there were moles everywhere. This mainly motivated the unhealthy ‘proceed-on-leave’ syndrome.
When Nana Akufo-Addo became the Attorney-General in 2001, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, then head of the International Law Division, was among the complement of staff he met at the Office of the Attorney General. Instructively, no significant personnel change took place in that sensitive office.
As his statement Tuesday points out, “It was common knowledge that Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was the wife of the former Defence Minister in the previous NDC administration, Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu. This fact led to some lobbying from some quarters for her to be reassigned to another portfolio within the civil service. Nana Akufo-Addo resisted such calls and defended his decision to maintain her at post on the ground that he had no reason to believe that her political affiliation was affecting either her professional judgment or her competence. Indeed, Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was given additional duties in charge of the de-confiscation of assets.”
It seems the more people seek to destroy Akufo-Addo the more they expose his virtues. This is a man who has been bastardised as a firebrand who would fire, arrest and jail his political opponents. Yet, his actions give an entirely different picture.
But, like the astute politician that he is, Nana Akufo-Addo used the Betty opportunity to attack him to hit back at President Mills, who preaches virtue but apparently not to the hearing of his government.
“Unlike the culture of partisan cleansing that competent Ghanaians in the public service have experienced under the current Mills administration, Nana Akufo-Addo stood firm to his principles that insofar as the Constitution of the Republic gave every Ghanaian the right to join a political party of their choice, he was not going to relieve any officer serving under him of their position solely on the basis of their political party membership, affiliation or sympathies,” the statement from Nana’s office read.
The statement goes on to advise President Mills that like Akufo-Addo, for the NDC, “the only relevant consideration” in appointments must be “competence and professionalism and so long as” public servants do “not allow their political sympathies to affect their competence, professionalism and judgment,” President Mills ought to have worked with the likes of Ken Attafuah.
While the response from Nana office concedes that there was pressure to get rid of Betty, the facts show that Nana did not get rid of her. There are hundreds of examples of Ghanaians who have been literally hounded and chased out of office in this era of a ‘Better Ghana’.
In fact, I remember when the pressure was fully on Nana’s neck in 2002-2003, with NPP hardliners calling for prosecutions to flow and NDC crying persecution, some procedural blunders led to some powerful calls for Nana to be sacked or reassigned. Betty’s current predicament is familiar territory. Nana’s friendship with people like Kojo Tsikata and ET Mensah were often cited as reasons for his ‘reluctance’ to act on prepared dockets.
I got to know of Betty Mould’s sensitive position at that time. People could not understand why she was still at post at the time Tsatsu was ‘winning’ interlocutory judgments in court. The charge was that the A-G’s was infested with NDC people. In fact, Betty today admits that even as a civil servant and against the rules she was a “too prominent member of the NDC.”
There were ‘strange’ and embarrassing happenings. On March 12, 2002, the NPP Government issued a public apology and added that it saw the distasteful attempt attempt to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), in Church was “a calculated move to embarrass it.”
Presidential Spokesman, Kwabena Agyepong, said there were certain elements within the security system bent on giving credence to the accusation by the NDC that the government was harassing former NDC government officials.
“The Attorney-General was emphatic on the day in question that they should not serve Mr Tsikata at the Church. For them to have gone back on his word to create a scene at the Church should be viewed as nothing but a calculated attempt to embarrass the government and to give it a bad name,” he said.
Two days later, it was reported that the Police Service had interdicted Police Commissioner in-charge of Legal and Prosecutions, Sam Awotwi, following the attempt by two policemen to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata in Church. The policemen involved, Detective Chief Inspector Hope Nyadi and Detective Inspector Ashitey Annang, were also interdicted.
The previous evening a security source purportedly told “The Evening News” that they were also investigating whether the interdicted Sam Awotwi’s “long association with the former GNPC boss might have influenced his role in the authorised arrest of Mr Tsikata”!
Such was the atmosphere in Ghana. Again, this happened two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fast Track High Court was unconstitutional. It may comfort Betty to know that the pressure then was not only on Nana to resign, on March 2, 2002, the NDC called for the resignation of Chief Justice Edward K. Wiredu for setting up the ‘unconstitutional’ Fast Track Court.
On that same day, Tsatsu was back in court challenging the constitutionality of the charges against him. Before his plea could be taken, his counsel, EVO Dankwah, raised a preliminary objection that the act purportedly committed by his client was not an offence since it was committed in February 1993, whereas the law under which his client was purportedly charged came into effect in July of that year. The court agreed.
The Judge said, “I must tell the Director of Public Prosecutions that, our laws are stable and under no stretch of imagination could in or about February mean July.” It was difficult to convince the NPP that their celebrated lawyer Akufo-Addo could make such mistakes. The NDC elements of mischief were busily at work at the A-G’s.
There was another if not a more very basic error which only led NPP people to speculate even further that the NDC people at the A-G’s were deliberately doing what Kwabena Agyepong was accusing Sam Awotwi of doing. The summons which ordered Tsatsu's appearance before the FTC was issued in the name of the President and not the Republic.
“How could it be forgotten that by the Courts Act justice must be exercised in the name of the Republic and not the President? Did the A-G's office not know that by summoning Tsatsu in the name of the President, the independence of the judiciary was likely to be compromised? How come that this could not be detected by the whole machinery of the office the A-G? Was the A-G expecting us to believe him when he said that this error could not be traced to his office?” the Voice newspaper asked in its front page comment calling for Nana’s head.
Betty should take some advice from the concluding words of Nana’s statement, “While Nana Akufo-Addo may empathise with her predicament, whereby influential persons within the NDC are baying for her blood because of her alleged slowness in bringing former NPP government officials to trial, he believes that there are more responsible ways of handling the pressure than resorting to unnecessary fabrications.”
Who knows, may be Betty will follow her tormentor to the Foreign Ministry and make her presidential bid from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
