On an election results declaration day, a preacher man asked the party disputing the declared vote allocation at that point to go to court. This was a moment the aggrieved was hoping for some rational compassionate intervention from God’s own man. In the end, the court was no court because justice was not done, and it was not seen to have been done.
Upon reading that someone has asked us compatriots to go to court over a doubtful presidential intervention, I thought it was that same preacher man. When I discovered it was one of my kind, one of those of us wielding traditional leadership authority, I bowed down my head (Can’t add ‘in shame’). I asked myself: ‘What if he hadn’t spoken?’ The whole mighty power of the executive (president, ministers, council of state, state security) had been marshalled against the court.
It would have been useful for fellow traditional ruler to have pointed out the court he was asking compatriots complaining a presidential remission of sentence to go to. Also, it would have been important for the chief to have named the court to take the case to. As for what would have been the guarantee that he the speaker who spoke those words and his council colleagues would not gang up to scuttle whatever decision the court would make.
I thought the chief would know that his group’s collective decision had made nonsense with the decision of the highest adjudication authority in the land. And I marvelled at how he could have forgotten himself that he and his organisation could scuttle any further decision of the court.
It’s irrational and illogical us executive versus them judiciary. No one should forget so soon about the executive’s 1982? Action of [to the extent of] ‘take the resources we the executive command (but owned by the people) to go and abduct judges and kill them because we disagree with their decision].
If I were to be a constitutional Article 72 or 89(2) (a) and especially (d) appointee, I would rather stand up and help a president by separating his person from his office so that he would not hire people who would betray and embarrass the state which avails they the appointees the largesse they enjoy which is provided by the state.
I, however, have a thicker beef with the absence within the system of mechanisms that could have prevented people being jailed for what they say or write in the media. Efficient systems don’t wait to punish people. They put in place structures to ensure citizens do not do what would attract punishment. Of course, society also assumes there will always be people who would sin no matter what preventive measures are in place.
Better and superior, though, are those societies which have their preventive system working better so that there are no infractions or erring. Those that would attract incarceration are reduced to the barest minimum. Personal bravado and foolhardy, yes, a lot of it was. Institutional strength and gumption were alternatively scarce. Thus, it’s been a case of more of that not needed and less of the desired.
GIBA, NMC, NCCE, PC, CoS (not Ohene Djan’s), all have roles and responsibilities to prevent the harmful and injurious to the community and the individual being said or written. So, I keep wondering where they all were with frequency hundred and one point one. The tragedy is that congress seeks, and actually has, infiltrated them and has warped their judgment to do right for the state that feeds them.
Congress threatens, chastises, mulls, and punishes state institutions by denying them feeding anytime the treacherous congress line is not toed. Congresspeople have made congress the state. Congress sins not; congress does no wrong. Break that congress shackle or we are all doomed.
There are those of us who make public statements through various forms of communication. We are of greater likelihood to be concerned about sending people to prison for what they say or write in the public interest. We, therefore, see those less at risk as hypocritical when they feign more concern.
When a public council institution (Peace or State), asks compatriots to go to court over disagreement with executive decisions, I see a let-down. I think sub-branches of the executive are there because the executive, as one branch of three, needs direction and counselling.
Executive institutions must, therefore, be wary of breaching the trust reposed by the people in them. Theirs is to steer a president towards balance and respect for the legislature and judiciary. Anything short of that is failure and upsets the constitution prescribed balance act of the three arms of government.