Rawlings? Privileges and Courtesies

? Debunking the myth

The Government on Tuesday 21st March 2006 announced that it was restoring the protocol courtesies it withdrew from Ex-President Rawlings. The Government in 2002 withdrew these protocol courtesies citing extreme provocation and 'unguided utterances' as the main reasons.

In a statement signed by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Foreign Minister, the Government was of the view that ?the time is now ripe to restore these courtesies in the expectation that this gesture will help not only to reinforce the dignity of the status of a Former President of Ghana, but also to improve the political atmosphere in the country."

Nana Akufo-Addo re-affirmed the commitment of the Government to national reconciliation, which he said ought to be "mutual in intent and scope if it was to succeed? The restoration of these protocol courtesies has led to a great deal of confusion in people?s minds as to whether they are the same as privileges or indeed his rights. Mr. Kwame Pianim, a well respected economist and statesman has waded into this debate saying that the privileges of former heads of states must not be withdrawn or bestowed by any government or persons. ?How is the pride of Ghana served by our former heads of state or first ladies waiting at a conveyor belt at Heathrow Airport to collect their baggage or hustling with mortals like me to board a plane or to get a visa to travel?? This is a question well legitimately asked by Mr. Pianim. But is Mr. Pianim?s Heathrow scenario a privilege under our Constitution?

This article is not intended to address the issue of the speculations surrounding why they were restored or indeed to feed into the political debate currently raging on about why now and the pros and cons of restoring them. It aims to debunk the myths around the interchangeability of the terms ?courtesies? and ?privileges?.

Immediately after President Kufour entered office as President, the government set up the Greenstreet Committee to implement the provisions of Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution and it was in the report that ensued that the expression ?privileges? first emerged. They were part of his constitutional entitlements under the 1992 Constitution. Rawlings as a President and currently as an Ex President has enjoyed privileges which are protected under the 1992 Constitution. These privileges have never been taken away and can never be taken away. Article 68 of the 1992 Constitution provides for the protection of these privileges even when presidents leave office. Indeed Article 68 goes on to protect these privileges throughout his lifetime. It is therefore false for any one to mislead people with arguments that Rawlings? privileges are being toyed with by the Government. Article 68 states inter-alia (3) The President shall receive such salary, allowances and facilities as may be prescribed by Parliament on the recommendations of the committee referred to in article 71 of this Constitution. (4) On leaving office, the President shall receive a gratuity in addition to pension, equivalent to his salary and other allowances and facilities prescribed by Parliament in accordance with clause (3) of this article. Even though the term ?privileges? is not directly mentioned in Article 68, an interpretation of it is given under Article 71 (3) where it states: (3) For the purposes of this article, and except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, "salaries" includes allowances, facilities and privileges and retiring benefits or awards. A privilege therefore is a facility that can be quantified in monetary terms. A privilege is a salary and this is included in the security facilities that as an Ex-President he and his wife enjoy, the state cars they ride in, the fuel used to power them, the accommodation provided by the state, the utility bills, the salaries of his staff and many more. These allowances, privileges, facilities and retiring benefits are constitutional facilities that have never or can never be taken away. Article 71 (2) even goes ahead to ring fence these salaries, privileges and allowances payable, and the facilities available, to the President, the Vice-President, the chairman and the other members of the Council of State, Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers, as being expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund, which shall be determined by Parliament on the recommendations of the committee referred to in clause (1) of Article 71. These facilities were there to be accorded to the late President Limann and Ex-Vice President Ackaah, but the author of this article does not have any personal knowledge whether or not these eminent Ghanaians received their due constitutional rights. Having then debunked this myth surrounding what ?privileges? are, I believe the argument about the removal or restoration of Rawlings? privileges is based on ignorance. Rawlings? privileges have not been touched by anyone and certainly whether by right, providence or design he and his wife have enjoyed these privileges since 1979. The Greenstreet report also did not include protocol courtesies so where did this phrase emerge from and what then is left to enjoy as a protocol courtesy, if it is not part of privileges? A protocol courtesy is nothing more than a polite gesture or remark. It is based on a mere willingness or generosity on the part of government in providing a diplomatic support needed by the Ex-President to make their travel abroad easy, smooth and respectful. The protocol courtesies granted to Rawlings were not part of the Greenstreet Committee?s report, if I may add. The former first couple has since 1979 enjoyed these privileges and courtesies just by virtue of their special status in Ghana. Diplomatic cars have carried them everywhere they have been, they have walked on red carpets and smelled the paint in all the VVIP lounges in the world, wined and dined with world leaders. So are they exactly the worst victims in Ghana? Nana Konadu?s privileges which have extended to the prominence of the 31st December Women?s Movement which she created under the PNDC regime. This movement which we would like to believe is a genuine NGO has benefited in business as well as in social status just by virtue of being linked with Nana Konadu. 99.99% of Ghanaian NGOs struggle for funding, winning business bids or setting up charitable facilities but the 31st December Women?s Movement) has benefited under the PNDC, NDC and currently under NPP.

Caridem which is owned by the 31st December Women?s Movement (DWM) whose president is the former First Lady Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings owns and runs Nsawam Cannery. The divestiture of this canary is now a subject of an Accra Fast Track High Court. The Former Chief Executive of the Divestiture Implementation Commission (DIC), Emmanuel Agbodo and Ms Sherry Ayittey, a director of Caridem company and other directors of Caridem which now runs the cannery are appearing in court to face not less than 30 counts of different offences including causing financial loss to the state, for the various roles they played in the divestiture of the cannery.

I would like to personally appeal to her to be quiet and stay in the backgrounds to enjoy the privileges she has enjoyed through the mercies and silence of Ghanaians since 1979. She is simply the most fortunate woman in Ghana today. She is well placed to become a future President because she has got a political constituency through her 31st December Movement, she has got Rawlings as a possible campaign manager, the NDC is firmly within their control with the demise of the Obed faction, she has well educated children, thanks to her faceless friends and above all she is rich. This is what I call privileges which she enjoys on top of the diplomatic courtesies.