Re: AFAG challenges Mills over M & J bribery

Justice Kutsienyo

Upon thoroughly reading the press statement of the pro-opposition pressure group- the Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG) and listening to other purported spokesmen of AFAG, I have found it imperative to issue a rejoinder on the subject matter so as to correct the fallacious assertions and to put issues in the proper perspective.

The statement captioned, “AFAG challenges Mills over M & J bribery” sought to spin unreasonably, indict government, ignorantly trivialise government activities, allege without evidence, speculate without substance, and to insight people on the measures of the government of the day in handling the subject matter.

In the said statement, AFAG contended that diligent investigations had been conducted into the matter and the officials Mabey & Johnson had pleaded guilty in the case, stressing the president had no excuse not to have taken action and that it was superfluous to conduct any more investigations. They further noted that the Attorney-General’s visit to UK on the directive of the president to gather facts was a simple waste of public resources since such information could have been sourced using diplomatic contacts.

In addressing the press, a leading member of AFAG stated that, “The Attorney-General in her visit cannot question any institutionalized body in the United Kingdom, (because) she has no jurisdiction in that country to conduct investigations into corrupt practices. If the president needed more actionable information to make a decision, independent bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the Serious Fraud Office of Ghana should rather have been charged to do that and not the A-G. President J.E.A. Mills must demonstrate his commitment to fighting corruption by prosecuting members of his party and government accused of taking bribes in a UK court”. It is crystal clear that anyone with effective logical capabilities can conclude that these assertions are logically untenable and the diction of AFAG imputes a clandestine motive to politicise and portray Government as not having the political will to fight corruption.

Dear reader, it is instructive to note that the assertion that the A-G has no jurisdiction in handling the matter and the President erred in referring the matter to her, is legally flawed on grounds that the President acted in conformity with the spirit and letter of article 88, clause (2) which explicitly states that, “the Attorney-General shall discharge such other duties of a legal nature as may be referred or assigned to him by the President, or imposed on him by this Constitution or any other law”. The case in issue is purely a legal one and coupled with the fact that the A-G is enjoined by article 88, clause 1 to serve as the, “principal legal advisor to the Government”, the President has not breached any constitutional provision nor acted ultra vires.

For the circumstance at hand, it is rather in the interest of the nation that the A-G (principal legal advisor to the Government) went to the UK personally to source, verify, validate and ascertain the documents as well as the evidence leading to the verdict. As it is now, the matter had been determined and it is after the A-G studies all the relevant documents that she can offer an informed advice to Government. For AFAG to suggest that the A-G must rely on newspaper publication and advice government is a ludicrous assertion which must not be tolerated. If the Government of Ghana today decides to petition the International Court of Justice, is the A-G going to do so based on newspaper publications? Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! So you see how we stand ridiculed when we buy into the argument of AFAG?

For critics who have argued that independent bodies like the SFO or CHRAJ should rather be empowered to look into the matter and that the A-G is likely to compromise her impartiality, is an argument which lacks legal merit. I think this suspicion is unsustainable since it is not backed by law but premised on sheer emotions and paranoia. This nation cannot be run on the emotions and paranoia of individuals who think their sentiments are more supreme than the laws of Ghana.

As a matter of fact, the CHRAJ Commissioner-Mr. Francis Emile Short, in an interview with ‘CitiNews’ said that, “...to the extent that His Excellency has requested that the A-G investigates and get as much information on the matter, I think it is a laudable initiative and the best that he could do”. If the commissioner of the independent body such as CHRAJ is commending Government what is the point of those saying the matter should rather be handled by CHRAJ instead of the A-G? As it is nobly captured in article 218 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana, CHRAJ can only investigate a matter when a petition or complaint is brought before it (Dr. Richard Anane case). For the matter in discussion, there is no petitioner or complainant since the matter had been determined in court outside Ghana and the Government being an interested party needs to secure the relevant documents and take an informed decision.

For AFAG to state that, President J.E.A. Mills must demonstrate his commitment to fighting corruption by prosecuting members of his party and government accused of taking bribes in a UK court” is not only fallacious but portrays gross ignoramus on the part of AFAG.

As stipulated in article 88, clause (4), “all offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana shall be at the suit of the Attorney-General or any other person authorised by him in accordance with any law”. In pursuance to that, only the A-G can exercise prosecutorial powers and not the President. More so, not all the individuals mentioned are in the NDC and government and that some are members of the NPP and not in Government. The prosecution of only those in Government will amount to selective justice and if AFAG truly profess that they stand for accountability, then this call negates their very existence and principles. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands and for those trying desperately to politicise the issue must take cognisance in the fact that those who live in glass stones must not throw stones.

AFAG also contended that the Attorney-General’s visit to UK on the directive of the president to gather facts was a simple waste of public resources since such information could have been sourced using diplomatic contacts or CHRAJ could have been tasked to do that. Granted that CHRAJ or SFO were tasked to go to UK, would that decrease the cost of the trip? Are they going to fly or pay money for their tickets? I also think AFAG is being petty when they suggest that the A-G’s trip was avoidable and the cost of the trip has the propensity to collapse the economy. The effect of this bribery scandal on the corporate reputation of Ghana is so high that we cannot afford to descend into pettiness.

The call for the mentioned public individuals to resign is wicked and must never be entertained. If they are compelled to resign based on this ‘chronic colonial scheme’, we would be setting a very bad precedence where anyone can sit in his country, and allege that he bribed our political leaders, hence the need for them to resign. Does that mean that if this fate had befallen his Excellency, the President of the Republic of Ghana-Prof. J.E.A Mills, then he would have been obliged to resign as the President? Have we been able to quantify the cost of a by-election? Let us not be tricked into disposing of our industrious and talented leaders. A resignation is an implicit admission of guilt must not be entertained

The sages have said in Latin that, “Natura non facit , nec lex supervacuum”- meaning, “nature makes no vacuum and the law, nothing purposeless”. By this principle, every legal process must clear the mirky waters of every controversy beyond every reasonable doubt and that all the principles and procedures of a justice system must be upheld. I have written previous articles on the subject matter to suggest that the verdict is a travesty of justice and a sad commentary of the UK Justice System. I have no plans to reiterate those cogent analysis and arguments on the subject matter. I have monitored the activities of AFAG and my heart bleeds for these young men who are using their productive lives to spew vile propaganda, malign, vilify, defame, etc. instead of channelling their energies in nation building. Ghana is larger than embittered idiosyncratic and sycophantic boot-lickers who would want to be operating under the pseudonym of a pressure group. In our quest to contribute our quota in consolidating Ghana’s democratic credentials, let us not behave like small children and unruly people who are demanding attention. AFAG should not give a bad impression about the youth.

The President has acted swiftly in instructing the A-G to investigate the matter but I hope this is not a political gimmick. When you spare the rod, you spoil the child.

Please Mr. President, don’t throw dust in our eyes because our eyes are wide open as events unfold. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands and if you want to fight corruption, you must without any hesitation crack the whip within your government. This is test case for the Government and you have no reason to disappoint us. If the NDC is truly born out of the PNDC revolution, then the principle of probity and accountability must strongly be upheld. Thank you.

By Justice Kutsienyo [email protected]