Friday,
February 22, 2013
Have
you heard the news? Parliament and the Executive are on a collision course in
matters concerning the Council of State, which is intriguing for several
reasons.
The
MPs are unhappy that the
President went behind them to act in a manner that did not only violate the
Constitution but that also undermined their integrity. Or rather, the President
slighted them and acted ultra vires (beyond his powers). This is not the first
time that the MPs have complained of being sidestepped by the Executive, but the
particular issue against which they are protesting itself is pertinent to our
current political dispensation.
The
President appointed a number of persons to the Council of State and swore the Council
itself into office on Wednesday. But his action has angered the MPs who are accusing him of doing so without consulting
Parliament.
The eleven-member Council of State is made up of
the following: Cecilia Johnson (Brong Ahafo Region), Nana Osei
Asibe (Ashanti Region), and Patrick Enyonam Agbogba also known as Togbui Sri (Volta
Region. The others are Rashid Sulemana Mahama (Northern Region), Okogyeman
Kweku Gyamerah (Western Region), David Kanga (Upper-East Region), Ama Benyiwa
Doe (Central Region), Edward Gyader (Upper-East Region), Abraham Kweku Edusei (Eastern
Region) and Dr Rabiatu Deinyo Armah (Greater-Accra Region).
The Council of State is in place. But the MPs have
insisted that the President violated the Standing Orders of Parliament by
failing to inform Parliament before appointing and swearing in the Council of
State members.
Raising the issue, the NPP MP for Sekondi, Paapa
Owusu Ankoma, quoted Standing Order 172 of the House, which states that the President
is obligated to bring his Ministerial and Council of State nominees before the
Appointments Committee of Parliament. He added that the president was therefore
expected to have brought his nominees before Parliament to be vetted and
approved but he didn’t.
Joy News’ Elton John Brobbey reported that the
issue drew a lot of comments on the floor of Parliament.
It is interesting to note that
the protest was spearheaded by the NPP MPs, who have chosen to boycott all
official functions involving the presidency, having already confirmed their
resolve on several occasions.
They may claim that they are
protesting to help our democracy. Fair enough. But even if the President
referred the matter to Parliament, ipso facto, it is only the Majority side in Parliament
(made up of the NDC MPs and their counterparts in the PNC and Independents) who
will act. They are not expected to raise any objection to anything of the sort
from the President. Rubber stamping is the norm.
So, what exactly will be achieved
except that the President would have been said to have passed through the
normal channel? Mere recourse to formality for what benefit to the country?
Obviously, the President has already appointed those with whom he has already
established a strong working relationship (Benyiwa-Doe and Martey Newman, for
instance), who will definitely be glorified praise singers.
The composition of the council
itself tells me clearly there are many members who are on the same page with
the President and the government. They are definitely to serve the President
but I wonder how effective they will be once they come across as sympathetic to
the NDC and the President’s cause.
At a larger level is the real
benefit of this Council of State to the country. We acknowledge the fact that
it is constitutionally mandated to be in existence; but if we consider how
ineffectual the Constitution itself is, we have to pause to ponder whether this
Council is worth the expenditure that is made to sustain it.
Over the years, it has been nothing
but a rubber-stamp, concurring to everything coming from the Presidency; or,
even if it takes the initiative to nominate anybody to the President for
appointment to public office, it hasn’t gone out of its way to choose anybody
that would eve be opposed by the President. Or anybody whose political
inclination conflicted with that of the government of the day.
Beyond being such a docile
institution lies the issue of productivity and relevance to the country. In
playing its advisory role—and therefore seeking to justify its continued
existence—what particular solution has this Council of State offered to help
the President and his government tackle our country’s problems?
I have no single instance to
point to. Let those who know better prove me wrong. What I know is that the
Council of State is just a mere window-dressing for our democracy. Or, just a
dumping ground for those who have retired from active service but are still
interested in praise singing to be given part of the national cake.
One peculiar feature of the
membership has been the presence of chiefs from the various regions. Of course,
against the background of the agitation by some powerful chiefs for the country
to adopt a bicameral legislative system (and the Upper House reserved for
chiefs), I am not surprised that the chiefs are fighting hard to make their
presence felt at that level.
After all, they know that the
position pays. More so, they are smart enough to use the shortcut to be in
politics (any more respect for the ban on their involvement in partisan
politics)? How many of them on the Council of State have ever had a dissenting
voice to suggest that they are not there in their capacity as camouflaged
supporters of the government of the day? Let them prove me wrong.
There has never been any instance
when the operations of the Council (including its meetings) are even publicized
for us to know goings-on. All we hear is that the President has appointed
so-so-and-so on the advice of the Council of State. Of course, being in office
at the pleasure of the President himself, what else can they do to assert their
independence or authority? None.
They know that their fingers are
in the mouth of the appointing authority and won’t hit the top of his head, lest
he bites of those fingers off. How will they eat, then? Or, as Chinua Achebe
puts it mildly, they won’t like to bite the finger that feeds them.
As has been the norm, the
Chairman of the Council has always turned out to be a known former active
government functionary or surrogate in some powerful institution of state. Just
look back to see who the various Chairmen have been from Rawlings’ time to now.
From C.K. Dewornu to Professor F.T. Sai to Kofi Nyidevu Awoonor!!
Earlier reports said the
Chairman of this Council is John Henry Martey Newman, former Chief of Staff
under the late President John Mills and the caretaker administration of
President Mahama. Now, we are being told that Mrs. Cecilia Johnson is rather the Chairperson. Which
is which now?
I am adamant that the Council of State
isn’t really serving any useful purpose. It is a waste pipe that must be
discarded and the resources being wasted on it redirected to better serve the
interests of needy segments of our population. The overarching question is:
What will our democracy lose without this Council of State?
The President has all manner of
people at the Presidency—ranging from seasoned bureaucrats, serving and retired
technocrats, party functionaries, Ministers without portfolio or those now
designated as Desk Officers for certain specific ad hoc functions (a kind of
disguised Task Force?), as well as other hangers-on running all kinds of
errands.
Most of these (like Dr. Sulley
Gariba) are designated as policy advisors or some other amorphous tag whose
primary duties include advising the President on governance issues. Others are
scouts looking for prospective appointees for the President to put in office. In
effect, what this Council of State claims to be doing is already being handled
at the Presidency. Forget about some other unclassifiable functions that the
Council may claim to be performing.
Without the Council of State, the
Presidency can use its own staff to do all those assignments. So, what do we
hope to gain from this needless duplication of functions? Or are we so fixated
on constitutionality as to do everything just because the Constitution says so
or just to prove that we are democratic? Even when the country doesn’t benefit
in any way from the existence of such institutions and roles?
Considering the waste pipe that
the Council of State is to me, I wonder why Parliament should waste time
complaining about the President’s action instead of focusing on issues that can
help solve the daunting problems making it difficult for the citizens to have
uninterrupted services such as electricity, water, transportation, and
what-have-you!
We have been told that the House agreed to form a committee led by the
Speaker, the Chairman of the Appointments Committee of Parliament, and the
leadership of Parliament to meet with the President and resolve the situation
amicably.
A whole committee? To include the boycott-kings
and queens of the NPP (since they are part of the Leadership of the House)? Or,
will they boycott this one too yet stand back and make the foulest noise after
the fact? You see how mischievous some can be?
Clearly, this impasse is a
non-issue and the noise being made about it is not only unnecessary but it is
also irritating. Yet, trust these MPs to use it as a way to flex muscles just
because they are spoiling for a fight. Rather curiously, it is these
boycott-happy NPP MPs who are calling the tune. What a pity!!
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment