Tuesday,
May 22, 2012
The Supreme Court’s judgement,
legitimizing Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey’s acquisition of a state property (bungalow)
is bad. It flies in the face of decency and sets a very horrible precedent that
won’t encourage good citizenship for the benefit of our democracy.
Let’s be bold enough to tell
those judges whose decision favoured Obetsebi-Lamptey that they have given
Ghanaians a backhanded slap in the face. And we won’t take it without question.
Those
simpletons who have already politicized the case and seen the verdict through
an NDC-NPP dichotomy are sick in the head as well. This case is not a loss for
the Mills government and a win for the NPP. It is a matter of public conscience
and how the Supreme Court has harmed it.
The
case is not only limited to the two plaintiffs (Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Deputy
Minister of Information, and Dr. Omane Boamah, Deputy Sports Minister) who had dragged
the NPP chairman to court accusing him of abusing his office in his purchase of
a government building at the No. 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area
of Accra.
It
is one of huge public interest as well because of the tendency on the part of
those close to the corridors of power to manipulate the system for personal
gains. This suit was meant to produce a verdict that could curtail that
white-collar thievery to protect public property from being looted. It was a
step in the right direction.
But by a 4–3 majority decision,
the Supreme Court held today that Obetsebi-Lamptey
had the right under the constitution to purchase the bungalow in which he lived
“because the bungalow was bought in his capacity as a citizen and not a Minister.”
Apart
from the one who presided (Justice Atuguba), there were eight judges on the
panel (Ms. Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr. Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs. Justice
Sophia Adinyira, Mrs. Justice Rose Owusu, Mr. Justice Jones Dotse, Mr. Justice
Baffoe Bonnie, Mr. Justice B. T. Aryeetey, and Mrs. Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo). How come that there should be a 4–3 decision (coming from 7
judges as it stood)?
I
see five main aspects of this bad precedent set by the Supreme Court to comment
on, not as a lawyer, but as a loyal Ghanaian who is intelligent enough to
question the rationale behind the judges’ decision.
Bad precedent Number One (capacity as a citizen
and not a Minister):
Was
Obetsebi-Lamptey not a citizen of Ghana at the same time that he was a Minister
in Kufuor’s government? Can one be separated from the other for purposes of
this transaction? In other words, is it possible for him to attempt acquiring
the property as a Minister and not be counted as a citizen of Ghana at the same
time? What difference does it make for him to come across as a Minister and not
as a citizen in this transaction?
Again,
how many Ghanaians can have the opportunity to live in state-provided bungalows
and end up buying them as citizens and not Ministers? This is where this bad
precedent worsens into a painful aberration that the judges at the Supreme
Court who ruled in favour of Obetsebi-Lamptey have committed. Common sense (even
in law?) is in trouble here!!
We
must be reminded that by the time he was making moves to acquire that bungalow,
Obetsebi-Lamptey had over-stayed his welcome. He was no longer serving as a
Minister and should have vacated that property long ago; but he didn’t,
apparently because of the machinations in place at the time under the Kufuor
government for such characters to enjoy life at the expense of the Ghanaian tax
payer. That is the NPP’s mantra of property-grabbing democracy on open display.
If
he had vacated that bungalow for another Minister or government official to
occupy, could he have gone ahead to acquire it? Was he not taking undue
advantage of his position in the government circles?
I
remember very well how not long ago, a high-ranking judge (Mr. Justice Adzoe)
was forcibly chased out of the official bungalow that he was occupying. We were
told that he was on retirement and no amount of entreaties from him could save
the situation. Obetsebi-Lamptey wasn’t qualified to live in that bungalow at
the time but he did so and turned round to acquire it. What sort of justice
administration system will allow this kind of thievery to which the Supreme
Court has given its blessing?
Bad Precedent Number Two:
By
this verdict, the Supreme Court has legitimized wrong-doing in public service
and created the nasty impression that anybody who has access to state property
can acquire it because it is his/her right to do so.
The
Supreme Court has done Ghanaians a huge disservice and must be condemned as
such. I am already doing so because its decision doesn’t reflect the reality of
the Ghanaian condition. We are talking about the situation in which everything
going on in the country is to the advantage of the politicians while ordinary
Ghanaians whose toil sustains the national economy are left to the vagaries of
life to suffer excruciating poverty till death do them part.
I
am depressed at this decision because of the grimness of its impact. Having
already abolished end-of-service benefits for public sector workers, these same
politicians turn around to manipulate the system for personal gains. That is
why the former Speaker of Parliament under the Kufuor government (Begyina
Sekyi-Hughes) could strip his official bungalow of all its property and cart to
his private residence to claim as his entitlements. He hasn’t been taken to
task because those who are to do so are themselves busily looting the state.
We
could tell from the madness with which government officials (first under
Rawlings and then Kufuor) looted official cars/vehicles and other property when
leaving office after the 2000 and 2008 general elections and the transition to
a new administration that the frenzy won’t end.
And
with this decision by the Supreme Court, a new impetus has been given to this
official thievery to divest the state of its assets. I am appalled beyond
measure. So should you be too.
Bad Precedent Number Three:
By
its decision, the Supreme Court claims that the two Deputy Ministers (plaintiffs)
failed to prove the conflict of interest allegation that they had levelled
against Obetsebi-Lamptey. This is just a futile legalistic bombast.
Couldn’t it already be obvious that as a high-profile government functionary
(even if no more a Minister of state), Obetsebi-Lamptey’s status conflicted
with what he had done to acquire the bungalow?
How
was the price of the bungalow determined without any undue browbeating or
influence (his being a high-ranking official of the party whose government was
in power at the time)? What else did the judges need to know before seeing the
conflict of interest in this matter?
To
be continued…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment