Saturday,
August 25, 2012
There is nothing wrong with
efforts being made to unearth the truth behind the scandal. Ghanaians are
impatiently waiting for the money paid to him to be retrieved and lodged in the
national coffers if proved to be wrongfully given him. Ghanaians also expect
stiff punishment for such a person and all others implicated in this scandal.
Then, they expect that all the
loopholes promoting such thievery will be plugged and the necessary
administrative and legal measures taken to guard against recurrence. All the
subterfuge that has enabled such fraudulent practices should be detected and
dealt with so that what belongs to all of us is not diverted to line the
pockets of white-collar thieves parading as businessmen and government
appointees.
There is nothing wrong with the PAC’s
efforts to look into all the improprieties captured in the Auditor-General’s
report. After all, that’s its legitimate purview—its constitutional obligation
to help us monitor expenditure and to safeguard the Consolidated Fund against
fleecing by faceless people of the sort that the judgement debt syndrome has
exposed.
What is wrong with the PAC’s work
is the approach that it has adopted, especially in the case involving Woyome.
There seems to be an indecent haste to accomplish hidden political objectives.
Left to public opinion alone,
Woyome would have been crucified by now. He was found guilty at the court of
public opinion the very moment the lid was blown on the scandal. That he hasn’t
so far been snuffed out is the result of the due process that he is being taken
through in the workings of the judicial system. Is the legal maxim that the
individual is innocent until proved guilty still relevant?
Regardless of the haphazard
manner in which his case has been handled—with all the euphoria at the initial
stages, then, disillusionment and, now, outright dejection on the part of the
public at the snail’s pace of the trial—it is incontrovertibly clear that the
case is already “sub judice” (being handled by four different courts of
competent jurisdiction, namely, the Financial Affairs Court, High Court, Appeal
Court, and Supreme Court).
Every well-informed citizen knows
that once a case is before court, no public comment on it is warranted. Any
violation of this judicial stricture attracts a charge of contempt of court and
is punishable. The PAC’s attempt to question Woyome on the matter is a violation
of his human rights and an infringement of that legal injunction. Let no one be
deceived.
Again, it is obvious that once
someone is being tried by a court, he shouldn’t be subjected to any other form
of trial, especially an extra-judicial one of the sort that the PAC is poised
to carry out against Woyome. The PAC’s work may be seen as an inquiry, but in
the case of Woyome, it is nothing but a trial.
Furthermore, the norms don’t
permit an accused person to be tried twice for the same offence, especially
simultaneously as the moves by the PAC suggest.
This is where the PAC’s handling
of this matter raises very serious questions concerning Woyome’s human rights.
What is it that the PAC wants to gather from Woyome that his ongoing trial at
the courts cannot help the authorities know? Again, how did Woyome get to be
prosecuted?
As the state has already had
enough grounds to justify his prosecution, it suggests that whatever went wrong
in the payment of the judgement debt to him has already been identified as “criminal,”
meaning that what the PAC is looking for from him has already been unearthed to
necessitate his trial. What again is the PAC looking for?
Or is the PAC apprehensive that
some vital secrets are still being hidden by Woyome that it must at all costs
yank from him even while his trial at the court goes on? Will the PAC act on
its findings or submit them to the authorities for further action? Isn’t that
action what is already being taken against Woyome?
While
the fracas persists, it is quite certain that it will provoke tension within
the PAC itself and stall its work, at least, until something sensible emerges.
If Woyome rescinds his decision not to appear before the PAC, he will be
opening himself up to many possibilities. First, he may choose not to cooperate
with the PAC, which will have its own dire implications for the inquiry. After
all, he has every right not to say anything to implicate himself in a case that
is already being tried in court.
Second,
he may simply show up only to tell the PAC that because the case is already
being tried elsewhere, he won’t answer questions. What will the PAC do at this
point?
For
the records, many people invited by the PAC for questioning obliged. Woyome
doesn’t want to. It is clear that he is before court in connection with the
issues being inquired into by the PAC. All the others are not. That makes his
case peculiar.
While
condemning the circumstances under which hundreds of millions of money have
been doled out as judgement debt payment to all those suing the government for
compensation—either as a result of genuine transactions being abrogated to
their disadvantage or for acts of impropriety against them by the institutions
of state—we must insist that this judgement debt issue be tactfully handled.
It
seems to be a new avenue for all manner of manipulations. Those in charge of
affairs must be circumspect in their handling of contracts, especially. As is
evident from the circumstances surrounding this Woyome case and that involving
the Construction Pioneers, the unilateral action by the authorities to either
abrogate contracts or do anything to the disadvantage of the other party will
lead to legal action of the sort that necessitates the payment of judgement
debts.
We
expect civility and decency in business transactions to save the country all
this loss. Then again, those whose actions (and I have in mind members of the security
services) violate the human rights of the citizens should be held personally
liable for anything of the sort.
Instead
of putting the burden on the state to pay compensation to victims of such
brutalities, the perpetrators should be made to pay from their own coffers. If
such a measure is implemented, it will go a long way to forestall the rampant
animalism that characterizes the conduct of security personnel.
In
the long run, it is incumbent on the institutions of state to place the
national interest above all others so as to eliminate the wanton abuse of
office for personal gains. While the fracas between Woyome and the PAC unfolds,
we will keep monitoring the situation to see its outcome. We may have a rude
awakening!
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment