Have Ghanaians Robbed Peter To Pay Paul?

By Otchere Darko

Reference: “Just when most Ghanaians had almost come to terms with the final verdict of the Supreme Court presidential petition hearing and public discussions had almost come to a close, the Legal Advocacy Foundation (LAF), a non-governmental organisation led by a popular Legal Practitioner, Dr. Maurice Ampaw, has stirred yet another controversy, questioning the constitutionality of Justice Atuguba’s open statement contained in his ruling.

The Foundation has raised a serious objection to the open statement by the President of the nine Supreme Court Judges, which, it contends, contravenes the spirit and letter of the supreme law of the land, the 1992 Constitution.” [Culled from Ghanaweb General News of Wednesday, 16 October 2013, which bore the heading “Lawyers in face-off with Atuguba”; Source: The Chronicle.]

The endless shower of praises from both inside and outside Ghana that have poured on Nana Akufo-Addo (the NPP presidential candidate in the 2012 elections and one of the three petitioners who challenged the election of President Mahama) has shown that any condemnation of the decision not to seek judicial review of the verdict delivered by the nine Supreme Court judges is likely to be treated with general contempt nationally and internationally.

This seeming ‘fact’ notwithstanding, one may vouch to say that posterity may blame today’s lawyers, politicians, and Ghanaians generally for what may in future be seen to constitute interference with the rule of law and the judicial system, following the excessive pressure that was allowed to be put on Nana Akufo-Addo and President Mahama by Ghanaians occupying various positions of trust to extract from both party leaders “promises”, “undertakings” and “swearing of oaths” to the effect that both would accept whatever verdict the nine judges would deliver on the “judgment day” (29th August 2013).

Every Ghanaian knows that when Nana Akufo-Addo gave the “promises”, “undertakings” and “sworn oaths” that he would accept the Supreme Court verdict, such “promises”, “undertakings”, and “sworn oaths” became binding “covenants” between him (Nana Akufo-Addo, the giver) and the various Ghanaian dignitaries who demanded and took those promises, undertakings and sworn oaths from the two political leaders. Such “covenants” had the effect of forcing the giver (Nana Akufo-Addo, in this case) to accept whatever Supreme Court verdict that was handed down, even where he (Nana Akufo-Addo, in this case) did believe that the rulings were ‘wrong’.

In my view, Justice Atuguba and his team of Supreme Court justices gave what they (the nine justices) believed to be ‘right judgments’. Therefore, the legal points established by the justices in their judgments have become established case laws that will form part of the yardstick against which future presidential election challenges will be measured, as long as the rulings remain ‘unreviewed’. It is, in fact, not the job of the judiciary to correct itself, even if, in hindsight, the nine justices plus the remaining four justices, including their boss (the Chief Justice) were privately to come to a conclusion that they (the Supreme Court justices) have made errors of judgment. After the historic verdict, it became the responsibility of the losers (Nana Akufo-Addo and the two other NPP election petitioners) to seek a judicial review, if they believed that the rulings were wrong. If the legal right of the three NPP election petitioners had been used, any miscarriage of justice that may have occurred, [assuming that there were some errors], could be rectified. Since Nana Akufo-Addo and the other two NPP election petitioners decided not to seek judicial review; and since their party, the NPP, also failed to mount pressure on the three to reverse their decision, it seems to me that the opportunity to seek redress of any mistake(s) in the judgement has been missed, assuming that such mistake(s) occurred.

Can, and should Nana Akufo-Addo be blamed for missing this important opportunity and, thus, for denying Ghana the opportunity to put right any mistake(s) that may have been made by Justice Atuguba and the eight other Supreme Court judges?

In my opinion, Nana Akufo-Addo made no mistake for not seeking judicial review. As explained above, he did what any respectable Ghanaian facing such a dilemma would have done. He was in fact bound by “convention” to remain true to the ‘vows’ he gave in the “covenants” he made with the several Ghanaian dignitaries who put ‘pressure’ on him to sacrifice his personal political ambition and interests in order to safeguard the peace of Ghana. In my view, it is these Ghanaian dignitaries that put pressure on Nana Akufo-Addo [and President Mahama] to accept whatever Supreme Court verdict that was given who should be blamed for whatever damage any mistake(s) in the judgments may cause the nation, assuming that such mistake(s) have actually occurred. Lessons that need learning from the presidential election petition and the rulings being discussed may include the need for Ghanaians occupying positions of respect, such as chiefs and church leaders, to avoid ‘counselling’ political leaders and other politicians in ways that ‘force’ such political leaders and politicians to give ‘binding’ promises, undertakings, and sworn oaths that can be construed to amount to ‘political coercion’. That is, under no circumstance should advice to politicians be allowed to take a form that compels political leaders and other politicians to make “promises” or “undertakings” or to “swear oaths” that have the effect of forcing politicians to do things that slap the rule of law in the face and undermine Ghanaian justice and democracy.

*In my view, those ‘national peace-seekers’, in their effort to safeguard the nation’s peace, slaughtered and sacrificed the system of justice handed down to us by the 1992 Constitution. *Perhaps, the ‘national peace-seekers’, who slaughtered and sacrificed Ghana’s system of justice for the so-called ‘national peace’, may have felt that this country is not politically mature enough to allow any aggrieved Ghanaians to pursue an election petition to the judicial review stage, without endangering Ghana’s national peace . *If this feeling is what forced the ‘national peace-seekers’ to slaughter and sacrifice the justice system of Ghana so as to promote the peace of the whole Ghanaian nation, then they (the various ‘national peace-seekers’ could be pardoned. *What would, however, be unpardonable is where those ‘national peace-seekers’ did what they did with [some] ‘ulterior motives’.

*I believe that the latter scenario is not the case, because all the Ghanaians who were involved with the exertion of ‘pressure’ on Nana Akufo-Addo and His Excellency President Mahama are all dignified people who occupy positions of trust and who cannot, therefore, ‘sell’ the political integrity of Ghana for their individual gains. *It is this belief of mine that helps me to readily forgive those Ghanaian dignitaries whose excessive pre-verdict pressure on the two principal political leaders may have prevented Nana Akufo-Addo (the loser) from going for judicial review, which could have rectified any mistake(s) that may have been made by Justice Atuguba and his team of justices, assuming that there were errors in the judgments, in the first place.

Despite all the post-verdict ‘boos’ and ‘bangs’ within some Ghanaian political quarters, may it be hoped that there were no significant errors in the judgments.... errors that may come back to haunt all Ghanaians, but most especially to haunt those Ghanaian dignitaries whose excessive pressure on the two principal political stakeholders, but most especially on Nana Akufo-Addo, stopped the petition from journeying to its final determination (judicial review).