The Diplomatic Saga!

An article published on Ghanaweb on Monday 20th April 2009 entitled “Evelyn Ankumah's diplomatic status withdrawn” published by The Gye Nyame Concord, caught my attention and I began to query who a diplomat was and if one could hold diplomatic status in his/her own country?

This was followed by another article entitled “Foreign Ministry justifies abrogation of agreement of rights group” on April 24, by GNA which stated, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday justified the abrogation of the diplomatic status granted Africa Legal Aid (AFLA) saying the group and its representatives had clearly shown "bad faith" in the use of the privileges and immunities purported to have been granted by the headquarters agreement with the government”.

As an international civil servant with an organization that has full diplomatic status as per the Vienna Convention, I know for a fact that one cannot be a diplomat in his/her own country. Working with an organization which has diplomatic immunity does not give you an automatic diplomatic status.

My online dictionary defines a diplomat as “a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries.” Diplomatic relations as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 catalogues most modern diplomatic and consular practices, including diplomatic immunity. About 160 countries are parties to this treaty. The Vienna Convention was adopted with the conviction that an international convention in diplomatic privileges and immunities will contribute to the development of friendly associations among countries.

According to that convention article 8(2) says “Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the receiving State (which is Ghana in this case), except with the consent of that State, which may be withdrawn at any time. This is an exception to the rule and is the case with Mad Evelyn Ankumah The receiving State according to Article 22 (1, 2, and 3) “the premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. Must protect the premises of the mission or organization against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The premises of the mission, their furnishing and other property and the means of transport of the mission are immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution”. It also states in Article 26 that “host states must ensure all members of the mission have autonomy of movement and travel in its territory”. So as a non-diplomat member of staff with an organization which is under diplomatic status, you have temporary immunity so long as you are in the premise or in a vehicle of the organization. That’s just where it ends. Diplomatic bags are not allowed to be opened, searched or detained. So, if persons with diplomatic immunity want to carry in their bags illegal items like narcotics they can do so without the fear of being searched. The article 27 (4) says that the diplomatic bags may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use, however this becomes difficult to control since they are not opened for inspection. Also personal bags of diplomatic agents are exempt from inspection unless there are serious grounds of suspecting it contains goods that are forbidden in the host country. (Article 29) “The persons with diplomatic immunity can not be arrested even if they have committed a crime. These persons are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state and they are not obliged to give evidence as witnesses. If a person with immunity commits a crime in some host country, this country advises his/her government of the committed crime and may request a waiver of the alleged offender's immunity so that person could be judged by court of the host country. But if the immunity is not waived, the host country may order the withdrawal of the offender from their country”. Article 35 says “the receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting”.

So how then can this apply to a person in their own country? I really stop to wonder.

These diplomatic immunities sited above are but a few of the clause and article making up the Vienna Convention 1963 these are important because, different countries have different judicial systems which might not protect individual rights as compared to others. Inhospitable governments could also use their police authorities to harass diplomats and their families for personal reasons. A person entitled to immunity must respect the laws and regulations of the host country. Immunity is not a license to commit crime. As I researched into the genesis of diplomatic immunity “The History of Diplomatic Immunity,” published by Ohio State University Press and written by Prof. Linda Frey. It has traced the origins and evolution of the idea of “messengers with special status” from ancient Greece. Although an unpopular practice, Frey says that diplomatic immunity persists because it enables nations with conflicting interests to interact under the mutual assurance that their envoys will not become political pawns. A policy that is broad enough to protect ambassadors and other diplomatic staff from unfair harassment also protects them from fair enforcement of the host nation’s laws. “Immunity was not accorded to give people impunity,” Frey says, “but that’s what it has done.”

Thus from the above it becomes clear that no person is suppose to have diplomatic immunity in their country of origin. The diplomatic status of any organization can also be withdrawn by the Foreign Ministry if the organization is found to abuse its diplomatic privileges. Therefore the case being championed by a pressure group called the Alliance for Accountable Governance (AFAG) in relations to the case of Mad. Evelyn Ankumah and the Africa Legal Aid (AFLA) should be looked at again. I believe this is a group of learned and educated people who have the right to champion any course they deem fit. That not withstanding, if Ghanaians are going to position themselves to champion a course that does not conform to International Law, then we should bow or heads in shame as a nation.

I say this because the initial story stated clearly that it was the diplomatic previleges of Mad. Evelyn Ankumah that was revoked. Which in my layman’s judgment should be rightly so, bearing in mind that the purposed of the Vienna Convention was to protect the interest of foreign nationals on diplomatic missions in other countries and therefore cannot apply to citizens in their own country?

Having been personally involved in the processing of Diplomats in my organization at a certain point in time, I know for a fact that simply working for and organization with diplomatic immunity does not qualify you for diplomatic status. It only applies to foreign colleagues who are covered under the Vienna Convention. The other most important factor to consider in this case is Mad. Ankumah’s claim for diplomatic status as well as the right to own a business. This is clearly unheard-of. It’s a case of wanting to eat her cake and have it too. It just does not happen. Diplomats cannot own business in their host countries.

Foreign nationals working in international organizations have diplomatic immunity. Nevertheless those who are citizens of host country and working for the organization in the host country do not under any circumstance qualify for diplomatic immunity. Therefore if Mad. Ankumah works with an organization that is entitled to diplomatic immunity that is not relevant to her whiles working in Ghana. Her diplomatic privileges may start when she leaves the boarders of Ghana to work with affiliate organizations elsewhere.

Flowing from the above it becomes necessary for Ghanaians to be objective and non partisan when it comes to issues of international law and conduct, so we do not give the inkling to the world that we do not respect the rule of law and anything is doable in Ghana provided you have the “right acquaintances”. In conclusion I would like to advocate that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs investigate this case and rectify any blunder which may have occurred in this particular instance and any other similar cases which may not yet have come to the fore. I will also like to urge my fellow citizens to be mindful of the fact that the average Ghanaian is well informed. Therefore we should not use our freedoms to champion any course because it is out there. I think we need to be honest and sincere to stand for what is right and frown on what is wrong regardless of its political colors. For the world is watching.

The question still stands, who is a Diplomat? Can you and I as citizens of Ghana claim Diplomatic status just because it favors our course?

The writer, Naa Wellington, is just a concerned citizen of Ghana who can be reached at naawellington@ymail.com