In politics perception almost invariably translates as fact. If a president is perceived for any reason to be weak, politically he is weak. If he is perceived to be corrupt or to condone corruption in his government, he is corrupt or condones corruption in his government. If he is perceived to be ineffectual or dithering, he is ineffectual or dithering. So it goes ad infinitum. Legally minded people might challenge this proposition as irrational. Fair enough, but that is the law of politics. And a politician who ignores it does so at his peril. The fact of the matter is that perception does influence how a person rates the performance of a government and, consequently, how he votes in an election. (That by no means denies the political reality that some people, especially some Ghanaians, will always vote for their party irrespective of the fact it performed abysmally in office.)
Two recent developments, viz. allegations of financial impropriety against the minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Mubarak Muntaka, and the reported sale of government tractors to the Majority Leader in Parliament, Mr. Bagbin, and the presidential spokesman, Mr. Ayariga, raise a problem of perception for president Mills. The problem is whether the president can regain the initiative and be perceived as genuinely committed to fighting corruption no matter what form it may take or wherever it may occur. Furthermore, the question is whether he can also be perceived as a man who is prepared and willing to make the difficult decisions necessary to address the problem.
Let us examine the Mubarak affair first. As typical of politically ravenous Ghanaians, there is no shortage of free advice as to what the president should do about his errant minister. Two main pieces of advice seem to emerge from what has been said and written about the affair. One advice is that the president should sack the minister immediately. The other advice is that the president should stay any action until the inquiry he has ordered into the affair reports back to him. If the allegations turn out to be well founded, then the president could dismiss him. Otherwise, the minister should not lose his post on the basis of “mere” allegations. Underlying this view probably is the thinking that it goes against the grain of natural justice to “punish” a man who has yet to be proved guilty.
I for one support the first view. Mubarak should spare the president’s blushes, do the honourable thing and resign immediately. If he continues to drag his feet probably in the hope of a deus ex machina to come to his rescue (possibly his friends with access to the president, which in itself would be corruption), the president should send him packing to the DNC backbenches.
I have two reasons for my view. First, whatever new information the inquiry might unearth, certain facts are not in dispute, and I consider them serious or grave enough to warrant immediate resignation or dismissal. We know for a fact that the minister did claim reimbursement from state coffers for his child’s diapers. Whether he was misled or tricked into doing so is totally immaterial to his decision to claim. He cannot plead this as a justifiable excuse. We also know for a fact that the minister did authorize the travel of Ms Edith Zinueali to Ivory Coast at the taxpayers’ expense, even if the initial request came from Mr. Bagbin, the Majority Leader in Parliament. (I make no judgement whatsoever as to whether the fair lady in question might or might not be the minister’s girlfriend.) What a tangled web we weave! In politics, these are not venial but cardinal sins for which the minister cannot expect absolution from the president by promising good behaviour in future. No, the minister’s decisions in respect of these two matters show him as a man severely lacking good judgement, and in my view that disqualifies him from continuing as minister.
My second reason for supporting the call for the minister’s immediate resignation or dismissal is the following. As I see it, the question whether the minister should go or not is not a legal issue. As one commentator last week rightly put it, resigning would not be an admission or proof of guilt. The minister is not on trial for any crime. If the president’s inquiry now underway finds a wrongdoing against him, then it would be open to the government at that stage either to order further investigation or to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to prosecute, which would raise the matter to an entirely different level where strict legal rules and procedures would apply. We have not reached that stage as yet. Meanwhile, I believe that resigning would be a politically judicious or correct thing for the minister to do.
In my thinking, the minister’s transgressions are a political problem and should be decided on that basis. In this context, the question is not whether the minister is guilty in legal terms. Rather it is whether politically Mubarak can still function effectively in president Mills’ government to implement its goals, including rooting out corruption, ensuring probity, transparency and accountability in government. That is the crux of the matter.
Considering the circumstances of the case, I have serious doubts that Mubarak can ever again perform his functions effectively in his present or any other ministry. He will always carry the baggage of a man incapable of sound judgement; a man with questionable transparency, probity and accountability record. Moreover, by his lack of good judgement and indiscretions the minister has become a political liability to the NDC government, and a political fodder for the opposition. The NPP have already fired the first salvo in what could become a long political war of attrition, describing the president’s inquiry as nothing but a white wash. If the president retains the minister in government, he risks NPP jibe that he lacks the will to go after corruption in his government. These are some of the consequences that the president cannot afford to ignore. In the interest of Ghana, the president’s own credibility and the NDC government, the president should dismiss the minister now. There is a real danger, however, that the longer the president delays the decision to sack the minister, the more difficult it will be for him later.
The second development I mentioned at the beginning of this piece concerns the reported sale by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to some NDC government officials of tractors that the Kufour government had imported for farmers. Some of those machines were reportedly sold below cost price. Both the Majority Leader in Parliament, Mr. Bagbin, and the presidential spokesman, Mr. Ayariga, admitted buying some of those tractors but explained that they had done so with the aim of assisting farmers in their constituencies.
This argument is not entirely persuasive. It sounds like a rationalization. I must admit that I have no information about the circumstances of the particular farmers of concern of those two gentlemen. But it seems to me that if those two gentlemen cared that deeply about helping the poor farmers to till better and to improve their yield they could have gone about it differently. They would have been more helpful to them, especially in the long run, by assisting them to form associations, raise the capital and buy the tractors for themselves. That approach would have removed any perception that they were out to grab state property just like some members of the Kufour Administration had done. As it is, the suggestion that they used their privileged position mainly to benefit themselves at the expense of the less privileged farmers would be hard to defend.
These are the sorts of things that easily create public perception that the NDC is no better than the NPP when it comes to grabbing state property. I am painfully reminded of one of the points former president Rawlings made in his press release marking the first 100 days of Mills presidency, which he repeated in subsequent Kumasi speech on democracy in April. On both occasions, Rawlings stressed the need for members of the new administration to steer clear of corruption and arrogance lest “ordinary folks” who voted NDC to power perceive them as no different from the NPP. I thought at the time that Rawlings was being premature in his admonition. Now, I am afraid I have to admit that he was damn right.
NDC ministers, other government officials, and MPs are not school children. Nor is the president the stern headmaster, with a whip behind his back ready to crack it. Nonetheless, the president has the right to expect, indeed, the responsibility to ensure that each and every appointee of the team he has assembled to assist him to implement his development agenda, including bringing accountability, probity, transparency back to the centre of government, perform and conform to the highest standards of public service. (There may arise cases where the private life of a government official becomes a matter of public concern.) Therefore, the president needs to show in no uncertain terms that he is prepared and determined firmly and swiftly to advise appointees who fall below those standards to resign or face the ignominy of dismissal. Unless the president does this, in a case such as Mubarak’s, he risks fostering the perception of indecisiveness and condoning corruption in his government. And it would stick like mud. The Mubarak affair puts president Mills on probation. So it does all NDC MPs.
Cedric Tsuo
