BY: Kalakor Saamour.
Mr. Alan Kyeremanteng has a penchant for drawing sensational headlines. During the NPP presidential primaries, the solid backing he received from President Kuffour, against the better judgment of the majority in NPP that it would sourly divide the party drew many major headlines. Not that these headlines have abated. The NPP continues to suffer the consequences of that misjudgment to this day in the form of perceived factionalism in the party.
Alan’s shocking defeat at the NPP congress also drew big headlines. However, his action that defined and will continue to define him as a politician was his equally shocking and sudden resignation from the NPP. For the vast majority of party members and sympathizers, that sealed his doom as a serious contender for political leadership in the NPP. Such an action, like those before him are not forgiven. One can recall the shocking resignation of Dr. Kwame Safo-Adu, one of the most popular and respected minds to surface in the UP political tradition, who left the Popular Front Party (PFP) to form a new political party named the New Ghana Party. This singular action of a man, who had so much promise for the tradition, sealed his doom. Never again to be trusted with any position of authority and power, he never regained his position of eminence. Then there was the sad case of Mr. Kwame Pianim, a man who had given so much of his time, energy and resources to getting the party into a good starting position. The singular act of his resignation from the NPP has cost him most dearly. Now party faithful and independents who once doffed off their hats at the mention of his name now clearly distance themselves from him. Fact is, members and NPP faithful are extremely unforgiving of people, including its rank and file, who resign from their party. It is always seen as the worst form of treachery and betrayal, not to be countenanced or forgiven.
It is therefore quite surprising that Alan Kyeremanten had not learnt any lesson from the experiences of these two more formidable men. Under the pressures of his post traumatic stress syndrome, Alan Kyeremanten in a fit of depression, anger and frustration, fired off an ill-considered letter of resignation, that once again grabbed the national headlines. The main point in his statement of claim was that, his supporters were being harassed. He therefore felt the urgent need to resign. If this were true, then what happened was a leader, the shepherd of his flock abandoning ship and leaving his flock to the mercy of those he perceived as wolves. Question is, why did Alan the leader of his flock not stay on to fight and protect his followers or why did he not leave with them? Shocking indeed!
This resignation came well after all the loosing presidential aspirants had been embraced by the winner and pledged their loyalties to the newly elected flag bearer. A shocked party took in the blow and treated this resignation as the mother of all treachery and betrayal. The party was counting on a firm display of unity among its leaders to maintain the momentum it had gained from the congress. The moment when his party needed him the most is when he chose to resign and desert. A would-be leader, who could not swallow his wounded pride in order to see his party through a critical time. This is how the NPP now sees Alan Kyeremanten. All his efforts and exertions must be for his personal gain. Otherwise he will rather walk away. It is very clear that the resignation of Alan Kyeremanten, coming at the time it did, disrupted the forward march of the NPP and its campaign. He deflated the energy and momentum the party gained from its December 2007 congress and left it limping to the starting line of the general election.
If the truth be told, this singular act of betrayal wounded the 2008 campaign to the extent that it never recovered its balance and confidence. Even after Alan Kyeremanten announced his “comeback”, things were never the same. Many viewed him as a fifth column who was only pursuing his own rehabilitation for the purposes of a future run, and not to throw everything into winning the election; the same suspicions and criticisms that greeted both Mr. Kwame Safo-Adu and Mr. Kwame Pianim.
Unfortunately, Alan Kyeremanten has not acted in any way to dampen or remove the suspicion and bitter taste he left in the mouths of many.
Right now Alan claims to be back on the block with renewed vigour, chasing a very narrow personal agenda to become flag bearer of the NPP and to lead the party into the 2012 general elections. It is clear no lessons have been learned. Still full of noise and fury.
But Alan Kyeremanten and the Mephistopheles behind his shabby Faust, ought to consider some very real obstacles in his way, which will surely derail all the noisy efforts he has made so far.
First, there is the wounded sentiments of many against his person, nursed bitterly by a vast majority of the NPP elected officials who will cast their votes to select the next flag bearer. They have clearly not forgiven him for the heartache he caused their party. He is not making things easy for himself. Since his so-called return to the party, he has not shown even the slightest sign of remorse or regret. Rather, he conducts himself as if he is the one who has been offended and makes one incessant demand after another. Pride and arrogance have blinded Alan Kyeremanten from seeing and understanding that it is he who owes the NPP an unqualified apology and until that is done, the silent majority of the NPP will reject him outright.
Then there are the constitutional hurdles to clear. In as much as some have put up very fanciful argument and language to pretend that his resignation did not really happen or has been nullified by some strange intervening act, it is very real. When put to the full test of the law, Alan Kyeremanten will clearly find himself on the wrong side of the law.
Here are the facts and the sequence. On April 17, 2008, Alan Kyeremanten submitted his letter of resignation from the NPP to the National Chairman of the party. The news media had a field day with this and carried the news ad nauseam.
Article 3(E) 1 of the NPP Constitution states, “A member shall cease to be a member by declaring his or her intention to cease to be a member and forthwith surrendering his or her membership card.”
A number of issues arise from this article. One is that the resignation of any member of the party is by a mere declaration. In other words, it is a declaratory act. Once Alan Kyeremanten made that declaration on April 17, 2008 he ceased to be a member of the NPP.
A lot of funny arguments have arisen from the application of this clause. Some now argue that Alan’s letter of resignation was not formally accepted and so he is therefore deemed never to have resigned from the NPP. This argument is laughable. The NPP Constitution does not suggest or require that one’s resignation be accepted by a body. One’s resignation becomes immediately effective upon declaration and Alan Kyeremanten’s declaration was to the hearing of the whole nation.
One reason for not requiring a formal acceptance is that joining a political party is a voluntary act. Leaving a political party must also be a voluntary act. You take away the voluntariness away if you require formal acceptance of a resignation. To illustrate this point, let us assume that a member declares his/her resignation from a party and is truly intent on resigning. Let us further assume that nobody acknowledged or accepted the resignation, would the party then hold such a person, contrary to their wishes, as a member of the party? If Alan had no intension whatsoever of re-joining the NPP, would we say that because his resignation had not been formally accepted, the NPP would still count him as a member? It is very strange indeed to posit that for a voluntary association, such as a political party, one’s resignation ought to be accepted before that resignation becomes effective.
A second lie in this argument advanced in an attempt to redeem Alan Kyeremanten from this quagmire is that after he declared his intension to resign, he never surrendered his membership card as required by Article 3(E)1. To those who are pushing this argument, the fact that he did not surrender his card means that he never lost his membership. Really? Read the language of Article 3(E)1 very carefully. It consists of two separate and distinct activities, one subsequent to the other. The two parts or activities are linked with the conjunction “AND”.
The English dictionary defines “and” as follows – in addition to; as a consequence; then, afterwards.
The foregoing means that once a declaration to resign has been made, the membership card must be submitted in addition to, or as a consequence.
The membership card remains the property of the NPP and so why would someone still be in possession of it after resigning? The surrender of the card is the logical CONSEQUENCE of the resignation, which happen previously. To continue to hold on to that card only implies an illegal possession, not membership. I wonder what people will tell a Ghanaian, who renounces his Ghanaian citizenship for another, and then turns around to say he is still a Ghanaian because he did not surrender his Ghanaian passport?
There are also those who argue that because various senior level efforts were made to get Alan to return to the party, we must view his membership status as a status quo ante. That is, there were special arrangements made to effect his return, which nullified the resignation and restored him to a status as if he never resigned at all. This argument is again wishful thinking. Here is why. At the time all these so-called negotiations were going on Alan Kyeremanten’s resignation was already effective. When his so-called “return” was announced, it was an unconditional return and no one can now begin to sneak in any addenda under the cover of darkness or time. In any case, a constitution guides the actions of the NPP. The decisions of such negotiations must by necessity go to the National Council or the National Executive Committee to approve. Short of such a process and approval, this argument dies in its place.
Instructively, Article 3(A)2 has this to say, “Any citizen may join the party by declaration in prescribed form of his or her intension to become a member and to abide by this Constitution.” The operative phrase here is, “BY DECLARATION IN PRESCRIBED FORM”. Here, even though you may declare your intension to become a member of NPP, it is not merely declaratory. It must be in prescribed form, to be effective. Contrast this specific requirement with the requirement for a resignation. The issue here is that for Alan Kyeremanten, his re-admission to the party, to be effective, must mean that he has by “PRESCRIBED FORM” applied for membership. In practical terms, citizens looking to become members of the NPP must pick up a specific form, complete the form with their passport pictures and submit the form for approval. If an applicant receives the required approval, then a membership card is issued.
The question Alan Kyeremanten has to answer and provide proof of is whether upon his vaunted “return” he has applied for membership in “PRESCRIBED FORM”? Let us just assume that one wants to be charitable and grant that he has gone through and met all required conditions for membership after his resignation [this will not be a surprise given that even Dr. Charles Kwabena Wireko Borbbey who resigned from NPP, went out to form his own political party which is still in existence and which has him as head of that party, managed to procure an NPP membership card] the million cedi question that will arise for Alan Kyeremanten is, does he qualify to contest in the presidential primaries of the NPP in 2010?
Let us go back to the NPP Constitution. Article 12(4)I states, “No Member shall be entitled to nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate unless he or she is a known and active member of at least five (5) years”. So there you have it! Under our charitable assumption, Alan in 2010 will have held his membership for two years, three years short of the Constitutional requirement. He must by definition wait out his turn.
Already, some persons who understand the import of the arguments above have started posturing in an inflexible manner. They do not want Alan Kyeremanten to be held to the strict standards and proof of the NPP Constitution, and are threatening to break up the party if the full rigors of the Constitution should be applied to Alan Kyeremanten, suggesting that he is above the law. If Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey is caught in the web of the law, it is alright but if Alan Kyeremanten gets caught in the same web, he must be of such weight or be backed by such weight as to break through the web and not be caught or entangled by it.
This is the new false standard of fairness to which some now want to impose on the NPP. However, the NPP must not be perturbed and bend over backwards to trash it own constitution for the sake of one man’s ambition. The gravity of its long-term consequences will be unbearable. In an analogy of an elderly friend of mine from Abease, a family member wanted to be made family head and was refused. Because of the refusal, he in anger quit the family in a public show. The family did not fall apart. However, as soon as the position of family head became vacant, this same man suddenly appears and demands to be made family head. His question to me was should he be allowed to occupy that position? In his words, that was the insanity the NPP was considering imposing on itself. If our vetting committee should blind itself to all these facts on the ground, then I Kalakor Saamour makes this promise to meet Alan Kyerematen in court.
