“Attacking The President” Implies An Attack On His Appointees –Another View
Being someone who enjoys political debates, I listened attentively as the NDC General Secretary Mr Asiedu Nketiah (General Mosquitoe) explained last night the NDC guidelines on the isssues relating to the forthcoming Congress on Joy-On-Line.
General Mosquitoe very well and was right to the point. The explanation he gave in answer to the question “What do you say about Party Officials endorsing this or that candidate” sounded very exciting. Gen Mosquitoe’s answer was like “It is the President who appoints Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc to run his Agenda, so if there is an attack on the President’s PERFORMANCE (Caps mine), then it reflects on the appointees, hence they come in to defend that”.
This is about it, and not the very direct words used by Gen Mosquitoe, anyway. I am excited so much about this and would like to invite a civil debate on this. Please do not participate in this debate if you are a fan of any of the political leaders or aspirants. I am seriously asking that we look at the meaning through non-partisan lines. A real civil debate is my subject, and it’s like this:
The President appoints, or let us say, nominates
1) The Chief Justice / Justices of the Superior Courts of Judicature
2) Speaker of Parliament
3) Ambassadors
4) Ministers / Deputy Ministers
5) Heads of Public Organizations
6) Heads of the Security Services
7) The Country’s Representative to the United nations
8) Boards of Public Organizations
9) Heads of District Administrations
10) A defined percentage membership mof the Council of State.
11) Several others I may not easily remember at the time of my mail.
Now, example is that the chief Justice then promotes or appoints other magistrates etc.
Ministers of State also run the President’s Agenda through Chief Directors, who then cause the Agenda to radiate through the line, till it gets to the Office Boy/Messenger etc etc.
Again, in a narrower sense, the President appoints Heads of District Assemblies, yet the ordinary people used to throw these appointees out, resulting in re-appointments very often.
Now, based on this analogy, it can easily be concluded that the “President” has his presence, or has his “messenger” in every facet of human endeavour in the Country, and also outside the country, so long as Ghana is concerned.
Based on Gen Mosquitoe’s explanation, one can conclude that since all these persons are APPOINTED by His Excellency the President, then any attack on the “president’s performance” also means an attack on the performance of the OFFICE MESSENGER, who is appointed by the Director-General, who is appointed by the President and so on and so forth.
Infact, this then percolates down to the Village School Master, or Postmaster.
Dear Reader, this is where I invite you on a pure civil debate on this analogy. Does an attack on the “performance” of the President warrant or signify an attack on the appointees?
Welcome to this exciting topic, and have a nice day.
EMIL AKOMA, April 21, 2011
