INNOCENCE OF WOYOME BEFORE LAW BUT CRIMINAL IN EYES OF POLITICAL ACTORS

       In any country where reasonable laws are enacted and made to function and prevail, no one is ever guilty of an alleged crime unless and until duly prosecuted and convicted.  In particular, Article 19(2)[c] of 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) do not hide this fundamental legal principle of ‘presumed innocence’.

Background

     In 2010, Alfred Agbesi Woyome was paid by Finance Ministry of Ghana a consent judgment amount totaling up to GhȻ51, 283480.58.  The consent and terms of settlement was that which was duly reached in a court of Ghana.  Upon audit report, public outcry and political maneuverings on revelations thereof, then President John Evans Atta Mills (Prof) ordered for an investigation which     Economic and Organized Crimes Office (EOCO) took up, investigated and produced a report.

     Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome is a businessman who used to be engaged in variety of business activities including what was noted to be ‘financial engineering’. He was said to have paid monies to NPP at one point and to NDC at another. He is, however, controversially labeled in some mischievous quarters of the media as ‘NDC financier or bankroller’.

Damning EOCO report

      EOCO report was damning on four main grounds: Presidential authority appeared to have been undermined since Professor Mills was said to have instructed finance ministry and attorney general to stop payment but to no avail. The second ground is that attorney general at least lackadaisically tried to stop the payment through the Court but the Court appeared to have denied the request thereof. Thirdly, the Court had asked for part payment of the money to Woyome pending other settlements. But apparently flagrant instructions from attorney general made Finance Ministry to have incautiously paid all the GhȻ51.283million.  

     The fourth ground is that, the former administration under President John Agyekum Kufuor  of NPP may have had unnecessarily introduced Woyome to CAN 2008 financial engineering processes who may have leveraged governmental prefecture to gain more recognition and favor with Waterville/Vamed. In this connection, procurement processes appeared to have been recklessly terminated at the expense of Vamed/Waterville. The subsequent memorandum of understanding reached with Vamed/Waterville and authorization thereof to go to site which was complied with may have formed the basis for Woyome to dare into the political maneuvering space of the succeeding government led by Prof Mills of NDC.

    While others discredited EOCO’s report and labeled it as face-saving measure, without any alternative matching report of such caliber, majority of people (especially those who had the opportunity to read it) regarded the report as credible enough to draw a reasonable conclusion on what had transpired. I was one of those who gave the report benefit of the doubt and was anxious to see how any court processes will unveil the reasonable truth.

     To my agitated mind, it appeared that there was an uncharitable collusion between the Court where the consent judgment was reached on one hand and Attorney General Ministry, Finance Ministry and Woyome on the other. As the report intimated, I was far from convinced that the issue was about one ‘criminal Woyome’ (as peddled around) outsmarting all actors in three government institutions in order to dupe the State of huge sums. I cautiously saw Woyome trying to fight for his legitimate business rights but unduly took advantage of a weak and malleable system for his private gain ever more than deserved.

Attorney general in court

    The attorney general was back in court praying the court to order Woyome to refund the GhȻ51.2million which, they deemed, had been ‘mistakenly’ doled out to him. On the other hand, the attorney general was also seeking the court to have Woyome imprisoned for having ‘defrauded the State by false pretence and caused financial loss to the State’. Under the contentiously convoluted circumstance, neither ‘mistake payment’ nor ‘defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state’ was ever expected to be an easy- walk-through for the attorney general in court, even with a best legal foot forward.  

     In a bizarre discretion of attorney general, however, Woyome was the only one strongly put forward for trial - the two or so other people that were put on trial were not really the people at the centre of the controversy. The attorney general, of course, has had its basis for ignoring the so-called central people. Perhaps, the attorney general did not have enough evidence on people like Mrs. Betty Mould Iddrisu, Mr. Paul Asimenu and Mr. Nerquaye-Tetteh. Or that their legal conviction was that Woyome deceived all of them.  We are yet to be told exactly why all of that happened. Sadly, it appears the prosecutors owe the public no such explanation.

     I reemphasize here my ambivalence about Woyome’s ability to have outwitted all the technical men – just like that.  It was therefore no wonder that attorney general could sustain only the trial of Woyome, at least for a while.

Court judgements

      The civil court case to retrieve the money from Woyome appeared to have been swallowed by 29/07/2014 judgement of Supreme Court of Ghana in favour of a review suit (citizen action under articles 2 and 3, 1992 constitution) by Mr. Martin Amidu.  The court agreed with Martin that the said contract which Woyome associated himself with (i.e. Vamed/Waterville) was invalid and unconstitutional because under article 181(5), international agreements such as that must have been approved by the Parliament of Ghana, which was not done. The court made consequential order that Woyome should refund the GhȻ51.2million to the State.

     It nonetheless would have been very interestingly instructive to see what outcome the earlier action by attorney general in the Commercial Court to retrieve the money would have yielded if the Supreme Court had not intervened through Martin. That perhaps would have been more decisive and fairer under the circumstances.

      However, on March 12th 2015, the High Court found Woyome not guilty of the criminal charge of ‘defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state’ and thus went on to acquit and discharge him. One of the shocking reasons advanced by presiding judge Justice John Adjet Nassam was that not only the prosecutors could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt to convince him but also the prosecution was ‘shoddy’, particularly citing unavailability of crucial witnesses or perceived conspirators. Apparently, ‘shoddy’ reason adduced could simply imply that the judge was overreaching  his remit perhaps merely to appease the rage of the public  or that he may have been angered by what he may have seen as unacceptable manner in which the prosecutors handled the case.

      Vehemently disagreeing and visibly angered by the release of Woyome and description of poor prosecutor conduct, the attorney general quickly filed appeal against Adjet Nassam’s ruling. On 10th March 2016 however, the appeal court upheld the decision of Adjet Nassam and thus acquitted and discharged Woyome on the crime of ‘defrauding the State by false pretence and causing financial loss to the State’. Woyome appeared to have become a free man albeit with Supreme Court’s Constitutional interpretation order to refund the GhȻ51.2million still hanging on his neck.

Innocent before the law

         Save the Supreme Court order  which did not even touch on innocence or otherwise of Woyome or those who did not get Woyome’s  contract (if it ever existed)  approved by Parliament, Woyome, in the case of GhȻ51.2million paid to him for financial engineering, was not a criminal and is still not a criminal in the eyes of the law.

       This is regardless of how some people including myself would have wished the prosecutors should have gone about the prosecution. It does not also matter how people may suspect the integrity of the judicial process including conduct of officers of court and judges.

      The fact is that if Woyome had been convicted as would have wished by some people, such people may not have raised any eyebrows even if Woyome had been unfairly convicted. The need to respect the verdict of the law no matter the dissatisfaction of either party is, therefore, instructively sacrosanct.

Criminal in eyes of political actors

     It is understandable that political actors wanting to score political points almost succeeded in convicting Woyome in court of public opinion as ‘a criminal’. This is because even though there were other alleged infractions in the same audit report where Woyome was initially raised, it was Woyome’s case which could be conveniently used to tag NDC as corrupt.

      However, although political capital was hardly fetched with it and consequent verdict of the court that Woyome was not a criminal after all, some political actors like former President J J Rawlings ‘of NDC’ and Nana Akomea of NPP were recently reported in the media as continuing to taint Woyome with a criminal brush in a vulnerable posture suggesting that the government did not do a good job.

      But that the prosecution did not do a good job in the eyes of some people cannot, by any means, make someone vindicated by a court still regarded as a criminal. If we were to take this stance, then I dare say that there would not be any prosecution that would be accepted as good enough by any losing party. If this posture were to be elevated, it would dangerously undermine people’s confidence not just in prosecution but also in adjudication. After all, no matter the shoddiness that shrouded the prosecution and verdict in Adjet Nassam’s Court, all the appeal court judges could not have unanimously upheld the release of Woyome by the lower court if they found something terribly wrong.

Bottom-line

      I personally have had a hard time trying to unpack issues that point to Woyome being a criminal or not. I am not convinced that Woyome’s Saga is not one of daily politically tainted projects which some politicians use to enrich themselves.  These cases are well planned and shrouded in secrecy more often beyond the grasp of the law.

      To my mind, some of the politicians that have been parading themselves as latter day saints and making Woyome’s case any different than their blemished selves not forgetting the over GhȻ 200,000,000 wasted in 2014 auditor’s report may have no integrity and moral right, to start with. They must admit the universal culpability of political and civil classes from both NDC and NPP and from many MMDA’s across the country.

      That said, Woyome must refund the GhȻ51.2million as promised the Supreme Court as long as the order stands. His right to proceed to international court to challenge the consequential order of Supreme Court is particularly protected by article 2 of ICCPR and article 40 of 1992 constitution of Ghana. But this is likely to further drag his name into the mud even if he emerges winner thereof.  At the moment, regardless of my misgivings, Woyome is not a criminal before the law and he is a free man.

    He must be minded to advise his caliber and pretentious political actors who are currently despising him but are daily sneaking and lurking around corridors of power to milk the State that it is high time they took ordinary Ghanaians very seriously, even before the law. 

Legally Sustainable Remedy to Cattle Menace of Fulani Herdsmen in Ghana

         The legal adage which posits that law has the capacity to positively regulate the conduct of people anywhere anytime has never ceased to fascinate me.  One reason behind this attraction is how ambitious that proposition looks - sometimes almost daring the intrigues of people in a dreamland. Another reason for this fascination is the fact that law, in action, has proven to do a lot of positive things about human behavior that otherwise would have gone so awry and injurious to public interest. 

        Through exploitation of the potency of law, the old age menace caused by the activities of Fulani herdsmen in Ghana can be sustainably addressed. That course of action is, indeed, within the realm of reasonable possibilities.

How the menace evolved

        Before nomadic Fulani herdsmen found their way into the shores of Ghana, many years ago, some Ghanaians reared cattle primarily as a source of livelihood.  Cattle rearing amongst the indigenes were particularly predominant in the northern belt of the country.  At this point in time, the cattle used to sparingly destroy crops. This occasionally generated conflicts between farmers and indigenous cattle owners.

          There was always a way of amicably resolving such conflicts whenever they occurred.  At this juncture, even though conflicts still occasionally arose between farmers and Fulani cattle herdsmen (particularly the nomadic), there still existed harmony amongst the people. This was because there was a more disciplined way of avoiding confrontation and addressing problems when they occurred. This was often done through the forthrightness of traditional authority and commitment by cattle owners not to allow their cattle to invade farms that had been earlier invaded.

         However, as human population grew, more nomadic Fulani herdsmen increased, cattle numbers increased and land became scarce or competitive (which was fostered by weather variability’s negative effects on grazing lands), the structures that had ensured  harmony amongst competing economic forces were found wanting. Increasingly, it became clearer that time-tested legal and socioeconomic structures were urgently needed to effectively counteract the situation.

       Apparently, the authority of chiefs and other elders was heavily undermined, to this extent. Various District Assemblies where the activities of the Fulani herdsmen took place came out with by-laws to regulate such activities. But these were also flagrantly submerged by combined forces of institutional weaknesses of assemblies and sheer overwhelming nature of the menace at hand. This was evidenced by frequent clashes that kept occurring between farmers/indigenes and Fulani herdsmen/settlers.   

              The situation could not have been more described as a menace. It became worst to the extent that the narrative was generally in favor of ‘them’ against ‘us’. Thus, instead of recalcitrant and errant Fulani herdsmen against farmers/communities, it was rather widely deemed as Fulanis against Ghanaians/indigene residents. Almost a near xenophobia situation creeping into Ghanaian society, it was as if some Fulanis were not Ghanaians or that the destructive activities perpetuated by some Fulani herdsmen were done and shared by all Fulanis in Ghana, unfortunately.

           In recent times and even more recently in the first quarter of 2016, the menace has become more particularly awry and nauseating.  In  Agogo area of Ashanti region, in particular and other areas of the country in general, some of the Fulani herdsmen have allowed their cattle to be on unprecedented rampage destroying crops here and there and adversely affecting livelihoods thereof.

           The worst part of it is that because the systems put in place, including ‘operation cow Leg’ and local legal instruments, did not live up to expectation, the disgruntled innocent farmers got killed anyhow by criminal elements of the Fulani herdsmen whenever the farmers complained and reacted to the destruction brought onto their farmlands. This also came along with reprisal attacks where some innocent Fulanis may have been killed.

Ranching legislation

         To this day, hundreds have lost their lives to this menace, as the unfortunate situation persists and worsens. If left unchecked or continued to be checked lackadaisically with lack of thoroughness, coherence and decisiveness, many more innocent Ghanaians and foreign herdsmen are bound to lose their lives to the menace.

        In a democratic and peaceful country, it is very unacceptable to continue to leave indigenous Ghanaians and Fulani herdsmen to their own fate - as has largely been so far decorated with window-dressing and kneejerk reactions by authorities concerned. That is why there is more than needed a legally sustainable remedy championed by commitment and action to the course of lasting order and justice.

        It first brings into broader focus why there is the urgent need to reconsider the free-range manner in which livestock including cattle, sheep and goat are reared by most people in the country including both Fulanis and Indigenes.  To this, I propose the following - that a national legislation on rearing of cattle in particular and other ruminants should be fashioned out, enacted and promulgated with immediate effect. Core principles that should guide this legislation will include:

(i)                 Anyone owning, rearing or intending to rear cattle or such ruminants in Ghana must have ranch (es) or very restricted area(s) within which the animals can be kept and fed, much so that no such animals under the possession of any person or group of people can have the freedom to move freely outside the restricted borders to invade, tamper with and or destroy property of others.

This is mindful of the fact, to some extent, that the right to freedom of movement by these animals may be necessarily violated. Under the circumstance, this is the best especially so when the ranching legal framework should provide the most legally appropriate way the animals will be handled in the restricted space.

(ii)               Foreign migrants with cattle or such other ruminants while entering Ghana must under no circumstance be allowed into the country without absolute proof that they have the capacity to acquire space to rear and keep their animals in a restricted space. Without this proof and permit thereof, any such foreign animals and their possessors found illegally wandering in Ghana must have the owners immediately repatriated and have their animals seized for use by hospitals, prisons or such other empathic public establishments.  

With respect to foreign animals that have gained legal entry into the country, if they violate the articles of the legislation, the owners should be heavily fined and given a strong warning that three of such violations will result in heavy fines each with their outright repatriation and seizure of their animals on the last count.  

In the case of the indigenes or Ghanaians for that matter, first violation will result in heavy fine while three subsequent violations thereafter will result in heavy fines each with the last one attracting outright seizure of the animals.

This proposition is mindful of ECOWAS protocols on free movement of ‘persons, establishment and residence’ (Ch.IV). It also gives recognition to the 1992 constitution which protects the migration rights of foreigners under its own principles and the international laws it binds Ghana to respect and enforce.

The protocols or any international legal instruments by no means deposit any meaning which suggests that the right to free movement of goods, people and services should be recklessly achieved. If that were the case, then the protocols and such international legal instruments may have unreasonably outlived its purpose and far behind the reality of the times.  

(iii)             Strict licensing and monitoring mechanisms will be activated to ensure compliance with the tenets and components of the legislation. 

(iv)              The ministry of food and agriculture, in collaboration with district assemblies under local government ministry, ministry of justice and attorney general, ministry of interior, ministry of defence, Members of Parliament, Chiefs and opinion leaders, should be the implementing agency under the auspices of a commission.

(v)                By-laws of district assemblies on ranching should be developed and or strengthened to detail, protect and enhance the implementation of any legislation on ranching

Bottom-line

        Formulation, Passage and implementation of ranching law in Ghana are long overdue. The discussions on ranching legislation which started in 2012 have been in the pipeline for too long. The plight and voices of ordinary communities and farmers, particularly the Peasant Farmers Association, on expediting ranching law in Ghana must be respectively alleviated and heard forthwith.

       Burkina Faso, Cameroon and other countries in the sub-region have significantly curbed the menace of herdsmen through ranching. There is no excuse why Ghana must not act decisively now - If for nothing at all but at least to ensure harmony, peace and tranquility between farmers/local communities and cattle/animal owners or caretakers. It is important that the foregoing principles and guidelines are incorporated in the ranching law in order to secure a sustainable remedy to the menace of herdsmen in Ghana.

       In the meantime, the police and military should constantly have their boots and ears on the ground and take lawfully drastic actions against anyone who is found to disturb the peace of local communities with their cattle or such other livestock.