Crisis of international legal orders in embattled Ukraine

It will be revealing to see how illegalities compete to occupy legal space in international geopolitical legal order in respect of the crisis in Ukraine.  The following observations do present competing perspectives.

First, the reckless rioting that sought to remove the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED President of Ukraine, Mr Viktor Yanukovych, was ILLEGAL. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Ukraine but has to be expressed according to law and Ukraine Constitution (Art 69; Art 71). Indeed, freedom of expression is equally embedded in the International Bill of Human Rights and considered as ‘bedrock of democracy’. Those such as EU and USA elements that were encouraging the rioters to disturb the peace of Ukraine were apparently however beyond the frontiers of democratic liberties and appeared to have been abetting crime and illegality.

 Second, President of Ukraine can only be removed from office by Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine only through IMPEACHMENT which has to engage the certification of the constitutional and supreme courts of Ukraine (Art 111). The hurried and obscured manner in which President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine was removed from office where a meretricious voting was effected to impeach and elect the ‘acting president’ was undeniably ILLEGAL. The constitution of Ukraine and international fair-play appeared to have been disregarded by members of the Verkhovna Rada who may have only acted on the grounds of protecting their remaining stay in power and or to please the largely reckless rioters who succeeded in causing chaotic situation in Ukraine. 

Third, Russian occupation of the Crimea region violates the letter and spirit of the UN Charter (Article 2 [1, 4, 7], in particular) and therefore amounts to ILLEGALITY with lack of good faith to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Even though the invasion of Russia is currently not remitting actions that endanger the lives of the people in the autonomous Crimea region, the nature of the occupation is still regarded as ‘an act of aggression’ by international legal imperatives.

Fourth, the referendum announced by the Crimea authorities expected to take place by the 15th or 16th of March 2014 thereabout can hardly be said to be legal because even though the local Crimea parliament has the ‘competence’ to hold local referendum as stipulated by article 138 (2) of the Ukraine Constitution. However, in respect of altering territorial borders of Ukraine, an ALL-UKRAINIAN REFERENDUM is only that which is tenable but which can only be  'designated' by Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine or the elected President (Art 73) but not the local Crimea parliament.  

IRONICALLY and sadly enough though,  all actors in the legal aberrations find comfort in churning out utter pretense in an unguarded support for their selfish geopolitical, military and economic interests without sincere regard to the real aspirations of the quiet and decent majority of Ukrainians, whose future appears to be hijacked by unreasonable uncertainty. Beyond Ukrainians however, the world's peaceful co-existence could severely be threatened. 

All these players parading themselves as rightful owners of the legal existence and aspirations of Ukraine ought to come to terms with reality of mutual purpose and abandon their selfish interests, CONDEMN any acts of lawless rioting, dissolve the illegal government currently in place, form transitional government of national unity and help organize national presidential elections by the May 2014 schedule. The one that happens to emerge as President in the peaceful competitive elections could then and right then decide whether to have closer ties with EU, USA or Russia or all. At that point, the reckless rioting that made Mr Viktor to run for safety would have to be unreservedly condemned and resisted by all well-meaning patriots of democratic principles. 

Mr Viktor Yanukovych may have been allegedly corrupt, coward and weak but he appeared to have shown good sense and respect for humanity by running away for cover but not entrenching himself in power to continue to witness the horrendous massacres that just started under his blind watch after several weeks of uncontrolled rioting. Some other leaders may not tolerate such public show of impudence and disrespect for the legal order of the country and so would want to be brave and too extreme at the expense of innocent lives - Such are the more criminals, nonetheless. 

The escape route which should not escape our attention here is ALWAYS TO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC, NO MATTER HOW DISSATISFIED OR DISGRUNTLED THEY ARE AT ANY POINT IN THE FRANCHISE CHAIN, TO HOLD THEIR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE ONLY THROUGH TRUE DEMOCRATIC MEANS BUT NOT THROUGH PSEUDO-DEMOCRATIC ROADSHOWS AND AMBIVALENT DISPLAY OF BRAVADO BY INTERNATIONAL POWER PLAYERS.

Legality of Election Validity in the Boardroom of a Philosopher in 2013 Ghana

The 2013 presidential petition hearing in the Supreme Court of Ghana, following a petition lodged against the Electoral Commission of Ghana’s declaration of Mr John Dramani Mahama as validly elected president with 50.70% of total valid votes cast in the 7/8^th December 2012 general elections, has indeed attracted huge attention of people from both far and near, including legal experts and philosophers. The contention of the petitioners and the adjudication thereof are in the spirit and backing of article 64(1 to 3) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana which gives the petitioners the right to challenge the validity of presidential elections and equally empowers the Supreme Court not only to adjudicate but also to formulate appropriate adjudication rules such as those found in Constitutional Instrument (CI) 74, 2012.

Validity is one of the concepts that may be seen from different perspectives. But it is certainly not without parameters. It may be understood in philosophy as a logical arrangement of argument or contention which posits that the conclusions and premises of any reasoning must necessarily follow or be consistent with each other in truth or falsity wherever it might be seen to be interpreted (Socrates, Aristotle).

For example, in deductive reasoning, if it is said that: ‘All animals are cats – The laptop computer is an animal - Therefore, the laptop computer is a cat’; it will be quick for anyone anywhere to raise an unequivocal objection that all the three statements or propositions at issue are false. The reason obviously is that, not all animals are cats – laptop computer cannot also be an animal – laptop computer cannot be a cat either.

Another circumstantial instance may be contended that: ‘All irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices make elections invalid – The 2012 elections in Ghana had irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices – Therefore, the 2012 elections in Ghana were invalid’. This argument could also easily be labeled as false and dismissed even though its second premise might have appeared to be true.

Ironically however, in both arguments there seems to be an inherent logical form that proves beyond every sense of flow that, indeed, the contentions are after-all valid. This means that the truthfulness or otherwise of an argument is not necessarily what makes an argument valid but the ‘logical form’. That is, validity is obtained in so far as the premises logically support a reason to believe the conclusions. It does not matter the falsity or truthfulness of the propositions – what matters is the logical form and consistency of the truthfulness or falsity. Nevertheless, even though such reasoning may be valid, it cannot be said to be sound.

Sound arguments not only must have logical form but also must have true propositions in its premises and conclusion. In determining reality of circumstances, philosophers are more interested in the soundness of arguments put forward in support of claims made. Philosophers are well-grounded in philosophy or critical thinking and so use structured viewpoints to seek for truth or reality of a phenomenon or claims thereof.

In the field of law, however, validity may be understood as not just the logical flow or form of the argument but also the veracity or truthfulness of the reasoning with attention to both internal and external factors that may have effects on the way the propositions are made. Validity of propositions in this case ought to be determined within a given legal framework and perhaps socio-political and moral imperatives. Thus in determining validity in law, veracity and soundness of reasoning are not considered in isolation but are situated in the context of implicit and explicit guidelines or standards which the society gives recognition or credence to through its legal, political and moral institutions, amongst others.

This implies that validity of an argument on a given issue might vary from one jurisdiction to the other depending upon the frameworks that guide human activities and processes. Such variations may be on both the form and substance. There is nonetheless a huge amount of consensus on the substance and form of issues with international scope which international legal architecture regulates, especially on some fundamental human rights such as right to freedom of expression, democratic and political choices including elections of political leaders, as happened in Ghana during the 2012 December elections.

For example, in many democratic nations where rule of law and freedom of expression predominate, validity of elections is determined by free, fair and transparent processes where each candidate has an equitable chance of being elected by eligible voters who also must be given the political space to exercise their franchise without intimidation or victimization or other hindrances. The legal and socio-political framework to administer and enforce those, may still differ from country to country and determination of validity thereof will largely depend on that country’s legal, social and political frameworks, of course with hindsight of international legal experience and standards.

The legal framework that principally guided the conduct and remedies for the 2012 general elections of Ghana principally constituted the constitution of Ghana (primarily articles 49, 50, 51, 52; particularly articles 42, 63,64, 65 ) and (CI.75, and CI.74)2012, as well as ‘2012 manual on election adjudication, 2^nd edition’ and other legal and social imperatives.  In considering validity of the 2012 presidential elections, it is therefore very important to have a holistic and strategic view of all the parameters that hold a proof of some level of validity in elections across the world but with reasonable consideration of domestic laws such as those mentioned immediately beforehand. Thus, ‘malpractices, irregularities and statutory violations’ alleged to have occurred in the election of President John Mahama, for example, will have to be subjected to the highest standard of proof of veracity and magnitude of claims on one hand the legal and mathematical effects on the other.

Perhaps a careful balancing walk through strings of technicalities of the philosophical and legal conceptualizations could be very useful and undoubtedly appealing.  It may not still be enough to perfection but it should have been realized that philosophical narratives ought to be significantly featured in legal analyses albeit with some transmutations to reflect specific legal imperatives and moral reasoning – whether categorical moral reasoning interested in duties and rights or consequential moral reasoning interested in utility or best outcomes.

In closely observing the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings of the presidential petition in 2013 Ghana, a philosopher with the hindsight of the legal imperatives could therefore be attracted to make these insightful but laconic propositions:

Credible elections should possess basic validity if it is able to secure voter legitimacy involving identification of eligible voters; vote integrity constituting security of ballot, competence of voter, and accuracy of single tally of votes whereby each ballot is stamped or marked, clearly voted and counted; as well as level of accuracy of agreed result as openly counted and declared. Very credible elections should have non-coercible validity if it possesses elements of basic validity together with voter preference which constitutes absence of seduction to vote preferred candidate; and lack of constraint on voter integrity in which the voter should not be coerced to vote. Highly credible elections are characterized by non-deniable validity which integrates non-coercible validity with non-deniability of tally of results by candidates or their representatives and non-deniability of legitimacy of the results obtained by each candidate and the winning candidate thereof.

Simply put, non-deniable validity incorporates basic validity and non-coercible validity which altogether posits that elections are highly credible in validity if the process was free, fair and transparent whereby each eligible voter was openly identified, freely allowed to vote preferred candidate, votes properly counted, tallied and results openly declared in which candidates or representatives of candidates certified and accepted the results and winner at the polling station thereof. This is true for three main reasons: firstly, it would have satisfied most of, if not all, the legal and social imperatives that provided the framework for the elections; secondly, it would have met the standards of international legal jurisprudence on valid elections;

 Thirdly, it is consistent with the imperative deductive logic which essays that: Every country’s election is valid if its process and outcome was free, fair and transparent, even with some insignificant errors - Ghana’s 2012 elections were free, fair and transparent but with some insignificant errors - Therefore, Ghana’s 2012 elections were valid.  Perhaps, this suppositional hazard may attempt to attract some vibrations of contempt of court. But nay, it shall not be contemptuous for two reasons; first, it is an informed academic opinion which merely attempts to put legal philosophy in perspective; second, it shall not in any way prejudice the outcome or reasoning of the eminent Supreme Court Justices.

It is sufficiently reasonable to then conclude by saying that validity of the 2012 presidential elections can only be interpreted and determined by the Supreme Court of Ghana (1992 Constitution - Articles 64.2; 130.1a).  But suffice to reveal that in the categorical and consequential boardroom of the philosopher, logical deliberations attentively try to reconcile with legal imperatives in which rational conclusions reached must comply with the real truth and utmost certainty – the true intentions and preferences of legitimate Ghanaian voters as found in secured ballot boxes.

Contextualizing a critical strategic balance between Kenya’s Supreme Court Judgement and Ghana’s Presidential petition

At least, with their enviable recent management processes of electioneering outcomes and lawsuits, Ghana and Kenya are lately becoming proud examples of democratic and legal maturity in Africa. Despite some apparent challenges with the first-time biometric technology deployed, the processes and outcomes of the 7th – 8th December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections in Ghana in which 275 parliamentarians and President John Dramani Mahama got duly elected were, indeed, exemplary.

Equally so were the processes and outcomes in which Uhuru Kenyatta, governors and legislators were duly elected in the March 4th 2013 presidential, municipal and legislative polls in spite of some challenges with electronic transmission of results and so on.

In both countries freeness, fairness, transparency and credibility appeared to have firmly crowned their elections with tremendous admiration and satisfaction from most local and international observers. Indeed in Ghana, the AU/ECOWAS elections’ observer team and Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO), radio and TV stations and others verily described the process and outcome of the 2012 elections as historic, free, fair, transparent and credible. Similar credible verdict by both local and international observers was also reached in the 2013 Kenya’s elections.

Nevertheless, as could be expected from any election, not all stakeholders were quite satisfied with the processes and outcomes. The New Patriotic Party (NPP)’s 2012 Presidential Candidate, Nana Akuffo-Addo, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia (running mate) and Jake Obtsebi Lamptey (National Chairman, NPP) did, for example, petition the Supreme Court of Ghana against the Electoral Commission (EC)’s 9th December 2012 declaration of National Democratic Congress (NDC)’s John Dramani Mahama as winner and validly elected President with 50.70% over NPP’s Nana Akuffo-Addo’s 47.74% of total valid votes cast in the presidential elections. 

The petitioners raised issues grounded on alleged ‘wide spread irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations in 11,916 polling stations’ (filed on 7/2/13 and as  amended from earlier 4,709 polling stations filed on 28/12/12) out of the total 26,002 polling stations, asking President John Dramani Mahama, EC and NDC to respond and praying the Supreme Court to nullify all the presidential results from the affected polling stations, declare Nana Akuffo-Addo as Winner or legitimately elected and issue any consequential orders therein. Interlocutory submissions by the petitioners and respondents dragged the hearing of the main petition until the 2nd of March 2013 when the Supreme Court of Ghana directed the substantive hearing to begin on the 16th of April 2013 – four clear months after elections and subsequent declaration of the Winner. 

The petitioners therein appeared not to be very clear on the magnitude and nature of their dissatisfaction and complaint thereof before proceeding to the court. As it stands, it is fairly impossible to prognosticate when the Supreme Court of Ghana will reach any final judgement given the convoluted nature of submissions, lack of time table for proceedings and inadequate cooperation between petitioners and respondents.

The exclusive dissatisfaction with the NPP appeared to have been replicated in Kenya whereby CORD’s 2013 Presidential candidate, Raila Odinga, African centre for open governance (Africog) and others also petitioned the Kenya’s Supreme Court against the 2013 electoral process and the subsequent 9th March 2013 declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta by the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as validly elected President with 50.07% over Raila Odinga’s 43.28% of total valid votes cast on 4th March 2013. 

The petitioners therein complained of irregularities and statutory violations in almost all the 33,400 polling stations against which they implicated the IEBC, Uhuru Kenyatta and others. And, therefore, prayed the Supreme Court of Kenya to nullity the whole Presidential elections, give any consequential orders and reorder for a re-election or run-off.  Even though there were interlocutory matters thereafter declaration of results, right from the beginning of the litigation, the petitioners were quite clear in their minds what they were complaining about and requesting for, albeit only tried to chase a wild goose.

In less than three weeks after the 9th declaration, however, the Supreme Court of Kenya elaborately and laboriously scrutinized and heard all submissions and pleadings but came out with a decisive unanimous judgement on 30th of March 2013 that the 2013 presidential elections were “free, transparent and credible,…in compliance with the constitution and the law" . This was obviously to the disappointment of some people but for the admiration of all. Indeed, any objective observer who happened to have followed the proceedings in court would have attested to the fairness of the hearing which was additionally highlighted by resplendent display of rich legal knowledge from lawyers for both petitioners and respondents. They acquitted themselves quite well. I personally admired their impressive sense of appreciation and understanding of comparative and constitutional laws. 

Indeed, the Chief Justice of Kenya and president of the 6-member panel of judges sitting, Dr Willy Mutunga, and the other judges were beaming with spectra of praises for all the lawyers therein. There was a meticulous and expeditious trial. Justice was neither delayed nor denied. Justice appeared rushed guided by the constitution but still not denied. Thus when the judgement was reached, the constitution of Kenya and the law appeared to have won the day. Uhuru Kenyatta was cleared to be sworn in, later this April, as ‘validly elected President of Kenya’ together with his deputy president Mr Ruto.

This was not without apparent disappointment for Raila Odinga – perhaps not in the constitution, justices or lawyers but in the hope of getting a favourable judgement, per slim chance, he all too well knew about. With utmost maturity, he nonetheless, respected and accepted the Supreme Court’s holdings and vowed to continue to pursue peaceful means whilst wishing Uhuru Kenyatta (President-elect) well and urging his supporters to avoid violence. Kenya has since remained calm after few initial reactionary skirmishes.

With the terrible reminder of the 2007 deadlocked elections that claimed over 1,200 lives, after the 2013 elections, all eyes were now on the Supreme Court to adjudicate and uphold the electoral integrity of Kenya. Happily, the Supreme Court of Kenya did live up to expectation by not only making the hearing process telecasted live but also ensuring fairness and credibility as per the dictates of the Constitution of Kenya, electoral regulations and applicable principles  of law. The speedy nature of proceedings was dictated by article 140 (1, 2) of the constitution which gives a limited space of not more than three weeks to file, hear and judge presidential election petitions. The non-tolerance for technicality to be used to delay and avoid substantive justice was also sanctioned by article 159(2) of the constitution. 

The recent judicial experience with the presidential petition in Kenya obviously has some enormous obvious attraction for the on-going Ghana’s presidential election petition. Clearly though, Ghana and Kenya have different legal imperatives and jurisprudence. It may therefore not be too appropriate to expect the Supreme Court of Ghana to adopt the same procedures which were applied by the Supreme Court of Kenya. But in all sincerity, the legal principles of equity, fairness, transparency, expeditiousness and credibility that informed Kenya’s Supreme Court hearing processes can, and indeed must be applied by the Supreme Court of Ghana in mutatis mutandis. 

For example, article 64 (1) Of the constitution of Ghana gives any citizen of Ghana the right to contest the validity of presidential elections within 21 days after declaration of results by EC and also does procure a right for the candidate declared as president-elect by EC to be sworn in subsequently by the Chief Justice while remaining as valid president until the holdings of the Supreme court prove otherwise (article 64 (2)). The 2012 Elections Manual and C.I.74 (inspired by article 64 (3)) together with the spirit and letter of the constitution and applicable principles of law require fair, transparent, credible and expeditious trial. These are not too different from those provided by the constitution, election regulation manual and other applicable laws of Kenya. 

The main difference, one must add, is that while the constitution of Kenya is quite clear about how long presidential election petition should be filed, heard and judged, that of Ghana is not quite specific on the duration. But of course by virtue of expeditiousness, C.I 74 (section 69c.5) for example does make court proceedings to be undertaken ‘daily including Sundays, Saturdays and public holidays’ just so that justice can be dispensed speedily. The inherent lacuna in no maximum time allowed, nonetheless, make discretions of judges to unnecessarily succumb to pressures from litigants to submit interlocutory matters or digest all available remedies likely make unnecessary adjournments to prolong the case too probable. 

This is where the Supreme Court Judges must be able to rather use their discretion to strike a careful balance between expeditiousness and substantial justice in recognition of the rights of litigants. Also, Ghana’s Supreme Court must equally resolve to broadcast the court proceedings live on radio and TV. This will not only ensure transparency and openness but it will also form a nucleus around which legal education and public confidence could be hugely enhanced. I do believe that it is in the interest of the integrity of the Supreme Court represented by the eminent justices and that of the litigants as well as the general public to see to the fair, transparent, credible and quick decision on the NPP’s petition whose claims are, without malice and prejudice or contempt, nothing more than frivolity and wild goose chase which will, nonetheless, somewhat enrich the electoral jurisprudence of Ghana.

There is therefore the need for the Supreme Court of Ghana to show high level of legal integrity and keep a careful strategic equilibrium between the Kenya’s Supreme Court’s presidential petition judgment and that which will be reached by the eminent justices sitting on the NPP’s 2012 presidential petition who should know existing international comparative legal jurisprudence on elections and who may have been  fortunately living in Ghana when the whole 2012 elections were conducted in an atmosphere of transparency, tranquillity  and peace. 

      

A deep sense of urgency in rebranding entities for a better Ghana: Why not?

 Sometimes, it becomes highly disinteresting to continue to diagnose and proffer transformative remedies for the ailing institutions in a country that promises a better Ghana. This is because almost all too well, it is not that leaders and ordinary Ghanaians of the country do not know how to deal with the problems of the entities therein, rather they are refusing to solve them.  Why those concerned are intentionally refusing to squarely deal with the problems that hinder the forward-march of the country is just bewildering. But then, high degree of greed which manifests itself in multifarious ways and inspired by polygons of forces may well be the immediate suspects to apprehend. These polygons of forces are however overwhelmingly powerful and have more often succeeded in hijacking not only the common interest of innocent Ghanaians but also that of the mandate of arresting entities.

Nonetheless, hope to change the dangerous circumstances into a better Ghana is not lost, should not be lost and cannot be lost. All the people of Ghana, both victims and culprits alike, are variously responsible and just must not afford to lose any hope. I am particularly comforted by the confidence that is attracted to the deeply entrenched hope by most Ghanaians, especially that of the nature which was defined by a Harvard professor as ‘angry at the way things are and courage to see to it that things do not remain as they are’.

Indeed, many Ghanaians are not in any way happy with the way things are but it appears that the necessary courage to change those annoying things is what is somehow lost. This needed transformative courage must be found and utilised by and in all entities at all cost. President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana has come with some renewed vigour to find the relevant nerves and  bravery to clear the mess that engulf many entities of the country which can best be described as weak, static, bleeding and or dysfunctional. The President of the republic as the Chief Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief, on the authority of article 57(1,2) of the 1992 constitution, does have all the needed authority and power to lead a drastic positive transformative drive of all the institutions  and people in Ghana. 

In fact, it is not for nothing that all entities and persons in Ghana look up to, and answer or report to the President of the republic in a variety of ways. Thus, the President oversees every other habitation right from the Office of President to Ministries, Assemblies, Departments, Agencies, Institutions to Companies, and other establishments such as Groups and Associations as well as Individual Households and Persons therein. All of them do depend on the President to effectively charter a better course for all. But in a heavily corrupted country where disorderliness is portrayed as order, the challenge to penetrate through the thick maze of entangling mess is ever more herculean albeit verily surmountable if there is uncensored and confrontational determination and will-power closely guarded by a deep sense of urgency.

This sense of urgency must be profoundly anchored in rebranding various entities responsible for the total functionality of meeting the social needs of everyone. In this light, the following three key rebranding exercises must be vigorously pursued by the President.

Firstly, there has to be a crosscutting drive to right-sizing all personnel and tasks in all entities in the public sector. That is, efforts must be made to ensure that all personnel in such entities are relevant to their task portfolios and that such responsibilities thereof are appropriate to the achievement of measurable social needs. With immediate effect, serious pruning must thus be done to ensure that sanity is prevailed over ghost names, irrelevant personnel and duplication of tasks.

Secondly, there must be a redefinition of standard operation procedures in all public related entities in the country such that performance is measurable and evaluative.  This is in respect of time allowed to execute a given task, how to approach and execute the task, what output is allowed, how to present the output, what effects and impacts are allowed, corrective or mitigating measures and punitive mechanisms. For example, failure of a chief director or manager to execute a simple task of timely signing a cheque for purchase of fuel to power a generator-set that eventually leads to loss of revenue or lives or resources must not be spared in any way.  Conflict of interest in the public sector must be taken seriously and arrested. For example, there is no reason why a deputy minister, chief director, minister or their subordinates will earn a full-time degree in law or administration while at post. At the time they are pursuing their courses, they definitely are not appropriately performing their roles at their work places, yet they are fully paid.

Thirdly, strong and effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism must be put in place in all entities across board. This will help to uncover all the deep-seated corruption and inefficiencies in public entities. It should be possible to make sure that payment of all workers in the public sector is contingent on clean reports from expert monitoring and evaluation at the end of every month. There should not be unnecessary bureaucracies. Modern technology must be applied.  Monitoring and evaluation officers must promptly report directly to relevant heads who must relay usable data of personnel to the President, Chief of staff, attorney general, national security, auditor general and the accountant general for necessary action. 

This is necessary to instil discipline and integrity in all establishments in the public sector. In short, workers must be made to be effectively working and avoid corrupt practices. The President must be the senior-most monitoring and evaluation officer of the country and must take a no nonsense approach to disciplining his ministers and relevant officials that have violated the code of conduct and operating standards or the constitution. The ministers must not also tolerate any mediocrity, incompetence, corruption, laziness and indiscipline of whatever nature from Chief Directors, Directors and other senior officers of all agencies, departments, institutions, companies and groups or associations. Chief Directors, Directors, executive officers, departmental or agency heads and other senior officers must also be seen to be ensuring strict compliance by all those workers under them.

But you see, quality leadership must be by good example. For the President and his senior staff to be able to effectively enforce the labour laws and regulations as well as other operating standards, they must come with clean hands and be able to demonstrate that they themselves are not flouting such normative or legal standards and principles. For instance, at the very minimum level, all workers must be provided with the necessary operating tools and resources in order to attain optimal output.  For instance, the finance ministry must be made to wake up to ensure that entities receive their financial allocations timely to enable them perform. If you pretend to resource workers, they may well pretend to work!

Indeed, if a disciplined worker promptly and regularly goes to work but there is no papers to write or type on or no electrical power to operate computers or other office equipment, failure to perform can definitely not be the responsibility of such a worker who did not have means to get such resources other than from the effort of the supervisor or director or leader. Also, junior officers that endeavour to generate reports which end up not to be put to any use would be lackadaisical in performing their duties because they do know that their efforts are in vain. Moreover, junior officers who regularly witness corrupt practices perpetually committed by senior officers may well also be attracted to corruption or are emboldened to do so. In all the scenarios, the leader may not have the moral high grounds to discipline a subordinate when the subordinate is found doing something which has been inspired by the omission or commission by the leader. The leader must be disciplined in order to discipline others.

The foregoing three key rebranding strands need to be tackled with a deeper sense of urgency. This is primarily because without it, the venom of debilitating factors such as bureaucratic nightmares, pretence, indiscipline, conflict of interest, poor attitude, deep-seated corruption, nepotism, redundancies, incompetence and poor delivery will continue to strangulate the real growth and development of the economy towards achieving the better Ghana for all. Without replacing the existing brand which encapsulates unattractive features with that which is indicative of quality and good prospects, it may well imply that leadership is profiting from the mess the status quo provides or is not brave or competent enough to change the attitude of a mal-functional society in order to carry them along to a perfect destination.

What Ghana needs now is decisive, competent, courageous, transformative and exemplary leadership. President Mahama does have these leadership qualities and more. So has Vice President Emissah-Arthur. They must put them into action immediately or else their better Ghana advancement agenda will soon be stifled and crumbled by the vampires, ‘evil-dwarfs’ and buccaneers who ditheringly and insidiously loiter around to launch attack at the least opportunity.  Alas, the nation-wreckers somehow conquered the iconic polymath of many generations, Professor John Evans Atta Mills. Once bitten, twice shy and a stitch in time saves nine.

Adam Abukari: Lingering questions on the alternative reality of ...

Adam Abukari: Lingering questions on the alternative reality of ...: In every free and democratic country like Ghana that is governed by laws and ethics, all persons have inherent rights and corresponding ob...

Lingering questions on the alternative reality of NPP’s presidential election petition

In every free and democratic country like Ghana that is governed by laws and ethics, all persons have inherent rights and corresponding obligations, duties or responsibilities.

The obligation to declare the winner of both parliamentary and presidential elections in Ghana is particularly the preserve of the Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana. In this light and in the full participation of all political actors, the EC rightly declared 275 parliamentary candidates as winners and John Dramani Mahama as winner of the Presidential elections out of eight presidential candidates in the December 2012 general elections. The international community, led by the African Union (AU)/Ecowas election observers, heralded the elections as free, transparent and fair. The verdicts of domestic election observers including TV and radio stations were not any different. However, upon EC’s declaration of a presidential winner and whatever endorsements that might come along, it is still the inalienable right of any candidate who feels dissatisfied to protest by utilising the remedies available with the EC or petitioning the Supreme Court (SC) of Ghana in respect of the perceived circumvention of any rights (Art 64.1 of 1992 Constitution; Constitutional Instrument (CI) 74).

Much  worth  their right, it was therefore fascinating that by the 28^th  of December 2012  and well within the 21 days allowed  by (CI 74) 68A(1) ,  Nana Dankwa Akuffo-Addo (NPP presidential candidate),  Dr Mahamudu Bawumia (NPP Presidential running mate) and  Mr Jake Otanka Obestebi-Lamptey (NPP National Chairman) jointly petitioned the SC  claiming some irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices they perceived to have occurred which in their estimation ultimately disadvantaged the New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) presidential candidate from winning and that the declaration by the EC on 9^th December 2012 that  the National Democratic Congress (NDC’s) presidential candidate,  President John Dramani Mahama,  won the December 2012 presidential elections  with 50.70% representing 5,574,761  votes over Nana Akuffo-Addo’s  47.74% representing 5,248,896 votes  was flawed and should be overturned (EC,2012; SC Registry, 2012).

Key issues raised in the pending petition have been ‘over-voting, pink sheets without  signatures of presiding officers, polling stations with similar serial numbers, extra polling stations not part of the 26,002, mismatch of words and figures, wrong arithmetic and voting without biometric verification’. According to the Petitioners in the amended petition (7^th February 2013), these apparent irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations occurred in 11,916 polling stations (a jump from 4,709 in the original petition) thus affecting 4,670,504 valid votes (a jump from 1,342,845 in original petition) which they are praying the SC to annul, pronounce Nana Akuffo-Addo as the validly elected president and give any consequential orders deemed by the Court (SC Registry, 2013).   

Those are, indeed, very intriguing but curious allegations and demands from the Petitioners because of four main reasons: (1) At all material times, the representatives of NPP and the Petitioners were adequately represented equitably as that of the representatives of the NDC, President John Mahama and the EC (the three respondents to the petition). This included  voting, counting of votes, collation of votes, confirmation of votes and declaration of winner; (2) The processes thereof were adequately transparent and largely done in the full glare of the public as required by most of the safeguards in Article 49 of the Constitution and  CI 75 (articles 29 to 41 particularly); (3)  The irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations must have affected  all presidential candidates as well as all parliamentary candidates in such alleged polling stations; (4) SC has no mandate and capacity to declare any elections in Ghana, EC rather does (Art 63.9, 1992 Constitution). SC can only determine legality or validity of EC’s conduct or outcome thereof upon which SC can order EC to re-collate votes or re-conduct elections or put its house in order so as to redress the balance (Art 64.2, 1992 Constitution).

Even though the foregoing rights and obligations appear to be interspersed, it is clear that: (1) EC performed its duties; (2) President Mahama had been duly elected as president of Ghana (CI 80; 7^th January 2013 Parliamentary Hansard); (3) The Petitioners have also performed their duty by submitting their claims of case to the SC; (4) SC will hear the claimants’ case and shall come out with its verdict in due course. All of these must be respected by all well-meaning citizens and inhabitants of Ghana (1992 Constitution; (CI) 16, (CI) 74, (CI) 75).

Nonetheless, it appears that there is a deliberate ploy by the Petitioners and their supporters to sensationally exploit pettiness, rights and the law. These should likely amount to blatant abuse of democratic and judicial credentials of the country. Otherwise, how else do you expect the Petitioners to be alleging irregularities and malpractices in Court but from outside the Court their supporters are brandishing fraud and stealing?  

Why would Petitioners’ or NPP’s Members of Parliament (MPs) refuse to participate in anything involving President Mahama in so far as, according to them, such activities will not outlive the President in the event that the President is declared as invalid by the SC, yet such NPP’s MPs happily go home with GHC 50,000 accommodation allowance and other emoluments approved by the President? How come the NPP’s MPs do recognise their own validity to be MPs, yet the Nana Addo they and the Petitioners are vouching for with their superfluous allegations, who  equally went through same processes, venues, EC and time period but eventually lost to President Mahama is not recognised by them?

 At what point did the alleged malpractices or “stealing” occur? Was it done at EC’s ‘strong room’ in Accra where all parties had their strong representatives including NPP’s Mac Manu (NPP’s former chairman) even after all the stakeholders had certified the results at all the polling and collation centres? Some ‘pink sheets’ or election result sheets were also alleged not to have been signed by Presiding officers of the EC, who indeed ought to have appended their signatures, but how come NPP’s representatives and that of other political parties signed at least over 25,950 of the ‘pink sheets’?  Was NPP’s representatives compromised in any way? What about the other political parties’ representatives? What about the observers? 

  

How do the Petitioners and NPP expect SC to annul over 4,000,000 votes of voters who had nothing to do with any malpractices and irregularities but who only went through the processes allowed by electoral officers and party representatives to cast their votes? Would it be in anyway legitimate to have such eligible votes expunged, without reasonable justification and substantive remedies, by just 5, 7, 9 or 11 Justices of the SC who themselves know that, under the circumstance, they likely do not have the jurisdiction to do such a thing (Art 42, 1992 constitution)?

Why is it that NPP and the Petitioners’ supporters would still go about demonstrating to have their votes counted when indeed the Petitioners are rather praying the SC to deny some people of their votes? Do the Petitioners really have confidence in the strength of their case and that of the SC at all? Isn’t the Petitioners’ case a colourful representation of bitter losers who are refusing to be better losers? Isn’t it about: (a) Trying to sow a seed of discord in the Ghanaian society? (b) NPP’s leaders deceiving their supporters for letting them down? (c) Preparing the grounds for their 2012 presidential candidate to run on the ticket of NPP again? (d) Trying to create legitimacy crisis in the minds of people? (e) Selfishness and ill-motives on the part of NPP and the Petitioners who know all too well that although the elections might not have been 100% perfect, at whatever rate Nana Akuffo-Addo clearly lost the 7-8 December 2012 general elections on behalf of NPP?

Indeed, given the highly rated nature of the December 2012 elections, no one can honestly compare the credibility of any of the elections ever held in Ghana with that which was recently held.

In fact the unconventional reality is that, without prejudicing the petition before the SC, if SC were to even annul the 4,670,504 eligible votes from 11,916 polling stations at the very least of margins, and shall have to order EC to re-collate or re-run elections in such polling stations where irregularities appeared to have occurred, the NDC and President John Mahama will still be most likely to come out as clear victors. Nevertheless, albeit petty to litigate, NPP must be congratulated because its Petitioners are helping to put EC much on its toes. EC’s Chairman, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, must take some of the issues seriously and use them to further perfect the coveted EC before he finally retires.

  

So then, why wouldn’t luminaries in NPP want to dare to bring their party together to squarely face the future reality instead of fighting non-existing past when existing present doesn’t even seem to have the capacity to provide the needed arsenals to defend and procure its own relevance? Peradventure, your surmise may well be more perfect than mine!

SU Elections Results Night • NUTS - Nottingham University Television Station

SU Elections Results Night • NUTS - Nottingham University Television Station