Haruna Iddrisu May Just Be A Victim Of Circumstances

Public Sector Management

       One of the major challenges facing public financial management in Ghana is unreliable, irregular and insufficient flow of funds from finance ministry to other ministries and their agencies and departments. The other challenge is expenditure on irrelevant and non-prioritized items induced either by the public management system or by indiscretion or indeed incompetence and rent-seeking.         In the case of Hon. Haruna Iddrisu (MP for Tamale South and Employment & Labour Relations’ Minister), the nature of the public financial management system of Ghana may have bugged him down in respect of the over a million Ghana cedis paid for membership dues and trip of 16 people or so to ILO Conference out of the coffers of Youth and Employment Agency (YEA) of Ghana.

Dilemma

         Apparently, the ministry of employment and labour relations was starved of cash and, so as a solace, Haruna Iddrisu succeeded to use the 'law' and ‘inappropriate best practice in the public sector' to, at all cost, find funds in order to meet Ghana's international legal obligations - the result of which was to unfortunately take funds from an agency not only in its formative stages and targeting the despondent and frustrated youth but also that which had been tainted with corruption scandals. Hon Haruna Iddrisu should have known better and acted differently even under desperation.

         But then, where was he to get the money to meet Ghana's obligations? Could he have denied Ghana's participation in ILO conference and also deferred payment of dues? Yes, he could have done that but what would have been the ramifications, especially so when President Mahama was scheduled to be a guest speaker or so of the conference? 

           But was it a must for President John Mahama to agree to be a guest speaker in the conference if he was told that the ministry of labour had no funds to sponsor the trip except to borrow from the YEA  which was struggling to survive?  In the past, how many people used to attend such a conference for Ghana?  Was spending over a million Ghana Cedis on  the dues and conference a continuation of what used to happen in the past or was this prudent and improvement or worst scenario thereof?

Final remarks

          All of these bring us back to a self-inflicted constrained finance ministry that appears to be out of touch with best practices of at least getting funds released on time to meet budgetary expectations of ministries, departments and agencies. It also tells us a weird spectacle of poor public financial management architecture in the country.  It also reminds us of the huge amount of monies developing countries including Ghana pay as membership dues to international organizations such as ILO, the overall comparative benefits thereof can generally be said to be questionable.  What Haruna did may have been lawful and authorized but it could not have been a prudent decision to take any pesewa from YEA to attend a conference, under normal circumstances and in the dire situation of YEA.

            Honestly, I don't think a whole government ministry (all other ministries included) should use funds of an agency to buy vehicles for supervisory purposes. The ministry itself should budget for such vehicles and allow the agency to budget for its own vehicles. They each should use their released allocations to purchase what they budgeted for.  Is this too much to ask for? Or is supervision of the agency not part of the mandate of the ministry? What is the basis for the law allowing funds to be taken from the agency by its ministry in discharge of the ministry’s mandate? I simply don’t seem to get it!

What if PNF Doesn’t Petition the President Against Charlotte Osei of EC!

              It is often said that ‘a stitch in time saves nine’ and that ‘it is only unitiated sheep who does not remember that the lion which had sprung a deadly surprise on goats could easily redirect its devouring spree to anyone it finds on its way, especially when the lion is seen lingering around the neighbourhood appearing to be hungrier’. The case of PNF and Mrs. Charlotte is that of intriguing narrative.

Record of PNF

              Progressive Nationalist Forum (PNF), a Pro-NPP youth group and great advocate for respect of 1992 Constitution of Ghana, began to earn my congenial respect when it successfully fought a constitutional battle to have Madam Lauretta Vivian Lamptey removed as CHRAJ Boss under article 146 and co of 1992 republican constitution. She was said to have flagrantly abused her office as Chairperson of CHRAJ by having unwisely spent tax payers’ money on hotel bills.  Hitherto, PNF through Mr. Richard Nyama also got a favourable Supreme Court Judgement directing government to comply with the GETFund Law of transferring statutory funds to GETFund on time.

PNF and EC Chair in tangle

         On the particular case of  Madam Lauretta which has some semblance with that of Mrs. Charlotte Osei’s, the spirit of the constitution watched on while public outcry struggled to come to terms with why she could be that profligate. When PNF started the case against Madam Lauretta, she was recalcitrant and called the bluff of PNF to have her impeached. At least, if she had acted timely and yielded to the key demand of her to resign, she would have saved some face.  She had waited until the situation got worst – beyond repairs.

           So when the same PNF frontally came out recently to allege that Mrs. Charlotte Osei may have been in breach of the constitution, Article 44(4) in particular, I was one of those whose interest was quickly drawn to it. One because of PNF’s past spirited defence of the constitution, and two because of the deep respect I had cautiously developed for the EC Chairperson, Madam Charlotte. Frankly, part of my respect for her was based on her good professional background and much the way she carefully, intelligently and attractively articulated the views of EC during the EC dialoguing conference on whether or not to compile a new electoral register for 2016 general elections.

            However, the next time I heard Madam Charlotte spoke, I was partly impressed and partly disappointed. She spoke to Samson Lardy Anyenini on ‘Joyfm Newsfile’ on 9^th day of January 2016. I was so impressed about the way she responded to all the questions on the electoral register and the processes that would lead to November 7, 2016 elections. She was dazzling as usual and caught the admiration of many listeners who appeared to be convinced like me that she is really best fit for EC Chairperson in critical times like election year.  

               I was nonetheless saddened that instead of to have used the opportunity to clear the air that she was not in breach of the constitutional provision in question as had been alleged by PNF, she rather chose to be evasive. She was of the view that the air will be cleared on the matter should PNF carries out its threat of  petitioning the President or sending her to Supreme Court or whichever place to seek for constitutional interpretation and  her removal.

              Question is: what if PNF does not file a petition against Mrs. Charlotte, how do we get the air cleared on whether or not she is in breach of the constitution? Wouldn't some sort of misperception linger on in people’s minds which may affect her integrity and that of EC?

            Before Charlotte intimated  that the air would be cleared when petition is filed, she kept saying to Samson, “you are a lawyer” and then – Samson read out from the constitution what the term means, which goes as, public office “includes [but may not be limited to] an office the emoluments attached to which are paid directly from the consolidated Fund or directly out of moneys provided by Parliament and an office in a public corporation established entirely out of public funds or moneys provided by Parliament” (Article 295:1, 1992 Constitution of Ghana).

        She was apparently persuading Samson and his listeners to infer therefrom that Ghana Reinsurance Company Ltd (Ghana Re) is not a public office and thus she could not have been in breach of article 44(4) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana which says that, ‘the Chairperson and the two Deputy Chairpersons of electoral commission shall not, while they hold office on the Commission, hold any other public office’. I have mixed feelings and understanding primarily because I don’t have the full information on what kind of company Ghana Re exactly is – save reading from website of Ghana RE that it is a government company!

Expectation on integrity

            In matters of integrity, even though you have the right to be measured in your response to legal issues so as not to be taken out of context or used against you in court, as long as you believe in merits and conviction of your actions, you don’t have to give the slightest chance for anyone to impugn culpability thereof. You have to, without wasting time, be bold to respond directly to allegations levelled against you in the best bravado of stamina you can marshal. This is especially more applicable to a deeply politicized society where the opposition NPP has already tried hard to raise integrity issues against Madam Charlotte, especially in respect of her unfortunately alleged soft-spot posture towards NDC.  Swift response is also particularly needed in light of the very sensitive and centripetal nature of EC.

             If you know you don’t have cobwebs in your cupboard, you don’t need to be found wanting when asked by a stranger to open it. It just did not sit down well with me as to why Mrs. Charlotte could not boldly state her position on the fact that, despite being EC Chairperson since July 2015 she was, as at December 2015, still a board member of Ghana Re, a 100% government owned company – according to www.ghanare.com (retrieved 9/Jan/2016: 12:30 pm).

               As a lawyer herself, after her appointment as EC Chairperson, she may have had addressed or averted her mind to conflicts of interest situations she could find herself in based on constitutional provisions. Did she do self introspection vis-à-vis integrity protection relative to relevant constitutional provisions before or after she accepted the job as EC boss? What did she find? Didn't she think that doubling as a board member of company with government of Ghana having 100% shares could draw her into some sort of controversies – rightly or wrongly?  

Final remarks

           In the scheme of things and the exigencies of the times, Madam Charlotte should do the honourable thing if she thinks or have gotten to recognize that Ghana Re is a public company and that she may have flouted the constitution of the republic. My candid and very considerate advice, in this regard, is that having already said to have resigned as board member of Ghana Re, she should quickly go ahead and refund to the State all the emoluments she took from July 2015 when she was made EC Chairperson - as demanded by PNF.  Further on, Madam Charlotte should publicly apologize to Ghanaians for any error of judgement on her part or for likely defilement of public interest.

             This may, at least, redress any perceived dent on Charlotte’s integrity and persuade PNF to seize the long haul battle it intends to have with her as it successfully had against Madam Lauretta. But for the meagreness of any alleged breach of the constitution and the closeness Ghana is to very crucial elections, my very principled position would have been, if proven culpable,  to just ask Madam Charlotte to immediately resign and give way to someone who has no such associated blemishes.

               On the other hand, if Madam Charlotte is convinced and persuaded to believe that she was or is not in conflict of interest situation being with EC and Ghana Re, then she should quickly issue a press statement denying that she is or was in conflict of interest situation and therefore shall not resign as EC Chairperson. She must respond and act decisively NOW.

                   We can’t afford to be debating her personality and extra-activities at the time when our focus should rather be on the best processes towards transparent, credible, free, fair and peaceful general elections in November 2016. In fact, we don’t have the luxury of such a time to waste. 

NEUTRAL PEOPLE MUST NOT BE NEUTRALLY IMPOSSIBLE ON EC

Neutrality

        I sometimes see neutrality as a meretricious subterfuge being brandished as a stance unassociated with the biases of either side of view or divide - almost far from being real.  I still, nonetheless, must be persuaded by the conviction that people who, by their own volition, have been captured into the family web of neutrality ought to be reminded to comply with the ideals and standards of being neutral. 

            For me, abstaining from commenting on, vouching for or doing any such thing that would have otherwise painted an objective picture of a given situation cannot be said to be a neutral act. Rather, neutrality largely concerns the extent to which people carefully and critically acquaint themselves with the facts of all sides and reaching a reasonable, logical and unbiased conclusion on what is appropriate or inappropriate. A neutral person or entity may have to be careful not to be directly specific on who or which is right or wrong. The unblemished facts often speak out the mind of a neutral arbiter.

              Neutral persons or entities necessarily ought to first give out a rendition on the standards and then allow credible factual narratives determine what is appropriate or otherwise. In this piece, attention would be drawn to entities or people who by their objectives, stature, stance, definitions, prescriptions, frameworks, constitutions or actions do portray themselves to the general public as neutral with independent and unbiased views on other people or entities who act in the interest of the general public.  In the eyes of the general public, for instance, unrented, un-idiotic and non-ideological Media stations, Pastors, Churches, Christian Associations, Imams, Mosques, Muslim Associations, and Civil Society Organizations including Think Tanks and their leaders are deemed neutral. Also,   the Electoral Commission of Ghana (EC) and the Courts are particularly seen and must be seen as unbiased arbiters – they are crucial democratic pillars and peace bastions of any nation.

Labelling of EC

            It therefore gets pathetically dangerous when some political interest groups and their surrogates in the otherwise neutral entities, have labelled or tried hard to label EC as a biased arbiter without any shred of credible basis to do so. In the history of electoral governance and management in Ghana, it is almost addictive of political parties and their surrogates in the media and civil society to praise EC when results of elections are declared in their favor.  In the same vein, the losing Parties have always found a way of chastising and denting the image and integrity of EC. Both National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP) have been in this kind of game unashamedly.

Election petition and electoral register

                This came to a head in 2012 general elections, when after all parties fairly and transparently participated in the elections upon which the losing NPP nearly held the whole country to a ransom for about a year. This they apparently did by trying to hide under legalese and technicalities not only to reverse the universal mandate of the people but to dent the image of EC while projecting their image to their unsuspecting supporters. The live proceedings of the case in court evinced that in spite of few lapses, the results as declared at 26000 + polling stations, in the full glare of all political reps, media, political observers and members of the public with additional strong room crosschecking by Party reps, had not been in any way tampered with by Dr Afari Gyan and EC – therefore should remain as such – the verdict concluded.  This, indeed, should have been the credit to EC that another neutral body, the Supreme Court, affirmed a neutral job done by the EC. The least neutrally expected rendition was to say EC image was battered by the court proceedings and verdict thereof.

Neutral people’s stance on register

               Ironically, the media that particularly got the results before Dr Afari Gyan got his in the ‘strong room’ of EC, intentionally and consistently allowed NPP and its surrogates to vociferously trumpet the erroneous understanding that the integrity of EC has been dented and almost thrown to the dogs. This is farther from the truth.  The project of making the EC look bad because one candidate fairly lost, even when his lyrical MPs who were supervised by the same system, continued unabated; That the register with which they claimed to have won 2012 elections was now under serious vibrating attack from NPP and its surrogates. A clear demand was therefore made on the EC to get Ghana a new register as they labeled the current register as ‘incurably flawed and not credible’. Minors and foreigners on the electoral register and, more seriously, stapled pictures compromising the whole biometric register were key amongst the reasons adduced.  

              Being an independent neutral body, EC instructively brought all stakeholders to a dialoguing conference where eminent panel of experts carefully listened to and questioned presenters on their position on the register. Clearly, the recurrent theme in the presentations was that despite some few challenges with the current register, a new register could not mitigate the situation. Rather, until what motivate the lapses on the register is dealt with, the traditional methods of cleaning up the register during exhibitions and so on could be the only plausible, cost effective, reasonable and legal option immediately available given the limited time to the 2016 general elections.

            The eminent panel then submitted their report to EC in December 2015 or so. EC saw wisdom and persuasion in the position of the report and decided to adopt the report which said that the current register should be maintained – new register was unnecessary. EC also responded to each of the allegations which NPP used to advocate for a new register.  The allegations were either dismissed or deemed unmeritorious. The net effect was that NPP did not have a very strong convincing case that could merit neither a new register nor the negative tagging given to EC.

              In all these, any neutral person or entity would have been very careful enough not to chastise EC for not yielding to the demands of NPP. At least, such a neutral person or persons should have been aware that NDC was cautiously against NPP’s position and waiting to see whether or not EC would go by the recommendations of the non-partisan eminent Ghanaians who constituted the panel. It would have been further noticed that any other position aside what EC took would have presented an unworthy precedence which could have been a recipe for disaster. For all you may know, if treated unjustly, NDC could equally be capable of unleashing the terror feared of NPP by the neutral people that are seen chastising EC for no just cause. In any sphere of arbitration, decisions reached by the arbitrators ought to be respected by all who care and have integrity.

Final remarks

           That said, what then would have been the basis for some supposed neutral people to pontificate to EC to have yielded to the demands of NPP or NDC – even if such demands were unmeritorious? What would have been the basis for saying, for example, that ‘EC should not take Ghanaians for granted’?  Which Ghanaian has EC taken for granted and where? A stance that obviously inhibits glister of neutrality of EC is a defeatist posture and an impossible neutral demand on EC.   The supposed unrented media should at least do Ghanaians a great favor to be very informed and critical on the so-called neutral people and insidious support they give to either NDC or NPP. This would expose any party planning mayhem to be quickly identified and dealt with by the largely peaceful Ghanaians.

             Everybody or at least most Ghanaians by now know that despite its inadequacies, EC in Ghana cannot or hardly can rig elections for any political party, with the current biometric electoral register and electoral system. It is only political parties especially NDC and NPP who, without vigilance from other political actors, may succeed in rigging elections in their strongholds where they may be able to hijack or coerce electoral officers to do the unthinkable. Let’s keep a Godlier eye on NDC and NPP so they do not slip by.

            The hysterical hypocrisy permeating the overtures of political corridors in the election year 2016 is dangerous – indeed very dangerous. Although it is difficult to stand the test of neutrality, neutral people in Ghana, must at least strive hard to merit being called neutral when it comes to electoral governance and management. People of integrity and of courage must not sit by aloof and let things get out of hands before they act.

                Have a splendid time!

The New Year and Competition between Political Actors towards 2016 General Elections in Ghana

         As energies and lights of 2015 got sapped and faded out all too fast to give way to 2016, I and many others were apparently having mixed feelings about the future of Ghana. The curious feeling that would have especially engulfed the thoughts of many others was that of the ugly danger associated with the contours of Ghana’s political landscape fully occupied by agitation, tension, desperation and disjointedness. Regardless of failures, successes, huge potentials and bright prospects of Ghana, these contours must present a scaring nightmare to all those who have Ghana at heart.  It is, nonetheless, a call to more proactive and transformative actions by Ghana’s leaders.

The centre could hardly hold in NPP

       The unsettling nature of power blocks in the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) where the centre could hardly hold did vitiate their strength to give viable alternative policies and programmes to Ghanaians. It also weakened NPP’s ability to effectively put the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and its government in check.  NPP’s Leader and 2016 Flag-bearer, Hon Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo was apparently seen to have been thrown into a mesh woven by flesh eating worms with debilitating prowess far too powerful beyond the containment and survival stamina of an otherwise political colossus and prominent lawyer. He almost surprisingly became a political dinosaur largely due to Overarching Clashes of Personality Interests (OCPI) and Acute Leadership Deficiency Syndrome (ALDS).

        Nana Addo simply was overtaken by emotive tendencies as he watched on while NPP appeared disintegrated and non-viable alternative in the eyes of many Ghanaians. Instead of rallying all interest groups in NPP behind him, Nana’s unrelenting quest for power may have swayed him into thinking that labeling interest groups as ‘spies and crushing them’ would pave way for him regardless of how much significant such interest groups were. This sense of reasoning may have been a direct consequence of misleading advice and anti-Nana tagging.

Holding the center in NDC but its government dangled

       On the other hand, whereas NDC party appeared well settled at the centre, there was enough simmering dissatisfaction at the grassroots to suggest that all was not too well with the party. As if that was not to be enough, NDC’s government led by H.E President John Dramani Mahama appeared to have stepped on the toes of many residents by the way and manner the economy and energy situation of the country was bizarrely handled by a number of the President’s appointees and functionaries. The raging grapevine suspicions attributable to this less than expected performance of some of these government functionaries were that while some of them were thought to have been intentionally sabotaging President Mahama’s better outlook, others were said to have been busily grabbing the largesse of the Masses as they engaged in murky deals to their selfish gains and to the exclusion and detriment of the interests of President Mahama’s government and the people of Ghana. 

      As President Mahama struggled to effectively put his feet down and go beyond the powerful machinations of general poor attitudes of Ghanaians, inefficiencies of State Institutions, political patronage and godfather/godmother syndrome, it was just about the effectiveness and efficiency of his leadership and government which altogether was to be called to question. Many people kept wondering why an otherwise excellent leader could have allowed himself and his government to be drawn into public dungeon of outrage by few non-performing and clueless elements in very strategic ministries, departments and agencies.

 Successes of Political Actors

       In the end, before 31^st December could help complete the year 2015, Ghana was saddled with competition between joint forces of mediocrity and disillusionment and apathy and frustration which succeeded in making 2015 a ‘difficult year’ for many businesses and households. However, many good things happened.

       For example, after all the internal wrangling in NPP and suspension of their general secretary, chairman and second vice chairman including some constituency chairmen and executives, the party eventually succeeded in rallying forces together and organized a  national conference at Sunyani where Parliamentary candidates  and the national campaign team of NPP were inaugurated. Party Officials and some MPs thereof were also in the media, at least defending the courses of action taken by the party and chastising almost everything about government albeit without alternative propositions. 

    President John Dramani Mahama also showed remarkable performance in infrastructural development in essential sectors like health, education and transportation across the country. He also found nerves and disciplined some erring and less performing functionaries of his government. Some of his ministers, of course, performed very creditably and appeared to have put a shine on the overall performance of the government. Many Ghanaians are carefully watching the space to see how the energy and spirit of greater sense of urgency will be pumped into all government functionaries so as to make many more people feel that there will be brighter light at the end of the tunnel.

NDC Party, which President Mahama also leads, especially demonstrably performed well by the way it successfully held the first  polling station based elections of MPs and Presidential Candidate where all registered members were eligible to vote.  Moreover, it was amazing to see how the party managed to hold different interest groups together after the polls which, of course, suffered some technical challenges.

Demanding a new paradigm in the New Year

        However, having crossed over to 2016, indeed in the first few days of the New Year,  most if not all of residents of Ghana are looking up to seeing a different political landscape that promises a trouble-free 2016 general elections. Although it will be irresponsible to accredit the self-seeking sensations of doomsayers and war mongers with platinum of relevance and loudspeakers, it will be in the best interest of all and sundry to wake up to face the following reality dispositions head-on.

       The kind of performance put up by the NDC government, in 2015, must not be allowed to repeat itself in 2016. We need better performance than that and deserve to be governed more responsibly and proactively, without fail. The urge to galvanize all spirited forces to undertake public business not as usual but with both highest sense of integrity and greatest sense of urgency should not only be inspired by positive desire to win 2016 general elections. It should most importantly be motivated by the passion to leave a lasting positive legacy where every resident of Ghana including opponents will be proud of.

        What President Mahama therefore needs to do differently this new year, is to first focus attention on putting more sanity and discipline into his government where his political appointees and public servants will regard him not just as humble and friendly but a man who is very firm, no-nonsense and intolerant for mediocrity, scapegoating /useless excuses, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in running public business. While also focusing on ensuring that his campaign promises are fulfilled through extra hard work, he should pay very keen attention to ensuring that political actors are treated fairly by State Agencies including Electoral Commission and security services.

          Also, we do not need the kind of irresponsible opposition performance, in 2015. We need and deserve a far better opposition organization and activism. NPP should concentrate in sanitizing and reconciling its ranks and come out with credible alternatives and constructive criticisms. They must not be given a hearing on the way they always tried to blame all their woes on NDC and its government. Nana Addo must know how more discerning Ghanaians have become. For him to see any light of the day he must present to Ghanaians united, credible, quality and peaceful party, else he should forget about the presidency. He should not be deceived into thinking that doom saying or war mongering will make many Ghanaians or even the NDC government take him and his NPP party seriously. Nana Addo is a respectful elder and must leverage this to preach to his followers and the larger Ghanaian public that he is more interested in peace and development of this country than being President. That way and together with credible alternative programmes and united party, Ghanaians could choose Nana Addo over President Mahama.

         This in the light of the fact President Mahama  together with his NDC party is realistically ahead, right now due to their more peaceful and united nature. It is also at the same time that President Mahama has incumbency advantage with huge infrastructural projects to show. He is also seen to be more affable with greater appeal to many people. This presents a tough competition which requires Nana Addo to work extra harder in order to make himself and NPP fraternity more able to favorably compete with President Mahama.

Final remarks

           At the end of the day, 2016 must be a year of competitive performance for the overall benefit of everyone in Ghana. Above all, everything possible must be done to ensure that there is peace and unity before, during and after the 2016 general elections regardless which political party emerges the overall winner in Parliamentary and Presidential Electoral Counts.

           I submit therefore that while it’s very important that political actors must lift up their game to a more exciting level, they must do this with highest sense of responsibility. They must note that everyone will be the ultimate beneficiary when peace, stability, unity and development continue to reign after a winner fairly, transparently and creditably emerges.

            Happy and Prosperous 2016!

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.