Good God. Damn it

I remember once giving a Twi headline to an article under my column, Nsemfoo Ye Ahyi.

The features editor, using his discretion and being unfamiliar with Twi, changed the headline into English rendering it "Silly things irritate".

With all due respect, I have been irritated and exercised by some recent developments, including the wantonness at the vetting process last Thursday, when some MPs engaged in a brawl ending the process and destroying the communication gadgets.

If MPs disagree over the matter of whether to end proceedings or continue with the vetting, it should not end up in a brawl.

It is thus propitious that the Speaker took a decisive action by suspending four MPs, including the chief whips of both the Majority National Democratic Congress and the Minority New Patriotic Party. 

My only reservation was the directive of the Speaker to the Clerk of Parliament to invite the police to investigate the criminal aspects of the unfortunate development.

The last time on January 7, 2021, when security personnel stormed the chamber of the House to restore order following the chaos that beset the election of the Speaker, it was seen as an abomination.

More importantly, since Parliament is master of its own rules and no court service could be served on an MP while performing a Parliamentary duty, how would the police proceed if some MPs are found to have committed crimes since the vetting process was an obligation they were performing within Parliament?

Another matter of concern is the statement attributed to Oliver Baker-Vormawor, which exercised the Appointments Committee and led to his invitation to substantiate his claims.

Since under the law of contempt, any repetitions of a contemptuous matter constitutes another contempt, I will not try to repeat it.

However, I am irritated and puzzled by attempts to suggest that what he originally wrote was subject to different interpretations but that the reported speech on his post was what had scandalised the MPs.

To suggest that Baker-Vormawor was performing a civic obligation, as a whistle-blower, to say the least, is unfortunate and belittles the import of his claim if it has no foundation as a fact.

Thus, if the committee has found his apology appropriate and has accepted it on condition that he retracts it, then there is no need to find out the source who reported the substance or in law, the ratio of the original comment since it was an accurate reported speech of what Baker-Vormawor said. 

disingenuous

It is disingenuous for anybody to explain, justify or defend the original statement but condemn the second statement.

As our elders say, the lizard maintains that it is not angry at the one who shoots to kill it but those who stand by and commend its killer as a great marks person. 

Unless the matter is to be referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament, whenever it is appointed, it would be a travesty of justice to look for the author of the second statement if Baker-Vormawor's apology has been accepted. It is only when Baker-Vormawor is to be invited again that both authors might be brought before Parliament. Even then, the second author could plead the alibi of accurately reporting what was written originally.

There is also the matter involving the lady, Emefa Hardcastle, who seemed to have impeached the right of Hon. Annoh Dompreh, Minority Chief Whip and MP for Nsawam Adoagyiri.

The lady, by her manner and words, appears to be arrogant and full of herself and might have human relations problems, particularly in dealing with subordinates.

She does not thus deserve to serve in the position and office of Chief Executive Officer of any public or state-owned corporation or enterprise.

I appreciate how my mate of the Law Class 2002, Haruna Iddrisu, reacted when he submitted that Parliament should take a serious look at the matter because they cannot predict who would suffer from such unprovoked abuse and baseless attack the next time, if some of them think that it is only about the "micro minority".

And the talk about micro minority, which Emefa stuck to, may be sentimental to those who had not been born or were toddlers in 1997. It must be noted that in 1997, Parliament opened with 133 seats for the NDC, 61 for the NPP and six independents.

Thus in real terms and since Parliament operates on percentages rather than absolute figures, this is not the first time except that people look at absolute figures and 183 looks bigger than 133, but in percentage terms whereas the NDC controlled 66.5 per cent of seats in 1997 as against 30.5 held by the NPP, in the current Parliament the NDC holds 66.3 per cent of the seats as against 31.8 held by the NPP.

The only difference is that in 1997, the six independent MPs joined the caucus of the Minority whilst in the current Parliament, the four independents have joined the NDC.

The statistics will change once the Ablekuma  North results are released to resolve the dismay of our people.

One thing I do not like about the deliberations about the case of Emefa is the petitio principi that as a woman, the lady must be treated with circumspection and forgiven.

How does that give meaning to an era of Affirmative Action and gender sensitivity? Is a wrong committed by a woman less evil than that of a man?

That argument still falls into stereotypes.

We require to demonstrate respect and humility in our dealings with other persons whether we are men or women.

Gender defines social roles and capacities not sex, which is biological.

But for today, the matter which has exercised me the most is whether Dr Dominic Ayine, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, can prosecute anybody about whom some negative conduct is established by the ORAL when key members of the ruling party whose cases pending before courts of competent jurisdiction have been set free, without any explanation to the people of this country.

While it is within the law for the Attorney General to enter nolle prosequi in any cause or matter, for a government which came to power on a sworn commitment to fight corruption and abuse of public office for personal gain, it is too early and does not suggest sincerity that in less than one month after taking office with an Attorney General, who has functioned officially for less than 10 working days, such actions are taken without some explanation, as to why such prosecutions should be discontinued when they have not proven their innocence before the courts.

Trend to continue?

The trend has continued and the trial of Honourable Collins Dauda and Ernest Thompson has been stopped while Dr Opuni had been on trial only for the Attorney General to discontinue the trial and deny him the opportunity to regain his integrity, image, reputation and innocence.

My position is that in such matters, the wheel of justice or the judicial process should be allowed to travel the full course.

Can Dr Opuni or anyone who benefits from nolle prosequi be said to be innocent or continue to carry the cross of being a criminal suspect? Did the Attorney General study the record of proceedings so far before directing the trial to be stopped.

The answer to these issues are important because the current Director of Public Prosecutions was appointed in the last days of the Mahama Administration in January 2017.

And whereas the Attorney General may have a key role to play in such prosecutions or otherwise, decisions are based on informed and sound legal foundations from the DPP, who has the professional responsibility of advising whether to prosecute or otherwise.

The discontinuation of these trials for whatever reasons could be grievous since they seek to set bad precedence in the fight against corruption and corruptible practices among the political class and politically appointed public officials and public office holders.