Since the beginning of time, there has been a divide between those who have and those who do not have, with different rules applying to those who are wealthy and those who are impoverished. It is a human arrangement that ensures the wealthy and the privileged will always be able to live in comfort and remain untouchable.
When George Orwell was writing his political satire, "Animal Farm," in 1945, he had Ghana in mind when he wrote about a gang of farm animals that, having toppled the autocracy of their human master, distils their hatred for human beings into an easy-to-memorize credo that reads, "Four legs good, two legs bad."
After they had themselves taken power and experienced the luxuries of a privileged position, the pigs that had replaced humans as rulers learned how to walk on two legs – to differentiate themselves from the mindless and gullible masses – and as a result, the chant was changed to "four legs are good, two legs are better"!
When Atta Ayi was sentenced to 164 years in prison in 1999 for theft, why did our chiefs and other erudite advocates for justice not speak out in his defence, instead choosing to remain silent? At the time of his trial, he pleaded for forgiveness on the grounds that he had committed the crime in order to provide for his family.
Ataa Ayi could have been able to become a member of parliament if he had used the loot he had obtained from his earlier robberies to support a political career. Either as a member of the NPP or the NDC, he never would have been tried, let alone sentenced to jail time.
On days when he was scheduled to appear in court, his allies in Parliament were planning to skip sessions in order to be there to support him. It makes no difference that Ghanaians voted them into office and have provided them with the luxury they are accustomed to at this point; they will continue to receive their salaries despite boycotting sittings in the legislature. This is known as impunity.
I will be the first to admit that the heist committed by Ataa Ayi is not comparable to the one committed by Quayson; but, I will use it to warn that we face the risk of stocking Parliament with criminals merely because they are wealthy or well-known.
What exactly are proponents of the nolle prosequi strategy trying to teach Ghanaians? To this point, I have not been presented with any evidence suggesting that there was a lapse in judgement; the only argument I have heard is that he is an elected MP whose constituents require representation in Parliament.
The NDC will be required to provide responses to the queries about whether or not the allegations against Gyakye Quayson were fabricated. Do they amount to a criminal offence? The judge or judges will deliberate on the issue and come to a decision regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence.
The Dormaahene's assertion that he would have disagreed with the verdict if he had been a member of the jury is just another way of expressing the idea that there was an error in the administration of justice. Should a judge on the High Court be permitted to publicly criticise the judgement of a colleague, particularly if the criticism is made on a political platform?
The chief was quoted as saying, "I do not see the benefits that will come to Ghanaians as a result of this prosecution." I beg your pardon, but that statement does not respect the result that comes from applying justice. Benefits accrue to those whose ox has been gored – in this case, Ghanaians as a whole or the legal system in particular – as a result of there being no trial or prosecution. These benefits are shared by all Ghanaians.
If it were decided that the trial should be halted because the defendant's presence in court would prevent him from "fulfilling his mandate as an MP to the people of Assin North," then a new legislation would need to be enacted that stated no member of parliament should ever be prosecuted, regardless of how serious the offence.
I like Lawyer Jantuah's stance. He advises the President that failing to stop the trial would be the same as turning the people of Assin North permanently against the NPP. He says this in the context of the trial.
If there is anyone or any organisation that ought to be criticised by the head professor as well as other learned professors of law, it ought to be the NDC. Why did they choose to run a candidate while they were aware that there were outstanding criminal allegations against that candidate? When I think about it, the choice made by the NDC wasn't made without some thinking, was it? Did they not go ahead and run this specific candidate with the intention that, if he is elected, they will swarm the Judiciary on his behalf until he is set free?
In the event that Ghanaians agree with this position, it will set a precedent that can never be reversed. The only thing that someone who has been arrested for a crime needs to do is make it known that he is a member of either the NDC or the NPP; that alone should be enough to get the AG's Office or the police to let them go.
Let's start by asking ourselves: Are the charges completely fabricated? Is it accurate that Gyakye Quayson was a Canadian at the time when he filed to run for the position of Member of Parliament, or is this not the case? Is it accurate that he lied to a public officer, specifically the Electoral Commissioner and the Passport Director? If not, why does it sound like he did?
The political strategist Frank Apeagyei has an interesting viewpoint that I agree with: the trial should go on. In the event that the individual is found guilty and sentenced to prison, the President, in the exercise of his Prerogative of Mercy, has the authority to pardon the individual. This would have the same effect as an acquittal and discharge, allowing him to run for election to represent the people of Assin North once more.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0