
Kennedy Agyapong
The intemperate rant of Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, MP of Assin-North, was horrible, unnecessary and reprehensible. But the police should not have arrested him. If a soldier had made exactly the same utterances, the police would also err in arresting him. The soldier comes from the military – an institution – and Hon. Agyapong is a Member of Parliament, an institution. The issue here is independence of institutions, which is imperative for good governance. Perhaps, an analogy would clarify the issue.
Systems/Institutions
Regardless of horsepower, shape or colour, a vehicle is an amalgamation of systems: ignition system, fuel system, electrical system, cooling system, suspension system, brake system, etc. Each system is designed for a specific purpose: the brake system to check the speed of the vehicle and stop a run-away vehicle; the suspension system prevents the vehicle from bouncing along the road; anti-sway bars prevent the vehicle from rolling over; the muffler (exhaust system) prevents the vehicle from making too much noise; and cooling system prevents over-heating.
Each system must be in good working condition for the vehicle to operate efficiently. Each system is independent of the others and cannot be mismatched. For example, oil, a lubricant, cannot be used as coolant in the radiator. When a system breaks down, it must be repaired promptly. Parts designed for one system cannot be used to repair another. Periodic maintenance and repair are vital for optimal operating efficiency of each system. When all systems are operational, the vehicle is said to be in good or top working condition.
Similarly, a society or governance operates like a vehicle. Institutions are to a society what systems are to a vehicle. Institutions are processes, procedures, rituals, enforcement mechanisms, and organizations that seek to advance or uphold a certain principle, right or desire. For purposes of governance, a country has seven key institutions, the civil service, the judiciary, the media, the security forces (military, the police or law-enforcement), the electoral commission, Parliament and the Central Bank. Each institution has a specific function to play and should not be cross-matched with different functions. For example, the role of the military is to defend the territorial integrity of the nation and protect its citizens while that of the judiciary is to enforce the rule of law and dispense justice fairly. Having soldiers run the government is a mismatch because they are not trained as such; only to fight and kill an enemy.
The role of Parliament — the repository of the people’s power — is to provide oversight over executive actions, making sure that the people’s money is spent wisely, government policies benefit the people, pass laws that improve the lives of the people, etc. Parliament is more powerful than the executive and all the other institutions. Whereas the executive is occupied by one political party, Parliament is occupied by all political parties and represents all the people. Parliament can cut funds to the executive, block policies and even sack the president by passing a vote of “no confidence” in him. Sure, the president can dissolve parliament and call an election but cannot sack any individual MP. The role of the police is to enforce the law and maintain law and order. Law-breakers are taken to court – the judiciary — and, if found guilty, are punished with fines or prison sentences.
For these seven institutions to operate well, they must be independent and free of interferences from any quarter. They must also watch each other, thereby providing institutional checks and balances. While Parliament must watch over the executive to ensure that it is not spending recklessly, the President must also watch to see that judges are not on the take. When all these institutions are working well, good governance is said to prevail – akin to saying that a vehicle is in good working condition when all of its systems are working well. Thus, good governance requires, first, independent institutions and, second, each institution to be working well.
For each institution to work well, it must police itself to ensure that its officials abide by certain professional and ethical principles, collectively known as “the code.” Thus, there is the civil service code and then the military code, the bar code, parliament code or protocol, etc. There are codes in the private sector too. For example, medical doctors swear the “Hippocratic Oath,” which binds them to certain professional and ethical standards. Universities also have the academic code. The purpose of all these codes is to ensure that officers of that particular profession or institution adhere to some rigorous professional and ethical standards of behaviour. Each institution has its own disciplinary process to deal with officials who violate their respective codes.
The military code, for example, debars soldiers from intervening in politics and, hence, bans military coups. That tenet, however, is applied selectively – only to unsuccessful coup plotters who can be executed by firing squad but never to successful coup leaders. Nonetheless, when a soldier is in violation of the code by engaging in misconduct – such as making incendiary remarks about war on the radio – the offending soldier would be court-marshalled. [The military has its own military police and courts or tribunals]. If the soldier is unable to explain his remarks and was found guilty, he would be punished. Punishment may range from demotion, suspension, expulsion from the military or even death by firing squad, depending on the severity of the offence. Neither the President nor the police need to interfere with the military disciplinary process and should allow that process to take its course.
Indeed, such was the case when the police found itself in a similar situation. It also has the Police Code, which was violated by one of their own, DSP Gifty Tehoda, in the “cocaine turned baking soda” scandal that broke in early January. In that case, the police did their own investigations – still on-going – without interference from any quarter.
Similarly, Parliament, as an institution also has its own Parliament Code and Protocol — its own rules, regulations and disciplinary processes. If an MP engages in misconduct by spitting incendiary rhetoric, Parliament also has its own disciplinary process to deal with the MP. Normally, the House, Ethics or Disciplinary Committee would haul in Hon Kennedy Agyapong for grilling. He represents a constituency and what he said was a political speech but incendiary. If he is unable to explain why he made those remarks, Parliament can mete out the appropriate punishment, ranging from reprimand, suspension of parliamentary privileges to expulsion from parliament. The police should not have arrested Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, just as it wouldn’t have were the MP a soldier. The police should have allowed the Parliamentary disciplinary process to take its due course.
If the Police arrested Hon. Agyapong on “orders from above,” then the President may have acted illegally and unconstitutionally. Remember that Parliament is more powerful than the presidency. In a normal democracy, the President cannot order the arrest of an MP. In fact, Articles 117 and 122 of the Constitution protects the rights of MPs and officers of Parliament by guaranteeing that the work of Parliament is not impeded, nor held in contempt.
Exactly the same issue came up in February, in the wake of the Woyome judgment debt scandal when Osei Bonsu Amoah, MP for Aburi –Nsawam, was trailed and arrested at his house after a parliamentary meeting. Minority Leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah Bonsu, brought the issue to the floor of the House and argued that such acts and arrests called for serious consideration as MPs, per constitutional provisions, were not to be impeded in the course of their duties as their constituents are at all times entitled to representations and decision-making by their MPs. He said the matter should be of concern to all MPs regardless of their political affiliation. He proposed the setting up of the committee, which was supported by the Majority leader, Cletus Avoka. Justice Joyce Bamford Addo, the Speaker, then tasked the Minority and Majority leaders of Parliament to set up the committee and ensure that all the deliberation on the matter was done with reference to all the constitutional provisions on arresting MPs or getting MPs to face the law. She asked that the 10-member committee should be made up of members from all sides of the House and that the committee works quickly and report back to the House with recommendations which will be debated at plenary. The outcome of the debate on the issue is expected to be sent to the appropriate authorities and the security agencies. To arrest another MP, Ken Agyapong, while this committee is doing its work shows morbid contempt of Parliament, which is clearly unconstitutional.
For a Better Ghana and good governance, it behoves all of us to respect and uphold the independence of our institutions and avoid politically-motivated interferences in their work. These interferences prevent us from holding public officials accountable, enforcing the rule of law, holding free, fair and non-violent elections, as well as stanching the rising tide of corruption. Interfering with the brake system could land a vehicle in a ditch. Similarly, interfering with some of our institutions could land Ghana in an Ivorian or Kenyan ditch.
One more thing as a post-script on Hon. Ken Agyapong. Besides his inflammatory incitement to war, he committed another serious mistake which led to all this brouhaha. To be sure, he had a legitimate grievance about the activities of NDC “machomen” at the Odododiodoo constituency during the biometric registration exercise. But, as a lawmaker, he should know that the airwaves are not the place to resolve the issue. He should have submitted a motion on the floor of the House to declare such armed hooligans as illegal. No political party should entertain them, much less establish a “Heroes Fund” for them. If he can’t get traction in the House, he should take the matter up to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a political party having an armed wing. After all, that is exactly the route Parliament took in 2001. On June 1, 2001, it passed the Public Holidays (Amendment) Law, which abolished the celebration of June 4 as a public holiday. Similarly, Hon. Agyapong should get Parliament to pass a law that debars any political party from having an armed wing. Had he taken this route, we would have avoided all this kerfuffle over arrest, street protests, burning of tyres and closure of Ring Road.
__________________________
The writer is a former professor of economics at American University and President of the Free Africa Foundation, both in Washington, DC, USA. His latest book is Defeating Dictators (Palgrave/MacMillan, 2011).
Professor George Ayittey
View the original article here