We find it difficult His Excellency the President of Ghana, Nana Addo would not heed to advise and rescind his decision to create another “crime combating institution” in the midst of many existing ones which his predecessors have blatantly refused to heed to and that, his ability to implement them shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that, he is the republican Ghanaian he has professed to be at the time he was not the person at the helm of affairs of Ghana.

In the midst of many anti-crime laws since Ghana’s independence, families, friends and colleagues of those in charge and responsible positions to see culprits punished allow their colleagues, friends and families to become crime pace-setters. The most who commit such outrageous crimes against the nation and go scot-free are people with fraternity to “the powers that be” or they would have the “Powers-that-be” to shield them ostensibly to mock at the great many good citizens of Ghana as a republic.

The great examples of adverse findings made by CHRAJ on P.V. Obeng, Ibrahim Adam, Adjei Marfo and the Rtd Officer Col E, M Osei-Owusu. The government of former President Rawlings issued a Whitepaper to defend their wrong doings only for Courts elsewhere to hold them culpable.

The entire nation was at bizarre when CHRAJ made adverse findings about Dr. Richard Anane. Ghana became polarized and it took a year long before Dr. Anane resigned his position but remained tact with the government of President J.A Kuffour.

In the case of former President Mahama, the sole Commissioner made adverse findings about Richard Quarshigah, the minister for sports. Richard was retained at the Presidency on vacating his position as sports minister. He was shielded against shame and mock.

Much as some desire to get to serve the public for public good, a lot many have been misled by greed and avarice, the love of power and the love of money has thrown them off-balance to only conglomerate to defraud the nation of the good tidings that is left of it.

Powers arrogated to the Attorney General with the necessary support of the Ghana Police Service, acting under Article 200 clause 3 is enough to prevent, prosecute and punish all crimes in Ghana if the laws would be allowed to sail its own cause without political interference.

The powers arrogated to the Commission for human rights and administrative justice as stipulated by our laws are studiously great to warrant the powers of investigating any crime whatsoever shall occur in Ghana.

It is a source of surprise and worry to many of us cognizant of Criminal Procedure code, 1960(Act 30) that “Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall to the best of his ability to prevent the commission of any offence.( Section 39) whilst Section 40 has it that “Every police officer receiving information of a design to commit any offence shall communicate such to the police officer to whom he is subordinate, and to any other officer whose duty it is to prevent cognizance of the commission of any such offence” and yet, public servants, the Police have their duties interjected by people who have the mandate to appoint and dismiss them for probably doing the right thing by crime prevention.

Nevertheless, the constitution 1992 went further and empowered the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice to fight crime of all sorts and embedded in it powerful investigation institutions coupled together by reference the ombudsman, anti-corruption agency and human rights, all being institutions destined to put things right where shortfalls are exposed.

Article 218 clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution explicitly puts our worries in one plain language thus;

“The functions of the Commission shall be defined and prescribed by Act of Parliament and shall include the duty (a). to investigate complaints of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties;”Article 218(1) 1992 Constitution

Article 219 of the 1992 constitution provides that, the Commission would issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of any person(including our presidents) before the Commission and the production of any document or record relevant to any investigation by the Commission; and to cause any person contemptuous of any such subpoena to be prosecuted before a competent Court;

If those adverse findings made by CHRAJ against political appointees of former President Rawlings, former President Kuffour and former President Mahama did not gained political covers and sympathy but allowed suspects to face the full rigours of laws as prescribed by CHRAJ and got punished, disgraced and shamed, without political coaxing, interference and waxing, who says CHRAJ would not have forged forward with its mandate for punishing law breakers of corruption under Articles 218(a) and 284 of the 1992 Constitution?

“A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office”. Article 284(1992 Constitution).

(f) To investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the appropriate steps, including reports to the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General, resulting from such investigation; Act 456 (1993).

Today, the problem mother Ghana has in prevention of crime are whether political actors have the self will power to accept in good faith adverse findings made about their colleagues, party sympathizers and financiers?

If therefore the self will power is the hoodlum problem facing our war on corruption, would it not be prudent to find solutions to cater for it other than to think of how we would punish culprits involve in crime?

Any other crime prevention institution created shall remain as previous ones created in the name of combating crime and corruption only to end up at the desk of the Presidential decision to act or not to act.

We should remember we had the Audit Service (Act 584), financial administrative Act 2003 (Act 654), Criminal Offences Act (Act 726) 2007, Anti-money laundering Act 2008 (Act 749) then Economic and organized Crime Act 2010 (Act 804) and not to forget Serious Fraud Office.

It must be noted that, “All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Ghana shall be at the instance of the Attorney-General or any other person authorized by him in accordance with any law” (Article 88.4). Unless Article 88.4 is amended, repealed or revoked, the Attorney General prosecutorial responsibilities shall continue to be same and shall serve the same purpose and that, no law would the Parliament of Ghana sanction that shall be greater than that of Attorney General in terms of prosecutorial powers.

No matter what brand of name is given to any institution of state created under Article 298 (Residual Powers of Parliament of Ghana) for prosecutorial purposes “, including “the Special Prosecutor’s office” which shall not be far away from the Sole Commissioner “look alike” created under Article 278(2) shall end up having the office of the Attorney General to prosecute and defend such cases in our courts here in Ghana.

Under Article 58, clauses 3 and 5 of the 1992 Constitution are indicators that, ministers of state and by extension, the Attorney General are principal arm of the Executive President whose duties shall not be called in question under clause 5 of Article 58 of the 1992 Constitution whilst under Article 290/1/f of the 1992 Constitution, the entirety of the Executive Arm of Government of Ghana falls within the entrenched provisions of the constitution that needed referendum to amend.

Are we ready for a referendum? I don’t think so Sir!

Article 58.5 “A constitutional or statutory instrument or any other instrument made, issued or executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated by the signature of a Minister and the validity of any such instrument so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not made, issued or executed by the President”.

Article 58.3“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the functions conferred on the President by clause (1) of this article may be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him.”

Article 58.1 “The executive authority of Ghana shall vest in the President and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

So in accordance with the constitutional provisions are that, an attorney general appointed by the President is a noble part of the President and shall serve purpose as such.

If such then is the powers of the attorney general, would it not call for referendum to sieve away some of the powers accorded it under Article 290 f that stipulates that, to amend any section of the Executive and the total enclave of Chapter 8 of the constitution we needed referendum?

In the light of monetary hiccups facing mother Ghana, could it be prudent to juggle in referendum?

Munir Saani

Safe Democracy Ghana.