I have already discussed at length my well-considered reservations about the New Patriotic Party?s objections vis-?-vis the inclusion of Justice William Atuguba on the panel of jurists presiding over the main opposition party?s contestation of the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama?s declaration by the Electoral Commissioner as winner of Election 2012 (See ?The Road to Kigali ? Part 37). And so in the present segment of our series, I intend to look at another angle of the issue.
Indeed, as another commentator has already remarked elsewhere (See ?Did the Supreme Court Falter on the First Step to a Giant Leap?? Ghanaweb.com 1/11/13), what makes the inclusion of Justice William Atuguba on the panel of jurists hearing the Akufo-Addo suit significant is the fact that Mr. Atuguba is also the presiding judge on the panel. What this means is that like the Speaker of Ghana?s Parliament, Mr. Doe Adjaho, Justice Atuguba has the central role of determining the conduct of the entire case, just like the editor of a major newspaper or media organization. He is the proverbial gatekeeper who decides what evidence is admissible, or relevant, and what sort of evidence is not; and also when and how such evidence and witnesses are allowed to be presented, in the first instance, and to present, in the second instance.
The appointment of Dr. Raymond Atuguba, a relative of Justice Atuguba, as Executive Secretary to President Mahama, even if it preceded the naming of Justice William Atuguba as presideing judge in the Akufo-Addo v. Mahama and EC case, would appear to make the NPP call for Justice Atuguba?s prompt recusal from the case all the more imperative. It clearly ought to be envisaged as no sheer coincidence. Highly likely, the appointment of Dr. Raymond Atuguba as Executive Secretary to President Mahama must have sent a chillingly unmistakable signal to Chief Justice Georgina T. Wood as to who is now really in charge of the entire political apparatus of the country. And I would be very surprised if Mrs. Wood had not felt any remarkable pressure on her shoulders before arriving at her decision vis-?-vis who got to sit on the judicial panel and, in particular, who got nominated as the presiding justice.
Couple the preceding observations with the globally known antagonistic and, on occasion, deadly relationship between the movers and shakers of the ruling National Democratic Congress and the Supreme Court of Ghana, and the NPP objection could not be even more imperative. Indeed, it is primarily for this reason that I earlier on suggested the invitation of an international panel of distinguished African jurists, preferably from outside the West African sub-region,? to either preside over the case or observe the proceedings. After all, we have had foreign monitors observing our general elections every four years since 1992.
Anyway, were my call to be heeded, it would not be the first time that foreign jurists have been invited into the country to enquire into a scandal of epic proportions afflicting the country. In the 1950s, for instance, the Jibowu Commission, headed by the eminent Nigerian jurist, was invited by the transitional half-British and CPP regime to investigate widespread corruption and gross misuse of public capital resources at the Cocoa-Marketing Board. I have already extensively documented the outcome of that investigation in my series of articles/essays titled ?When Dancers Play Historians And Thinkers? and will not belabor the same here.
Suffice it for me to observe here, at least in passing, that I was quite intrigued by the rather sarcastic suggestion attributed to Dr. Clement Apaak, the convener of the Forum for Governance And Justice, that the vehement protestation of Justice Atuguba?s inclusion on the judicial panel hearing the Akufo-Addo/Mahama contest risks the provocation of massive public disaffection for the credibility and integrity of the Supreme Court of Ghana. Indeed, Dr. Apaak could not be more hypocritical for lamenting the patently pedestrian. For, it goes without saying that whatever the leaders of the main opposition New Patriotic Party could do to seriously undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of Ghana has already been done by the Rawlings-minted National Democratic Congress.
To be certain, it is actually the New Patriotic Party leadership that could be aptly said to have fiercely fought to preserve whatever integrity the Supreme Court may be perceived to still retain, in spite of relentless efforts by elements of the so-called National Democratic Congress to thoroughly either do away with the very existence of this august and central institution of democracy and civilization, or effectively render it otiose by packing the Supreme Court with NDC yes-men and women.
Significantly, what Dr. Apaak and Ghanaian intellectuals of his ilk ought to be doing is to be meticulously researching about the way that the law works in a civilized and genuine democratic political culture and be dispassionately explaining the same to their fellow countrymen and women. Essentially, the Akufo-Addo/Mahama tussle is at its ?Voir Dire? stage, whereby parties on both sides of the suit collaborate with the Court in order to guarantee the evenhanded administration of justice as is humanly possible. That said, the fact still remains that in seeking to achieve the ministration of the highest level of justice for the benefit of Ghanaians at large, care ought to be taken to ensure that the proverbial child is not thrown away with the bathwater.
*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Department of English
Nassau Community College of SUNY
Garden City, New York
Jan. 11, 2013
###
