<<Print>>

The recent problems of the Attorney General have led to discussions about how the President�s Ministers should leave government. As usual some have tagged this as the biggest of such scandals in our history. It has led to discussions about how to handle situations when Ministers disagree with their Presidents as well as when and how a President should fire his appointees. Actually, disagreements within governments are common. Even in Ghana, the case involving Mr. Amidu is not the most significant one we have had in the 4th Republic. The one that was most serious was that in 1996, when President Rawlings and his Vice-President, the late K.N. Arkaah had a very public falling out that led to an exchange of blows. The Vice-President could not be fired and he would not resign. Therefore in the 1996 elections, Mr. Rawlings campaigned for a second term with a different running-mate, Prof. J.E.A. Mills while his sitting Vice-President was seeking a second term with another Presidential candidate, Mr. J.A. Kufuor. In Nigeria, President Obasanjo unsuccessfully tried to seek a third term while his Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar, opposed that even while serving as Vice-President. In the West, it is reasonable to suppose that both Arkaah and Atiku would have found continuation in office untenable and resigned. Here though, they did not resign. Obviously, these cases, together with other historical examples raise important questions of governance for Ministers, Presidents, Parliaments and the general public as our democracy moves forward. First, how should a Minister communicate profound disagreement with his/her President on principles and policies? Second, regardless of how such disagreement is conveyed, when should a Minister resign? Third, while a President can hire and fire at will, when is a President justified in firing a Minister? In other words, apart from poor performance, what kind of misconduct is a firing offence? Let me begin with the first. Generally in Parliamentary government where the Prime Minister is the first amongst equals, cabinet discusses issues and then decides based on the wishes of the majority in the cabinet. Thus, under these circumstances, even a Prime Minister could find himself in the minority on an issue. With the Americanization of even most Parliamentary systems, Prime Ministers have become so powerful that this rarely happens. In the Presidential system however, cabinet advises and the President decides. Thus it is possible for a majority of a President�s cabinet to feel a certain way while the President decides another way. Historically, the most famous example of this may have been President Lincoln�s �Emancipation proclamation�. According to reports, of the six Secretaries (Ministers) present in cabinet that day, a majority voted against it and yet President Lincoln announced that �the ayes have it�. He went on to publish the proclamation. Here is Ghana, one such example is the decision to take Ghana to HIPC which was taken by President Kufuor despite a clear absence of cabinet support. As to how a Minister should communicate disagreement, some make their case in cabinet; others make it separately to the President while a few choose to leak their disagreements to the press. Some too, resign and then state the disagreement as the reason for the resignation. According to most observers, Former U.S. Secretary of State General Colin Powell used combinations of all three. For instance, his forceful advocacy in cabinet is credited with the decision by President Bush to seek a UN Resolution before the Iraq invasion. Furthermore, he is widely credited with Bush�s decision to invest large sums in Africa for development and to fight HIV/AIDS. In addition to these, during his tenure, there were frequent reports that he was unhappy with the US invasion and its management. Naturally, the President was unhappy. Most observers believe that this is why General Powell�s resignation was accepted right after the 2004 elections while most of the other members of the team stayed on. To bring this to the local context, we should inquire how Martin Amidu chose to make his case on �Woyomegate�. Did he march into cabinet and forcefully make his case? Did he go to the President to make his case�that is before going public? If he did, what did the President and or cabinet say or do? The next question is when a Minister should resign. Generally, a Minister should resign when he believes that the government he serves is harming the national interest or offending his moral convictions. Another circumstance under which a Minister should consider resignation is when he has personal or moral issues or lapses that make him a liability to his government or ineffective in doing his job. Like most great principles, however, the devil here is in the details. A great example of a Minister resigning on principle occurred in 1980 when US President Jimmy Carter ordered the rescue of American hostages in Iran. His Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance resigned in protest. However, in order not to jeopardize the operation, he agreed to keep the resignation secret till after the operation. Of course, it can be argued that he could have stopped the operation by resigning and going public with his reasons but it would have been disloyal to do so. In the same vein, it can be argued that if General Colin Powell had resigned in protest against the Iraqi invasion before it occurred, due to his enormous stature, he might have prevented it. To complicate matters further, there is the question of whether one must stay and fight what one disagrees with from within rather than leave and denounce it. After all, democracy, including cabinet rule works by accepting and implementing the wishes of the majority. Where does Martin Amidu fit in all this? Should he have resigned when he found the �gargantuan crimes against the people of Ghana� and those who were trying to remove him? According to the �Daily Guide� the former Minister has warned the Presidency not to push him. He said� If they push me to the wall, I will respond appropriately.� My answer to that is �Sir, you are already in the wall.� The final question is under what circumstances a President should fire a Minister or an appointee. In short, what is the kind of misconduct that should get a Minister fired? Part of the answer to this question is rather straightforward. For instance, when a Minister�s incompetence is hurting the country and the government, he or she should be fired. As for misconduct, it depends. If a President orders an Attorney General to cease investigations into a �gargantuan crime� and he refuses to obey that order, is that misconduct? Of course not. If indeed that is misconduct, it is patriotic and positive misconduct and we should pray for more of it. On the other hand, if a Minister is rude to the President or refuses to carry out a lawful order by the President that will clearly benefit the country; that constitutes misconduct. The caveat here is that in looking for misconduct, the President must be broad, forward-looking and prudent. For instance, was the firing of Francis Poku prudent? When a President is willing to fire a Minister for rudeness to him as a person, he must be willing to discipline those who insult a whole region or city or class of Ghanaians, as Kobby Acheampong did in accusing Kumasi residents of narrow-mindedness while attacking �Sir John�. He must be willing to discipline those in his party who call ex-Presidents thieves or dogs. Such tolerance, for misconduct in pursuit of the national interest was on abundant display during the time of President Lincoln. He filled his cabinet with able former rivals who never missed an opportunity to denigrate him. Indeed, the rivalries were later chronicled in a best-selling book by Doris Kearns Goodwin in the book, �Team of Rivals�. Mr. Lincoln once went to visit the Commander of the Union Forces, General McClellan, who refused to see him with the excuse that he, the General, was having a nap. Most other Presidents, filled with ego and anger would have fired the General but Lincoln did not--- because he believed then that the General could help win the civil war and that it was in the national interest to maintain him. That is the stuff that great Presidents are made of. From the forgoing, it would seem that here, maybe, Ministers stay on long after they should have resigned, either in the national interest or their own interest and Presidents, maybe are too quick to dismiss when they should not and too slow to dismiss when they should. Finally, even when a Minister mistakenly misconducts himself or herself in bringing out serious issues or crimes, regardless of his or her fate, the President is obligated to pursue the evidence so that we can convict the guilty and absolve the innocent. Let us move forward�together.