<<Print>>

Cherishers of the rule of law squirmed in their seats when the Attorney-General and Justice Minister, as it were, acquitted and discharged NDC Women�s Organiser Anita de Souza and Stan Dogbe, presidential staffer, of any malfeasance after the Atiwa incident in the case of the former, and the infamous expensive hampers in the latter�s. The outcome of the minister�s ruling could easily be predicted, considering the ease with which the Mills government tramples upon standard legal procedures. Anita could not be responsible for what befell the young men who suffered life-threatening bruises on their bodies after her vehicle ran over them. As for Stan Dogbe, the judge/minister absolved him from any financial misdemeanour regarding the expensive hampers ostensibly meant for the media, even though none of the guys in the inky fraternity admitted receiving any such goodies from the state. The money expended was for the purpose for which it was withdrawn from the state�s kitty, education, pure and simple. This is Africa and Ghana specifically under an NDC administration where weird precedence is recorded by the day. It does not matter whether these are infringements of standard legal norms: government is ready to stick out its neck. Martin Amidu�s presentation of a certificate of good health to his political colleagues is only a tip of the iceberg of unacceptable happenings under this administration and we shudder to think that they are taking place under the nose of a learned gentleman, President Mills. There is no dispute about the fact that this is a flawed judgment or ruling from the Minister and we are convinced that it is only a matter of time when the chicken will come home to roost. Then shall we play back such bizarre judgments and see clearer the political motivation which prompted the decision to let the guys off the hook. If a Justice Minister is entitled to such discretions, then, we are afraid that Martin Amidu erred in his application of this political privilege, and to put in another vein, we would describe it as an indiscretion smacking of selectiveness. The decision arrived at by Martin Amidu reminds us, regrettably, about the Muntaka pampers and khebab story. In this scenario, although adequate evidence abounded to demand a more stringent management of the malfeasance, the state thought otherwise. Like the De Souza and Stan Dogbe stories, he too was handed a bill of good health. Martin Amidu�s flawed judgment is coming on the heels of an intense campaign by the government, through its assigns, to give judges a bad name and hang them. Situations where judges are attacked when judgments do not favour them, yet they themselves (government) conduct themselves in manners which show them as not believers in the rule of law, inclining more towards selective justice, cannot be acceptable. African politicians, they are a rare breed. When it suits them, it is good, not so however when the odds are against them. They yell on rooftops condemning the standard legal practice of isolating the truth from lies. When they are in power, the African politician and in our case, the Ghanaian�s tendency to abuse the intelligence of the ruled is high. This callousness is undertaken by these politicians who erroneously think that they are being believed when really the majority of the people only look at them and sneer, waiting for another opportunity to cast their votes. What would the people of Atiwa think of Martin Amidu and the government of President John Evans Atta Mills? It would certainly not be a good impression. Politicians, in general, would be lumped together and labelled a bunch of good-for-nothing characters who are more concerned about what political advantage they would get, regardless of how these infringe upon acceptable practice and procedure. God save this country.