Pleas unnecessary
The 2012 election petition hearing which started in April, 2013, closed in July, 2013 and the court’s judgement, especially the response the judgement might evoke in the political class, surprisingly concerns many.
Advertisement
Some people harbour fear (baseless as it is) that any of the key protagonists could reject an unfavourable outcome and chaos may ensue.
And so even before the Supreme Court gives its judgement, civil society and the clergy are pleading with parties and their supporters to accept the result; whichever way it goes. The resurgent calls may have been engendered by “revelations” to some men of God of Ghana’s apocalypse.
Heaviness
Some members of the clergy actually “feel a sense of heaviness in their spirit” that Ghana’s apocalypse is nigh. While calling on Ghanaians to reject this doom/gloom mongers, it must be declared that there is no basis to be paranoid because Ghana’s resolve to practise democracy will prevail and Ghana will pull through again, by God’s Grace.
Since Ghana became a constitutional democracy in 1992, never has it been the practice for the clergy and civil society to plead with parties that have instituted the suit to accept the outcome of their own litigation. It has never been a bargain between the courts and the litigants, so why should it be the case now?
It should be a matter of cause that decisions given by a competent institution of state in a democracy are accepted.
With this truism, efforts by the clergy and civil society groups to practically “beg” protagonists in the petition to accept the outcome seriously undermines the quest to build independent and impregnable institutions. Beneath this conduct of the “peace mongers” is an unhealthy concession that the protagonists have some right to accept or reject the decision of the Supreme Court.
In the view of this article, the “call to accept” and the “peace calls” on protagonist in the petition are unwarranted because whether the parties like it or not they will be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and any true democrat, which it is believed all the protagonists are, should accept the outcome.
President Obama’s July 2009 declaration in Ghana that “Africa needs strong institutions and not strong leaders” is true. The election petition, which final outcome Ghanaians anxiously await, would have been a golden opportunity to further strengthen the Judiciary, but the many pleas for acceptance are seriously undermining confidence in the judiciary.
It is true emotions and stakes are high but this, in the view of this article, is not unprecedented and same cannot be used to justify why the clergy and civil society should plead for acceptance of the court’s decision.
Bush v. Gore
In 2000, when Bush v. Gore was decided, emotions were high, especially because of suspicions of vote rigging in Florida, which proved detrimental to Democrat Albert Gore’s presidency, and scholarly view was that the U.S. Supreme Court (S.C) was overstepping/ had overstepped its defined boundaries by declaring a president.
All humans have life and death instincts triggered by requisite stimulus, and Americans are no different but once they accepted the rule of law, violent emotions were suppressed. It is for this reason that when the Supreme Court affirmed the election of Bush, Americans accepted the decision, although some thought that it was a political and not judicial solution. Before the judgement, the need to call for acceptance of the decision of the Federal S.C. did not arise.
Americans, having accepted democracy, could not conceive that any of the protagonists in their right senses would plunge the country into civil war by refusing to accept the outcome.
Kenya
In Kenya too, the Supreme Court dismissed all three petitions as consolidated against the Independent Boundaries and Elections Commission (IEBC). Kenyans accepted the outcome and the S.C of Kenya has undoubtedly become stronger.
By similar reasoning, the S.C. of Ghana, being the only competent body of state capable of conclusively pronouncing judgment on the issues raised by the petition, every Tom, Dick and Harry must accept the outcome with or without the present subtle negotiations as embarked upon by a section of the clergy and civil society.
The petition hearing was screened live on TV and ordinary citizens who watched some of the proceedings must have taken a position, whatever considerations may have informed any conclusion they have drawn. The lenses through which the court will perceive the issues are definitely different from all others available to the public and the interested parties, and so will the court’s final outcome.
Overall, the point to be emphasised is that the many calls for the acceptance of the court’s decision is totally misplaced and could take away the awesome powers of the court, some (contempt) of which it exercised during the hearing.
By accepting constitutional democracy, Ghanaians have abandoned uncivilised, barbaric and warlike ways of expression and turned to the rule of law; predetermined rules and procedures to guide conduct and the duty to accept outcomes, no matter how unpalatable. Democracy is expensive and sometimes may not necessarily produce the leader who can do the job, but if we ever felt that way, it is a bitter pill which ought to be swallowed.
In similar vein, accepting a court decision is a feature of democracy. Fortunately, Ghana has drunk deep these last 20 years from the fountain of democracy; a situation that has earned Ghana accolades; and we cannot let go.
To end this, it is fine for civil society to want to help but it is unfair to create the impression that somebody in this country can refuse to accept the outcome of the court and for which reason we must plead with protagonists.
By Albert Quashiga/Ghana
[email protected]
