If it were in the military, it would have been referred to as ‘blue on blue’ or ‘friendly fire’. This is when at the battlefield, a soldier accidentally shoots another soldier not to the enemy camp, but to his own group.
But, I can tell that the Georgina vs. Vivian fight, though seems like ‘blue on blue’, the scenario is likely to be worse than the combat between the American-led allied forces and the late Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi armed forces.
Not long ago, the activities of the Commissioner for the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Lauretta Vivian Lamptey, came under public scrutiny. Media reports revealed how she had refused to move to her official residence which, according to her predecessor, Justice Francis Emile Short, was in perfect condition before he left it, and had stayed in extremely expensive apartments.
According to the Daily Graphic story of Tuesday, September 16, Ms Lamptey was initially living in a US$5,500 a month apartment for the last three years when on her instructions, her official residence was being renovated, making the Commission spend a total of US$203,500 just for her rent.
According to the paper, when the tenancy expired last August, Ms Lamptey moved into a hotel costing taxpayers US$456.25 a day (US$13,687.50 a month) with three of the commission’s vehicles at her disposal.
Variations to residence
The paper also noted that Ms Lamptey, not based on any assessment and recommendation by the respective state institutions responsible for official residences, ordered several variations to be effected on the official residence built only ten years ago and occupied by only one person (Justice Short) before her.
Interestingly, with all the concerns expressed by many Ghanaians about the opulent style of the CHRAJ Commissioner, Ms Lamptey refused to move from the expensive hotel until only a few days ago.
Following concerns expressed by many Ghanaians, Mr Richard Nyamah, accusing Ms Lamptey of abusing her office, petitioned the President in accordance with the Constitution.
Prima facie case
The President referred the petition to the Chief Justice, Mrs Georgina Wood, who had to establish a prima facie case in the petition before Ms Lamptey could be investigated.
Article 228 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that “The procedure for the removal of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner shall be the same as that provided for the removal of a Justice of the Court of Appeal and a Justice of the High Court respectively under article 146 of the Constitution.”
Media reports indicate that the Chief Justice has established a prima facie case against Ms Lamptey, but even before the Chief Justice appoints a panel to investigate the case, Ms Lamptey is reported by Joy FM (myjoyonline.com) to have expressed disappointment in the action of the Chief Justice for establishing a prima facie case against her.
According to the report, the CHRAJ Commissioner in a statement said, she was “very disappointed by the fact that the Chief Justice has determined that a prima facie case has been established against me, which therefore needs further investigation”, and added that "...I have every respect for our constitutional processes and full confidence in both this process and the recently completed Special Purpose Audit into my accommodation arrangements.”
Ms Lamptey, who says she is confident that she will be cleared of all the charges when she presents her side of the story to the yet-to-be-constituted investigative committee, also says “I, therefore, welcome the opportunity which such an investigation offers, to present my side of the story in an open and transparent manner, and to clear my name of the accusations which have been levelled against me over the past several weeks in the media and by the petitioners."
So what caused Ms Lamptey’s disappointment in the Chief Justice? She says she welcomes the opportunity which has been offered her to defend herself, because she has “every respect for our constitutional processes and full confidence in both this process.”
Disappointment
Since she has confidence in the constitutional process, and she welcomes the opportunity, why then is she disappointed in the Chief Justice? Was she expecting the Chief Justice to sweep the petition under the carpet because they are both women (blue on blue)?
I said in the first article I wrote about Ms Lamptey’s case on September 20, 2014, that she was one of the women occupying top positions in Ghana that I had admired since her appointment, and that with her decent looks, I was looking forward to see her fight for Ghanaians with her commission as Justice Short and Anna Bossman before her did.
But I must admit that she has continued to disappoint me with her further actions and statements. She has so far behaved as if she does not care a hoot about public opinion about her. There was no hurry for her to move from the expensive hotel she was staying.
Even when she was supposed to respond to the Chief Justice after she had been requested to do so, she, as the one entrusted with ensuring administrative justice, delayed in responding to the Chief Justice. For whatever reasons for her delay, and whether she requested for an extension or not, her behaviour as a lawyer and a commissioner responsible for promoting administrative justice and human rights, was far below expectation.
Being disappointed in the work of somebody means that the person has not done their work well, therefore does Ms Lamptey, expressing disappointment in the Chief Justice thinks she (Chief Justice) has not done her work properly by establishing a prima facie case against her?
Again, how can Ms Lamptey be happy with the opportunity offered her by the legal and constitutional system and at the same time be disappointed with the same system? Is that not double standards and empty talk?
If I were to advise her, I would have prevailed on her not to make any public pronouncements as the more she makes such pronouncements, the more she increases the anger of the public and shows her insensitivity towards the difficult situations the ordinary people in Ghana find themselves.
Ms Lamptey must understand that no matter how she is connected in government or what powers are behind her, no public servant, including herself, is above the law. Her statement against the Chief Justice was in very bad taste. We must learn to humble ourselves in all situations.
Let’s wait and see how this Georgina vs. Lauretta fight ends.
The author is a Political Scientist, and Media and Communication Expert.
