The dent on Parliament
When the vetting process commenced, there were many Ghanaians who felt a sense of relief that this time round,
Advertisement
we would witness a productive and functional process that would bring out the best of the nominees. However, it seems some of our honourable members have construed the process as a test of morality and ethical behaviour, a means of undoing some of the political campaign ugly noises. If all Ghanaians were to grill Member of Parliament (MPs) on some of the things they said on their campaign trails as a means of judging their competence, then majority of them would not qualify to be described as honourable.
That is why the vetting should not be used as a means of reasserting the integrity of politicians. We as a people are interested in evaluating our ministers of state to establish whether they have what it takes to move national development and progress forward. Thus, apart from those who have been proven to have involved themselves in fraudulent and criminal acts, we should not act as a means of appeasement for campaign talk. By all means, there must be decorum in our political discourse but we have to make a distinction between baseless attacks and criticism. As Thomas Carlyle has noted, “Fear of criticism is the kiss of death in the courtship of achievement.”
Even as we are trying to cope with the process of the vetting because the highest court of the land has said that vetting is not a term of art, comes the devastating message that an attempt has been made to corrupt members with money. We are even more confused as the key person in the whole saga has denied ever giving money to any MP. The Chairman of the Appointments Committee of Parliament and First Deputy Speaker, Mr Joe Osei-Wusu denied any such development and that was confirmed by the Minority Chief Whip, Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka, who is alleged to have been the courier of the bribe money. We do not know who to believe.
When Citizen Vigilante, Mr Martin Amidu, asserted that bribery was diffused under the fifth and sixth Parliaments, claiming that ministers of state had to pay their way through some of the time, there was a wide and loud protestation from the Legislature. There were a few who would have had the shadow Vice-President hauled before the Privileges Committee of the House to face the laws of the land for bringing the integrity of the august body into opprobrium and disrepute, in other words in contempt of Parliament.
Our elders say that if “Bomokyekyie firi nsuo ase beka se Denkyem awu a yengye no akyinnye” meaning “if fish comes from under the water to say that crocodile is dead we do not dispute it”. However, they fail to advise us on what to do if two of such fish come to give contradictory statements about the status of crocodile. In the specific instance of the bribery allegation between Mahama Ayariga and his cohorts and the Minority Chief Whip, we do not know who we should believe.
That is why I want to support those who are calling for an independent investigation into the matter. While we do not want to undermine the independence of Parliament, we have to appreciate that in our constitutional setting, Parliament is not supreme. Indeed, none of the three arms of government is supreme. The supremacy lies with the good people of this country. Our Constitution is unambiguous and unequivocal as it states categorically that “the sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.”
The British Parliament, which is conventionally supreme, faced with allegations of corruptible practices involving MPs, felt that an independent investigation was the answer. While a lot of rot came up, including abuse of claims for unspent expenditure, the image of the House of Commons was rather enhanced with the inquiry. Therefore, to avoid the charge of the leadership attempting to cover up, it would be appreciated if the House would admit to an independent investigation. After the investigations, those who would be found culpable would have to bow out by resigning or be impeached from the House.
On the other hand, if MPs think that they are unwilling to surrender their independence, then the provisions of Article 116 clause 2-4 must be invoked. The leadership of the House must act decisively. Parliament is too important an institution to be sacrificed for any individual or political party.