This article is prompted by the
Supreme Court’s handling of the thorny issue of contempt outside of court,
technically referred to as “ex facie curie,” in the ongoing presidential
petition. I begin on the simple premise that what enhances our progress as a
nation in one sphere stifles our progress in other spheres.
Specifically, our unique cultural
virtue of forgiveness and tolerance make us a peaceful people…but at what cost?
“Could there possibly be a down side to a good virtue that is exercised with
the best of intentions?” you might ask almost absent-mindedly. My answer is
yes. I will explain, but first, let me mention that I will use President
Mahama and Mr. Awuku to represent different power hierarchies in the Ghanaian
political system. I do not intend to invoke partisan sentiments to please or
displease any particular faction.
The Supreme Court, led by Judge
William Atuguba, issued three unambiguous warnings to the public on three
separate occasions against making contemptuous remarks. According to the
court, contemptuous statements, by their deceitful nature, tend to mislead and inflame
passions of unsuspecting members of society, and could ultimately lead to chaos
and conflict. Needless to say, these warnings came from the highest court of
the Republic of Ghana adjudicating over a uniquely sensitive case with no
precedent of its nature and importance. Ordinarily, you would expect political
leaders to hold their followers in check against making unguarded comments
while the case is still being decided in court. However, the situation on
ground has proven to be the polar opposite, leaving respectable members of
society baffled. The troubling situation is that it is not only the “young and
inexperienced” NPP Deputy Communication’s Director, Samuel Awuku, who is guilty
of breaching the court orders; the President himself, John Dramani Mahama, may
as well be guilty.
At the 20th anniversary
ceremony of a gathering in the Eastern Region, the President made a
controversially contemptuous public statement to the effect that his presidency
is God-ordained. This is coming at the time that his legitimacy as the
president of Ghana is being decidedly challenged in court. His message may
sound harmless on the surface, but it carries grave implications for a)
national peace and security and b) the integrity of the Supreme Court. His
message provides a moral justification for his over-zealous supporters to cause
a “Jihad” sort of mayhem in the event that the court ruling does not go in
favor of his administration. This is a classic indirect ex facie curie, but the
Supreme Court did not consider it contemptuous enough or chose to ignore it,
despite issuing a number of warnings just weeks ago.
Constitutionally, we know the
president cannot be cited for contempt by any court. Ace Ankomah, the legal
pundit, commenting on this post on my Facebook timeline, stated, “Citing the
President for contempt will unleash a major constitutional crisis. He cannot be
the subject of any civil, criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings whilst in
office.” But he was quick to add, “…his continued breach of the law could be a
ground for impeachment.”
Finally, the Supreme Court
found a perfect scapegoat—a young and ambitious Samuel Awuku—who allegedly
described one of the court's punitive measures as “hypocritical and selective.”
The Atuguba-led judges appear to have had enough; the rod of justice must
strike. However, what unfolded next may surprise the rest of the world, but not
Ghanaians. It will effectively launch us into the primary import of this
article.
The judges took more than one
hour out of court proceedings to deliberate and decide on what to do with this
individual. Yes, one hour of Supreme Court’s time! Psychologists have long
noted that certain kinds of punishment actually reinforce undesirable
behaviors, instead of curbing them. In this case, giving the culprit an unprecedented
attention on national television is a powerful negative reinforcer, especially
if the punishment is not deterrent enough. Eventually, the court decided to
temper justice with mercy, as the respondents and petitioners both pleaded on
his behalf, in line with the Ghanaian culture of forgiveness and tolerance. He
later issued an apology. In Justice Atuguba’s ruling on the case, he stated,
“We have considered the
candid admission of Mr. Sammy Awuku’s utterances…in reaction to the final
warning of the Court with regard to improper reportage and the previous
warnings of this court concerning contemptuous comments, utterance and
attitudes towards this apex court of Ghana, issued just on the 24th day of June
2013. He has apologised and withdrawn the same before this Court and has
further undertaken to repeat the retraction by 6pm today.”
Mr. Awuku’s only punishment for
willingly flouting the rules of the court was exclusion from court proceedings
for the duration of the case. The judges exercised a prime Ghanaian cultural
virtue of forgiveness and tolerance. Is this not a good and humane gesture? I
do not necessarily think so.
The tendency to forgive, even
after three warnings by the highest court of the land, is partly what makes
Ghana a uniquely peaceful country in Africa—but also notoriously lawless.
Principles do not run deep enough, and laws are not applied consistently across
board. This same reason explains why corruption is deeply entrenched in
society—one can break the law with impunity, but find ways and means to evade
punishment, especially if they are a “somebody”…but what happens to the
“nobodies”?
If the Supreme Court needed
only an apology, after three forewarnings on-camera, in order to allow the
sword of justice to strike on a willful contemnor, I do not see how that sends
a good signal to ordinary Ghanaians to uphold the law off-camera. In my view,
if the President himself had been reprimanded publicly by the Court for his
problematic declaration in the first place, Mr. Awuku would have been reasonably
deterred. By applying what seems to be selective justice, the court was somehow
obliged to pardon Mr. Awuku in order to avoid a possible public backlash
from the opposition faction.
Our
culture of forgiveness is great and has caused our peace as a nation to be
abundant, but the opportunity cost is that our principles are shallow, our
application of justice is selective, and this creates the right conditions for
corruption to thrive. What enhances our progress in one sphere stifles our
progress in other spheres, but how do we deal with this apparent paradox?
Perhaps it is time our well-placed intellectuals paid scholarly attention to
some of our subtle little devils.