The Montie Trio Sentence Remission, the President’s Trio, and the Politics of Legalism

The ensuing debate on President Mahama’s remission of the custodial sentence of the Montie trio—Messrs Salifu Maase, Alistair Nelson, and Godwin Ako Gunn—has reconfirmed the long standing view that politics has no clearly defined boundaries. In that vein, keen observers and pundits would agree that even the legal aspect of the debate has veered off the boundary of legalism into open political questions.

The key among these questions is why has president Mahama not reprimanded the presidential trio –the AG, BNI Boss, and IGP whose actions and inactions have contributed to raising unnecessary political tension in the country? As I argued in the August 1, 2016 article which was published widely by media houses including Myjoyonline.com, Peacefmonlne.com and Daily Guide, the administrative conduct of the presidential trio should occupy the center stage of the debate regarding the appalling behavior of the Montie trio and the subsequent trial and conviction by the Supreme Court. The offices of these public officers did not serve the national interest.

As usual, I will leave the content of the legal debate to the legal experts and concentrate my attention on the politics of the case and of legalism as expressed in the media. At the same time, I will reiterate my position that the president’s trio of appointees—the BNI boss, the IGP, and the AG—whose collective failure to properly investigate and prosecute the offenders is the underlying cause of the current state of affairs, need to be reprimanded by President Mahama. This is in the interest of good governance and safeguarding the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and the international image of Ghana. The case of the Montie trio is a serious legal issue that has is overtly politicized.

A careful study of the statement that was issued by the Minister of Communications, Dr. Edward Omane Boamah, reveals a political and not necessarily legal ‘victory’ for the NDC members, sympathizers and government ministers who signed the petition and called on the president to exercise his prerogative power of mercy under Article 72 of the 1992 Constitution to free the Montie tio. The political victory, as expected has excited the rank of file of the NDC party. However, the president’s refusal to exercise a full pardon means that the conviction of the Montie trio which is judicial-legal issue is intact. This singular act by the president reinforces the importance of judicial precedent on contempt of court cases.

The presidential remission of the sentence for the Montie trio did not in any way undermine the judicial precedent upon which the Supreme Court exercises its constitutional mandate. Therefore, it should be expected that until Parliament establishes a law on contempt of court to guide future cases, Judges would not be breaking any law or violate due process, as established, to put on trial citizens who slander or bring the name of the judicial arm of government into disrepute. At the level of the Executive arm of government, however, it would take courage from a president to resist any public pressure be it from his own party members or sections of the public to exercise the powers of prerogative of mercy in contempt of court cases.

Thus, the inherent relief or victory of president Mahama’s action is only political and not judicial-legal for the Montie trio and their sympathizers. Nevertheless, the action of the president and his appointees has culminated in causing eternal injury to the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law. If not handled carefully, the essence of the legal question surrounding the Supreme Court’s trial of contempt of court cases would be further diluted in politics and the country would miss an opportunity to improve upon its legal regime and good governance record.

True to the nature of politics, what appears to be a scholarly and principled suggestion by Professor Kwaku Asare, especially, to promote fair trial, protect human rights, and awaken public consciousness on the need to reform the ‘faulty’ due process of contempt of court trial has become the policy of the government to serve sectional political interest. The statement by the Ministry of Communications reveals more than the president’s compassion to protect the rights of the Montie trio.

The statement is inherently political than just the exercise of quasi judicial powers by the president. Indeed, keen observers and pundits will note that President Mahama had not spoken publicly about this case, yet, the government’s statement makes reference to the effect that “the president reminds all concerned especially persons working in the media or appearing on its platforms to be circumspect and guard against the use of intemperate language which has the potential of causing unnecessary tension especially in this election year”. This, inevitably, has turned the statement and the act of releasing the convicts from prison into a political strategy of the NDC party against the dissenters of the president’s remission of the custodial sentence. The end result is the excitement of NDC members and sympathizers. The polarized nature of the debate in the media is enough evidence to support this claim.

It should be reiterated that the very fact that the president’s remission of the sentence did not undo the judicial precedent itself as established by the Supreme Court makes the president’s action more political than the exercise of quasi judicial powers. The politics of his action is not only found in the identity of the offenders who are known NDC activist but also in what appears to be an executive cover-up of the failure of the AG, BNI, and IGP to act. It therefore stands to reason that Ghanaians should demand answers from the president as to why a corollary statement was not issued on appropriate sanctions that would be or has been imposed on the president’s trio of appointees. President Mahama should not only project the virtue of compassion to the offenders. He should as well demonstrate that will discipline his failed appointees as far as this case is concerned.

Within the context of national and human security, the totality of the Montie case and the government’s action that has followed sets a bad precedent for Ghana’s young democracy. It would take courageous and smart leadership and genuine public participation to ‘heal’ a nation that is polarized by the politics it practices. In terms of foreign policy, the current state of affairs sends wrong signals to Ghana’s partners and potential investors who are needed to create jobs for the youth and transform the already ailing economy.

It is very important that the president does not set the standard low for public officers especially his appointees who are directly answerable to him. To this end, it is within the right of the people in whom “the sovereignty of Ghana resides … 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 (1992 Fourth Republican) Constitution” to express a moral outrage not necessarily through demonstration on the failure of the BNI, the IGP, and the AG to serve the national interest in this particular case. The people should call on the president to act on his own trio of appointees as a way of bringing closure to those who strongly feel that his remission of the sentence of the Montie trio is not just an act of compassion but a political cover-up of the failures of his own appointees. Any rebuke of the president’s trio should be made transparent like the remission of the custodial sentence to allow public scrutiny.

For God and Country.
Edward Akuffo is an associate professor of international security and international relations at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.