The recent grant of amnesty to 998 prison inmates by President John Dramani Mahama has sparked controversy, with some critics alleging that the move was politically motivated and designed to favor individuals aligned with the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC). However, Mr. Benjamin Kofi Quashie, High Commissioner-designate for South Africa, has staunchly defended the President’s decision, emphasizing its constitutional basis and dismissing the accusations of partisan bias as unfair and disingenuous. He questioned the double standard applied by those criticizing the amnesty, pointing out the lack of similar outcry when previous administrations, including that of President Akufo-Addo, granted similar amnesties without demands for public disclosure of beneficiary lists.
Mr. Quashie emphasized the rigorous and established legal process underlying the granting of amnesty, dispelling the notion of arbitrary decision-making. He explained that the process originates with the Council of State, proceeds through the Prisons Service Council for review and recommendation, and culminates in the President’s final approval. This structured approach, he argued, ensures that the decision is based on careful consideration and adherence to established procedures, rather than political expediency. He further underscored the importance of viewing prisons not merely as punitive institutions, but as centers for rehabilitation and reform, aligning the amnesty with the broader goal of reintegrating reformed individuals back into society.
The controversy surrounding the amnesty reflects a broader tendency towards politicizing virtually every issue in the country, according to Mr. Quashie. He lamented this pervasive politicization, urging a more nuanced and less partisan approach to matters of national importance. He called for trust in the established legal processes and institutions involved in granting amnesty, emphasizing that these safeguards are designed to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. The focus, he argued, should be on the potential for rehabilitation and successful reintegration of the beneficiaries into society, rather than on political point-scoring.
Mr. Quashie highlighted the precedent set by previous administrations in granting amnesty, noting that the current controversy appears to be driven by a selective application of scrutiny. He questioned why similar demands for transparency and accusations of political motivation were not raised during prior instances of amnesty, suggesting that the current criticism is rooted in partisan opposition rather than genuine concern for due process or transparency. This selective outrage, he argued, undermines the credibility of the criticisms and distracts from the important objective of rehabilitation and reintegration.
Addressing the issue of transparency, Mr. Quashie clarified that while the list of beneficiaries is not publicly released, it is maintained by the Prisons Service and accessible upon request. He argued that this approach balances the need for public accountability with the legitimate privacy concerns of the individuals involved. He further emphasized that the established legal framework surrounding the granting of amnesty already provides sufficient safeguards against abuse, rendering public disclosure of the list unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.
In summary, Mr. Quashie’s defense of the amnesty rests on several key arguments: the adherence to established legal procedures, the focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, the inconsistency of the criticism in light of past amnesties, and the balance between transparency and privacy concerns. He called for a de-escalation of the politicization surrounding the issue, urging critics to recognize the potential benefits of reintegrating reformed individuals into society and to trust in the integrity of the established legal processes designed to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. He maintained that the amnesty is a legitimate exercise of presidential power, consistent with constitutional provisions and established practice, and not a partisan maneuver as alleged by critics.
