The recent mass withdrawal of cases against government appointees by the Mahama administration has sparked controversy and criticism, particularly from legal practitioner and NPP member, Kwasi Kwarteng. Kwarteng argues that the actions of Attorney General Dr. Dominic Ayine are selective, targeting opposition figures while shielding members of the ruling NDC, thus undermining the government’s purported commitment to fighting corruption. He contends that this selective application of justice erodes public trust and raises serious questions about the administration’s adherence to principles of good governance and fairness. Kwarteng points to several high-profile cases involving significant sums of public money, including the ambulance trial, the Cocobod case, the Saglemi housing scandal, and the SSNIT case, all of which have been dropped under the current administration. This pattern, he argues, suggests a deliberate strategy to protect political allies and creates a perception of impunity within the ruling party.
Kwarteng emphasizes the importance of interpreting Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, which grants discretionary powers to the Attorney General, in conjunction with Articles 23 and 296, which uphold principles of fairness, reasonableness, and the avoidance of arbitrariness. He suggests that the selective withdrawal of cases constitutes an abuse of the Attorney General’s discretion, effectively weaponizing the legal system for political purposes. This, he argues, not only undermines the rule of law but also creates a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers and discourages citizens from holding their leaders accountable. The perception of a two-tiered justice system, where government officials enjoy preferential treatment, erodes public confidence in the judiciary and fuels cynicism about the prospects of genuine anti-corruption efforts.
While acknowledging that Ghanaian law does not explicitly mandate the Attorney General to provide reasons for withdrawing charges, Kwarteng emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in upholding public trust. He argues that providing clear and justifiable reasons for such decisions is not merely a matter of legal technicality but a crucial aspect of demonstrating good governance and respecting the public’s right to know. The absence of explanations fuels speculation about ulterior motives and allows for narratives of political interference to proliferate. This ultimately weakens the integrity of the justice system and reinforces the perception that those in power are above the law.
The selective nature of the withdrawals, coupled with the lack of transparency surrounding these decisions, raises serious concerns about the government’s commitment to combating corruption. By seemingly shielding its own members from prosecution while pursuing cases against political opponents, the administration creates an environment where corruption can flourish unchecked. This undermines the foundations of a democratic society and sends a dangerous message that political connections can shield individuals from accountability for their actions. Such practices not only erode public trust but also discourage foreign investment and hinder economic development.
The pattern of dropping cases against high-ranking government officials, especially those involving substantial financial irregularities, fuels public perception of widespread corruption within the ruling party. This perception is further exacerbated by the lack of transparency surrounding the decisions to withdraw charges, leading to widespread speculation and suspicion. The absence of clear explanations for these actions allows for narratives of political manipulation and cronyism to take hold, further eroding public confidence in the government’s integrity and its professed commitment to fighting corruption. This cycle of perceived impunity ultimately undermines the rule of law and fosters a culture of corruption that can have devastating consequences for the nation’s development and stability.
The controversy surrounding the withdrawn cases highlights the critical need for greater transparency and accountability within the Ghanaian justice system. This includes not only a requirement for the Attorney General to provide detailed justifications for withdrawing charges but also strengthened mechanisms for independent oversight and investigation of potential abuses of power. Building public trust in the impartiality and effectiveness of the justice system is essential for ensuring a stable and prosperous democratic society. Without strong safeguards against political interference and a commitment to equal application of the law, the fight against corruption will remain a hollow promise, and the potential for genuine progress will be severely hampered.
