Ghana’s democracy cannot be strengthened when political actors appear to assume the powers of institutions established by law.
The controversy surrounding the arrest and prosecution of Manhyia South Member of Parliament, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has taken a troubling turn following comments by National Democratic Congress Deputy General Secretary, Mustapha Gbande, concerning the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).
Mr Gbande initially said he met the EOCO boss and told him to arrest the NPP legislator. He later clarified that he did not “order” the arrest, but acknowledged telling the EOCO boss to ensure that the MP was arrested.
That distinction does not remove the fundamental question raised by the episode. Who gave a governing-party official the authority to direct a state investigative institution on whom to arrest? That is the question the NDC must answer, not with political rhetoric, but with clarity.
The Daily Statesman is not arguing that Nana Baffour Awuah should be above the law. He is a citizen and, if there are allegations against him, the appropriate state institutions must investigate them. Indeed, EOCO has said its investigations concern allegations including criminal conspiracy, financial loss to SIC Savings and Loans, money laundering and tax-related offences. The MP has denied the allegations and has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him. He was subsequently granted GH¢10 million bail with two sureties.
The issue, therefore, is not whether EOCO has the right to investigate him. It does. The issue is whether that investigation must be conducted according to law, procedure and institutional independence rather than political instruction. Ghana’s democratic institutions cannot function properly if political party officials begin to behave as though they can determine who should be arrested, prosecuted or investigated.
EOCO itself has assured the public that its investigations are conducted professionally, independently and in accordance with due process, and that persons involved in its investigations will be afforded their constitutional and legal rights. Those assurances are important.
But they become difficult to reconcile with public statements suggesting that a senior official of the governing party could personally approach the head of an investigative institution and tell him to arrest an opposition MP. The NDC should understand that democratic institutions do not belong to the governing party.
EOCO does not belong to the NDC. The Police Service does not belong to the NDC. The Attorney-General’s Office does not belong to the NDC. And the institutions of justice do not become instruments of whichever political party happens to occupy the executive branch. This is precisely why the distinction between political authority and institutional authority matters.
If EOCO had independent grounds for investigating Nana Baffour Awuah, then let the evidence speak. If investigators believed an arrest was necessary, let the law and the courts provide the basis. There should be no need for a governing-party official to appear to direct the process.
The facts already available show that the matter eventually went through the courts. EOCO obtained a warrant, Baffour Awuah surrendered to the agency on October 1 and he was later arraigned before court, where he pleaded not guilty and was granted bail. That is how a democracy should work. Institutions must investigate. Prosecutors must prosecute where the evidence supports it. Courts must adjudicate.
And political parties must stay within their constitutional and political boundaries. The NDC should therefore resist the temptation to defend every statement made by its officials simply because the person involved belongs to the party. The governing party has a greater responsibility to protect institutional independence because it has greater access to state power.
When political actors appear to direct law enforcement against opposition figures, it inevitably creates perceptions of selective justice, even where the underlying investigation may be legitimate. Those perceptions matter. A democracy is not sustained only by elections. It is sustained by public confidence that the same law applies to everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
The Daily Statesman therefore urges the NDC to be mindful of the dangerous precedent such conduct can create. Today it may be an NPP MP. Tomorrow, another government may apply the same logic to an NDC MP. Once political parties normalise the idea that their officials can influence who law enforcement should arrest, no party can claim to be safe from the consequences.
Ghana has built its democratic reputation over decades. That achievement must not be undermined by partisan interference, real or perceived, in the work of state institutions. The proper response to allegations is evidence. The proper response to defiance of lawful processes is due process.
The Daily Statesman believes that the proper response to suspected crime is investigation and prosecution according to law. Not political instructions. Ghana cannot build a durable democracy when political power appears to substitute itself for institutional authority. The NDC must know better, and must do better.
About The Author
