Two friends who delight in savaging each other meet just as the Christmas shopping has reached frantic proportions. Plenty of unpurchased items remain on each other’s list. But the money in their pockets has been flying faster than the Artemis rocket that took NASA’S latest probe into space. )
F1 – You won’t believe this but…
F2 – You have managed to obtain an exclusive interview with Aisha Yuang? How did you find her? I believe she has fired her lawyer? The guy could talk oh! But I don’t think he would just lead you to her like that? It would be unethical!
F1—was it unethical for him to comment publicly on the proceedings in court, after the court had risen? Don’t bring yourself! Talking about the ethics of legal practice when you’re not a lawyer!
– Hahahahaha! Well, I should be so lucky as to be taken to the Chinese lettuce! No, but…
– You have seen letters from “influential” persons close to the President, telling him that they are resigning from their posts because they have severally embarrassed him and exposed him to public ridicule, by saying they would go to the IMF, when they had sworn to heaven that promised they would not go?
– No but…
– You have seen the secret minutes of the Minority caucus discussion on the Censure Motion against the Finance Minister?
– No, but…..
– Oh, then it must be the Majority caucus minutes that you’ve seen?
– Why are you so obsessive about “Minutes”? Who told you they write “Minutes” about such meetings? They just “agree” on certain actions, and everyone carries his version of the agreement in his head! Otherwise, why would there be so much disagreement on what said or decided when disputes about it arise?
– Did the Speaker write “Minutes” about his own decision?
– No! He just needed to write down what he thought, read it to the House and let the MPs come to their own conclusions on what he had said.
– You mean the REASONS behind what he had said?
– Take it as you like it. Everyone can reach their own verdict on the issue.
– Hmmmmm – these ideas of us marrying a presidential system to a parliamentary system is crazy ain’t it? In a parliamentary system, a vote of censure is a purely political event. The opposition says, “We don’t think the Government can call on enough MPs to vote to show that they still repose enough confidence for it to carry out nits programme. So let’s test the matter: let’s vote on whether the MAJORITY of MPs in the House have s confidence in the Government or not!
– And the vote is taken, and the Government survives, or is defeated?
– Yes. But in our case, a purely political issue was transformed into a judicial issue, with lawyers allowed to intervene! How can a lawyer prove that a Minister continues to enjoy the confidence of the House? If a Minister is accused of wrong-doing, everyone should be aware that if the MPs accusing him liked him, they would never make the accusation, in the first place!
– So, here, nobody ever admits doing wrong.
– And nobody ever resigns! Even when Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and potential prime ministers are announcing themselves with abandon and resigning every minute, in the Mother of Parliaments!
– Well, it can’t happen here, because we have cleverly made our rules so murky.
– “Mea culpa! Ergo, I resign!”?
– No; unlike Kwasi Kwarteng, they didn’t go to Eton, so Latin concepts mean nothing to them!
– Yieeee! We are in trouble oh!”
– Yes, we inherited our public service system from the British and there….
– Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister when he deceived the nation about his activities during the Covid-19 lockdown?
– Only when he was found out, don’t forget.
– Yes” But we are independent and so, we independently allow foreigners to kill our water sources; we independently allow our Immigration Service to be unable to say whether they allowed a deportee back or not…
– Deportee? Are we sure that we deported anyone?
– No, we are “not sure!” But…
– Do we know why our Attorney-General issued a “nolle prosequi” to stop the prosecution of the person we are not sure whether we “deported”?
– Do we know why our Attorney-General has once again intervened in the prosecution of the “alleged-deportee-who—has–returned”?
– Not quite. But….
– Aha? The Attorney-General gave the impression, did he not, that he was going to supervise the prosecution himself this time, and so the court should remand the accused, pending investigations?
– Yes! But….
– But didn’t the lawyer of the “deportee-who-returned” remark to the media, during the second appearance of the “deportee-who-returned”, that the charges against her were “minor” and that the Ghana media had “over-hyped” the case?
– Yes, but…..
– Have you read the Ghana Minerals and Mining Amendment Act 2019?
– You mean Act 995?
– No, I haven’t read it. But….
– Well, go and read it and tell me whether there is any offence in that Act that can be described as a “minor” offence!
– You are not suggesting that the Attorney-General has allowed the “deportee-who-has returned” to be charged under a law other than Act 995?
– Well, wasn’t there an earlier Act of 2016 that was amended by the 2019 Act? Under that Act, were galamsey activities treated as relatively “minor!”
– Yieee! What are we doing to ourselves in this country?
– You want to know? We have “independently” allowed our police service to keep mute over why the prosecution of those who killed a 70-year-old woman (Ama Hema) was ended. She was burnt alive in broad daylight for witchcraft at Tema, TWELVE YEARS AGO!
– What? Are you kidding?
– Go to the web and click on: Ghanaian woman burned to death for being a ‘witch’!
Ghanaian woman burned to death for being a ‘witch’
Evangelical pastor among five people arrested for dousing 72-year-old Ama Hemah in kerosene and setting her ablaze
– Oh, I remember! It was a front-page story in the Daily Graphic?
– Yes, and since the prosecution was stopped, the question “WHY?” Has been asked again and again. But no answer and no-one bothers to find out why there is “no answer.”
– Not even her Member of Parliament has followed it up?
– Nor the Ministry of the Interior?
– Nor the Cabinet Secretary?
– Nor the Chief of Staff?
– What about the “The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, CHRAJ”?
– No! The “CHRAJ” lack of curiosity, in particular, is most difficult to understand. For this is a case that should light up all the buttons that alert CHRAJ to breaches of our human rights laws.
– Hmmm! Every word concerning our law and politics has been copied from somewhere else. But when it comes to implementing them, we, pretend, as a “proud and independent” nation, that we can “op out!”
– Ei, so how will we end up?
– Oh, don’t worry. It’s very nice to sit down and do stupid things and yet be praised by foreigners for being “independent and sovereign!”
By Cameron Duodu