Justice on a leash – Minority claims legislation enforcement is getting used to punish political fighters – Life Pulse Daily.

Introduction

In the complex landscape of Ghanaian politics, the delicate balance between the rule of law and political governance has once again come under intense scrutiny. A recent high-level engagement between the Minority Caucus in Parliament and President John Mahama at the Jubilee House has sparked a critical national conversation regarding the independence of the judiciary and the enforcement of legislation. The core of this discourse revolves around the Minority’s assertion that the justice system is being manipulated to target political opponents, a phenomenon they describe as “justice on a leash.”

This allegation suggests a disturbing trend where legal mechanisms are allegedly weaponized to suppress dissent and punish political fighters, rather than to uphold impartial justice. As the nation navigates its democratic journey, these claims pose significant questions about the health of Ghana’s constitutional order. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the Minority’s concerns, exploring the implications of selective prosecutions, the weaponization of justice, and the broader risks to Ghana’s democratic stability.

Key Points

To fully grasp the gravity of the situation, it is essential to distill the primary arguments presented by the Minority Caucus. These key points highlight the specific areas where the opposition perceives a breakdown in legal fairness and governance.

The Weaponization of Justice

The central accusation is that the justice system has been transformed into a tool for political persecution. The Minority argues that selective investigations and prosecutions are being employed to target members of the opposition.

Erosion of Trust in the Rule of Law

By allegedly applying the law based on political affiliation—a concept termed “justice by party colour”—the Minority warns that public confidence in the judiciary is being systematically destroyed. The principle that “justice is blind” is allegedly being ignored.

Systematic Harassment of the Opposition

Beyond the courts, the Minority cites political maneuvers aimed at weakening the opposition. This includes attempts to remove the Minority Leader from the ECOWAS Parliament and referring him to the Privileges Committee.

Politicization of Election Petitions

The caucus raised concerns that election petitions are being used not to correct electoral injustices, but to engineer by-elections for political gain, thereby undermining the will of the electorate.

Socio-Economic Security Risks

The Minority linked the political climate to national security, citing rising violent crime, kidnappings, and a youth unemployment crisis (1.3 million youths not in education, employment, or training) as fuel for instability.

Background

The current tensions have deep roots in the political history of Ghana. The interaction between the executive branch and the opposition is a defining feature of the country’s Fourth Republic. The specific meeting at the Jubilee House on December 8, which brought together digital marketing experts, parliamentary figures, and senior presidency officials, served as the catalyst for these public declarations.

The Minority Leader, supported by the Minority Chief Whip, utilized this platform to articulate “grave concerns” regarding governance and security. The context of these allegations is crucial: they emerge at a time when the opposition feels increasingly marginalized. The Minority’s statement is not merely a complaint but a formal warning that the current trajectory threatens the foundational pillars of the Republic.

Historically, accusations of a biased justice system are not unique to any single administration in Ghana. However, the specific mechanisms cited—such as the use of high bail amounts as punitive measures and the entry of nolle prosequi (a formal notice of abandonment of a criminal case) for allies of the incumbent—highlight a specific pattern of alleged abuse that the Minority claims is unprecedented in its brazenness.

Analysis

The allegations made by the Minority Caucus necessitate a deep dive into the mechanics of democratic erosion. When a ruling party is accused of using the state’s coercive powers against the opposition, it touches upon the fundamental concept of “Lawfare”—the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent.

The Concept of “Justice by Party Colour”

The Minority’s phrase “justice by party colour” is a potent metaphor for a two-tiered legal system. In a functioning democracy, the law applies equally to all citizens regardless of their political standing. The claim that opposition figures face prohibitively high bail conditions—which function as financial punishment rather than procedural necessity—while cases involving government allies are discontinued, suggests a clear disparity in treatment. If verified, this undermines the moral authority of the state and erodes the social contract between the government and the governed.

Parliamentary Immunity and Harassment

The attempt to remove the Minority Leader from the ECOWAS Parliament and the threats to refer him to the Privileges Committee represent a strategic encirclement of opposition leadership. By targeting the leader’s international and domestic parliamentary standing, the ruling party can effectively mute the opposition’s voice on multiple platforms. This is not just political maneuvering; it is an institutional assault on the right to dissent.

Election Petitions as Political Tools

The manipulation of election petitions is particularly insidious. In a democracy, the courts are the final arbiter of electoral disputes. However, if litigation is utilized to engineer by-elections solely for the purpose of gaining a parliamentary seat, the judiciary becomes an extension of the campaign trail. This weaponization of the courts turns legal recourse into a “gun for seat acquisition,” stripping the judiciary of its neutrality.

The Security Nexus: Unemployment and Crime

The Minority’s analysis correctly connects political instability with socio-economic factors. The statistic that 1.3 million youth are without education, employment, or training is a ticking time bomb. When a large demographic feels disenfranchised and the state apparatus is viewed as corrupt or partisan, the environment becomes ripe for radicalization and violent crime. The reported rise in kidnappings and impunity further confirms the state’s potential failure in its primary duty: the protection of life and property.

Practical Advice

For citizens, political observers, and international partners trying to navigate and understand this landscape, the following steps are recommended to ensure engagement with the democratic process remains constructive and informed.

For the Citizenry

Verify Information: In an era of “breaking news,” it is vital to cross-reference claims of judicial bias or specific legal cases with official court records and reputable news sources.

Civic Engagement: Democracy thrives on participation. Citizens should attend town halls, engage with their Members of Parliament, and demand transparency regarding the specific cases mentioned by the Minority.

For Political Actors

Adherence to Procedure: The Minority must continue to utilize constitutional and parliamentary mechanisms, as they stated they would. This includes formal petitions to the judiciary oversight bodies and parliamentary inquiries.

Focus on Policy: While addressing grievances, the opposition should balance this with substantive policy alternatives to address the youth unemployment and security issues highlighted in their statement.

For the Judiciary

Transparency in Rulings: To combat the narrative of “justice by party colour,” the judiciary must ensure that the rationale for bail conditions and the discontinuation of cases is made public and legally sound, thereby maintaining public trust.

FAQ

Conclusion

The allegations presented by the Minority Caucus paint a grim picture of the state of Ghana’s democracy. The claim that the justice system is being used as a weapon against political fighters challenges the very essence of the rule of law. If the judiciary is perceived as a tool of the executive rather than an independent arbiter, the foundation of the Republic is at risk.

The warnings issued—regarding the weaponization of justice, the harassment of opposition figures, and the socio-economic roots of insecurity—are not merely political rhetoric but serve as a call to action for all stakeholders. The President and the ruling government bear the heavy burden of proving these allegations wrong through transparent governance and strict adherence to constitutional principles. As the Minority has warned, history will indeed judge this moment. The path forward requires a recommitment to the principle that justice is blind and that democracy is protected through the strengthening of institutions, not their weakening.