You are here: HomeOpinionsArticles2017 07 14Article 558623

The Indemnity Clause: A worst injustice against Ghanaians?

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (10)

  • Idiot Contemnor Mugabe 6 years ago

    Yes it is!

    Two legs bad four legs good!

    If they have nothing to hide, why cover your back?

    I agree. The useless indemnity clause must be tossed!

  • TECH TRENDS 6 years ago

    Many are taking their destiny in their hands with this business NOT WAITING ENDLESSLY TO BE CALLED FOR A JOB. Nothing wrong in searching but one should get busy in a worthy venture. Check out reviews from those who have train ...
    read full comment

  • Offinso Kokote Asamoah 6 years ago

    Prof Mills' constituted Constitional Review Committee was just a waste of the taxpayers money. It was just a move to warn Rawlings to stop badmouthing Mills. Ray Atuguba and his men actually recommended to repeal of the inde ...
    read full comment

  • kjj 6 years ago

    Stupid write up,when it was been writen you stupid akyems boycotted.

  • Muga 6 years ago

    Unlettered fool!

    What makes you think the author is an Akyem or Akan?

    Tribal fool, don't judge anyone by his/her name.

  • Kweku trouble 6 years ago

    Why are we names by our families? This is not showbiz.

  • Kwadwo Kyei 6 years ago

    There we go again. The tribal bigot and empty brain. Such a fool.

  • huntsman 6 years ago

    God bless you brother for writing about this Rawlings indemnity clause. After the high court Judges were slaughtered under his administration, his government came up with this clause for safety. What is good for the goose is ...
    read full comment

  • Mr Bond 6 years ago

    Rawlings deliberate include indemnity clause in our constitution was insult to our intelligence to protect himself with corruption and looting state assets and money is the worst injustices perpetuate against Ghanaians.Rawlin ...
    read full comment

  • ICM 6 years ago

    I could not agree with you more. Rawlings is indeed a hypocrite. He preaches virtue but practices vice. If he has nothing to conceal, why protect his back with the ridiculous indemnity clause?