“A man has to fight for something. The man who will not fight for something, is not fit to live.” [Variant- Martin Luther King]

Because of the activities of corrupt people, three High Court Judges and a retired Army Officer were murdered at the height of the 4th June Revolution. Their actions to uphold the rule of law, even for corrupt individuals, was seen as a hindrance to swift justice by the junta. It is an incident which is closer to home and it is a tragic and an unfortunate incident which has deprived the nation and families of a mother and three astute men who served the nation diligently.

The lives of good people were taken because of the action of corrupt individuals.

It will be a failure if conditions are allowed to fester to pre-revolution levels, because it will mean that the blood of the innocent have truly been wasteful and we can bow our heads in shame, because within our midst are people, who have paid a terrible price for a cause which has done nothing to remove the objective for which good people they were slain.

A recent bid by eighty Members of Parliament, to have the sale of Merchant Bank to Fortiz Equity examined, was dismissed by the Speaker of the House; Hon. D. Adjaho on the grounds that the issue is before the courts and cannot therefore be discussed in parliament. This premise has previously been used by both Dr Kunbour and Ms Idrissu as Attorney Generals, to prevent parliamentary scrutiny and disclosure in the Waterville Saga.

Hon Adjaho’s decision is misplaced.

The case for contempt which arises as a result of infringing the directive not to discuss a court case, is found in prejudice. And the case for prejudice is found, if it causes or is liable to cause a detriment. The action of parliament cannot be deemed as contempt, if it does not influence or seek to influence the court case or parties to it, or cause them any detriment.

The objective of the court, dealing with the issue of whether Mr Awuni is in a position [locus standi ] to bring a challenge against the sale of the Merchant Bank by the Social Security and National Insurance Trust [SSNIT], is entirely different from the exercise of due diligence [ parliamentary scrutiny ], which parliament will undertake, in examining the process of the sale of the Merchant Bank to Fortiz Equity. There is nothing in the remit of the court, which should fall within a parliamentary discourse, examining the circumstances of a sale.

In spite of the clarity of differences, the eighty Members of Parliament, did not include as part of their bill any request to examine the right of Mr Awuni and the speakers job would have been to steer parliament away from any discourse which would have bordered on the merits of Mr Awuni’s case.

If we go by the Speaker’s premise, it will mean that parliament will not be able to undertake any of it duties, because there is no action in parliament which will not have an aspect of it before any of the courts in the country. It will mean that a bill can be halted, by trawling the courts to find a related case.

Should Mr Awuni be granted the right to challenge the sale, he or anyone else in a similar situation can mount a challenge, whether parliament deems the sale as proper or not. It will then be up to the courts to examine the evidence that Mr Awuni will present to support his case. The action of parliament is therefore not relevant to Mr Awuni’s case or the court, unless it will influence both or any party to it.

The Merchant Bank saga is not over yet and as we will later see, it potentially sets the foundation for the greatest pension swindle that the nation has ever known.

There is a lot of pain and frustration by the people who see themselves as completely overwhelmed by corruption in a nightmarish situation they would like stopped. There are indications that even the NDC guru dubbed “The General” is showing signs of frustration and has withdrawn from his fiery support of the government he helped put into power. Feeling double-crossed, he and his adjutants seem to be in fallback positions, while they regroup to think of their next move. There is the need to rally and find an effective and proper manner in tackling the problem. None of those will rely on the channels or people that are proving unreliable.

If, the speaker does not want the sale of Merchant Bank examined, that is unfortunate, but it is what he stands for. We have no way of telling if the speaker came to this conclusion on his own volition or whether he was cajoled into it.

The fact still remains: Each instance that something is unlawfully taken to enrich a few, someone suffers an injustice, a child goes hungry, someone does not get access to needed medical, educational or social help and little more of the blood shed in the revolution seeps into the ground. Surely! You could not sleep on that?