The withdrawal of the military personnel on the secondment to the office of the speaker, What is the noise for

In all of this, I think the Military failed to exhibit maturity in the withdrawal process. This could have been done in a way that wouldn't have attracted the attention of the public.

The office of the speaker is a very respectable office and must not be reduced to such public ridicule by the Military. There must be consensus building on issues relating to governance. Anytime any of the state agencies decide to throw its weight around, it is always a clear recipe for disaster. All these could have been avoided”

I have listened to arguments for and against the withdrawal of the Military guards attached to the office of the Speaker. Without a doubt, the office of the speaker is an office of honor and one that deserves to be respected. The framers of the constitution mindful of the role of the speaker made it mandatory for the President to inform [the speaker] before leaving the jurisdiction.

Yes, the Commander in Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces must inform the speaker of Parliament before leaving the jurisdiction. That tells you the importance attached to the office of the Speaker. In effect, the security of the third gentleman of the land should therefore be of utmost importance to all of us and we must avoid politicizing everything relating to the security of the speaker.

The first question I asked myself when I heard of the withdrawal of the Military guards was whether it was normal for Military personnel to be attached to the office of the speaker and the answer was a big no. If it is No, why were they attached in the first place? Folks you will recall that on 7th January 2021, Military personnel stormed Parliament in the wake of the election of a Speaker and we all condemned it and declared it an affront to our Parliamentary democracy. If so why do we need the Military to protect the speaker? Is the speaker aware of something we are not aware of? Or is there something we must know about the security of the speaker that we are not aware of?

In June 2019, the then newly-appointed Marshal of Parliament, Lt Col John Buntuguh (Rtd) on a trip to the UK Parliament underlined the need to narrow down his mandate in Parliament since everything relating to security fell under his office. It is important to indicate that the situation is a bit different in the UK.

In the UK for instance, there is a clear division of duties between the Parliamentary Security Department, and the Serjeant at Arms and the Black Rod. The Parliamentary Security Department overlooks the security of the estate as a whole, whilst the Serjeant at Arms handles order and access for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

This is however lacking in Ghana where the Marshal of the Parliament of Ghana is responsible for all aspects concerning security and order on the parliamentary estate, both inside and outside the house. Is it the case that the work load on the Marshal is indeed too much hence the need for military protection for the Speaker? But what about the police?

In 2016, the then Speaker of Parliament, Rt Hon Edward Doe Adjaho at the inauguration of a new Police Station within the precincts of Parliament House made a strong justification for it. He noted that “an institution such as the country's legislature, which received large numbers of both local and foreign visitors, including high-level state officials, and served as a repository of highly classified information and materials of vital national interest needed to be protected and secured”.

If there is a Police Station within Parliament, why then will the Speaker have a need for Military personnel? Is it the case that the Police have not been able to provide the needed security? Or have they refused to ensure security in Parliament? Do they even have the power to enter parliament to ensure law and order?

The Police in a Press statement on 21st December 2021 stated unequivocally that “The legal position is that the Police have no authority to enter the chamber of Parliament to undertake any law enforcement venture. Any such act will be in contravention of the laws of the country”.

Even if the police, with powers for ensuring internal security has no business in Parliament, what will be the basis for allowing military personnel around the speaker within and without the walls of Parliament?

I want to believe that it is because of the importance of the office of the speaker of Parliament and Parliament as an independent arm of government that is why there is a constitutional provision for the office of the Marshal of Parliament to ensure the security of parliamentary proceedings, the MPs and the Speaker of Parliament.

If we have reason to believe that the workload on the office of the Marshal is too much, let us increase their capacity. If we want them to act as military personnel, let us train them to perform those duties. It is better to equip them than to ask the Military to come and be doing their work.

In all of this, I think the Military failed to exhibit maturity in the withdrawal process. This could have been done in a way that wouldn't have attracted the attention of the public. The office of the speaker is a very respectable office and must not be reduced to such public ridicule by the Military. There must be consensus building on issues relating to governance. Anytime any of the state agencies decide to throw its weight around, it is always a clear recipe for disaster. All these could have been avoided.

In that same spirit, I see no reason why the office of the Electoral Commissioner (EC) should have Military personnel on secondment. They have no role at the EC unless the EC is afraid of something we do not know as citizens. I am also informed that the Attorney-General has some military personnel seconded to his office. My question remains the same. What for?

Once the Military high command has taken steps and withdrawn the officers attached to the speaker of Parliament, they must as a matter of urgency withdraw all officers attached to the office of the EC as well as the office of the Attorney General. Any attempt to keep them will only make us put on our political lenses when discussing these issues.
This too shall pass.