RE: Why, Why, oh Why? – Ayikoi Otoo

RE: Why, Why, oh Why? – Ayikoi Otoo saddened by religious discrimination fears

I have read and listened to the voice clip with respect to the online reportage of 7th March 2015, in which Mr. Ayikoi Otoo in contributing to a panel discussion on Joy fm’s news analysis program- newsfile, expressly and by implication accused the Muslim community in Ghana of outrageous and malicious intent in its advocacy and push for all organizations and individuals in Ghana to respect and uphold the 1992 Constitution at all times. He made the following statements;
1. That Muslims in Ghana are pushing for an Islamic State. In his own words “this country is a Secular State and not Saudi Arabia where there is an Islamic State”.

2. That Muslims in Ghana are likely to soon declare “Christianity haram” (i.e Christianity is forbidden) or hatred towards Christians.


3. That Muslim students’ choice of Christian mission school and not Islamic mission school debars them of making any demand of non-discrimination. Also, if the rules of the mission schools include the fact that Muslims must attend morning devotion, then, it will be out of place for the same students’ to claim discrimination. This means, they either attend morning devotion which is against their belief or voluntarily withdraw from such school. This statement re-emphasizes the Catholic Bishop Conference’s press release.

4. That any religious conflict between Muslims and Christians now will be directly as a result of this call for non-discrimination of Muslims in Ghana.


5. That these agitations by the Muslim community in Ghana is likely to result to similar terrorist activities in the Middle East and Nigeria lead by ISIS and Boko Haram respectively.


Response
The above statements are baseless and false. I am compelled to refute the allegations because they create a misleading impression of the current demands of Muslims in Ghana as being insincere and not good for nation building.
Firstly, at no time or platform has any Muslim in Ghana suggested in the current scheme of discourse that this country be turned into an Islamic State. Muslims in Ghana are well aware of the fact that Ghana is a Secular State and this is evident in the preamble of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. So, for Mr. Otoo to suggest that the demands by the Muslim community which obviously derives its root from the 1992 constitution amount to calling for an Islamic State is not only misplaced and ignorant but also mischievous. For the benefit of those who have not followed the discourse on this issue, the following are broadly the demands of the Muslim community in Ghana;
i. That Muslim women be allowed to veil (i.e wear the hijab) anywhere they find themselves in Ghana, be them at work place or any social gathering because it is not just a constitutional imperative, but also a Holy Quranic imperative.

ii. That Muslim students’ should not be compelled to partake in Christian related worship (i.e morning devotion) in any secondary school in Ghana.


iii. That Muslims all over the country be respected for their right to practice Islam and to manifest their faith without fear or favour.
I must note that, for the avoidance of doubt, Muslims in Ghana are law abiding and are fully aware of the Secular status of our nation. At no point in our history or present day has any Muslim argued or agitated for an Islamic Rule. We are content with the current status of our country. We only seek to claim our right guaranteed under the 1992 constitution.
Article 21(1c) of the 1992 constitution state “All persons shall have the right to freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice”.
From the above constitutional provision therefore, without sounding contemptuous of the court, it seem to me that Muslims have the right to practice and to manifest their faith. Our Christian brothers also have the right to practice and manifest their faith freely. How then, with the constitutional provision in mind, can law abiding Muslims in Ghana ever push for an Islamic State? I am absolutely certain in my mind that in the event this comes up, I and many other Muslims will roundly reject that position. Until it comes up, it still remains a fact that no one in the Muslim community in Ghana has ever call for Ghana to become an Islamic State.

Secondly, Mr. Otoo claims that Muslims in Ghana will soon declare “Christianity haram” or forbidden. Here again, Mr. Otoo fails to acknowledge that the demands of the Muslims are done in an atmosphere of respect for the rule of law not the rule of the jungle. At no point has any Muslim shown or exhibited hatred or preached hatred against any religion in Ghana. I and many of my Muslim brothers have many friends from Christianity who are so close to us that we sometimes forget that we come from different faith. This truly is the situation among us because at the individual level we allow each other to practice and manifest their faith. Why can’t we accept our collective positions?
Thirdly, the claim that it is hypocritical for Muslims students’ to choose to attend a Christian mission school but not Ahmadiyah and yet expect these schools not to indoctrinate them by forcing them to attend morning devotions is at best childish. The reason is simply that the 1992 constitution is applicable to all institutions in Ghana and to the extent that the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of worship and the manifestation of one’s faith or belief, it matters not whether a Muslim chooses to attend a mission school or not. In fact , let us not forget that Muslims are demanding that all actions that tend to force these students’ into any acts of worship with the intention of indoctrinating them be put to an end, but, not asking for these students’ to be allowed to miss or not attend class sessions in order to undertake Islamic worship. Let us not also lose sight of the fact that these schools, be them publicly funded schools with the tax payers money ( which all mission schools now fall under) or private schools are subject to the 1992 constitution of Ghana. Mr. Otoo’s further claim that these mission schools have their rules and so must be abided by in so as a Muslim student chooses to attend such schools and not Ahmadiyah is to me disgraceful. For a lawyer of many years standing at the bar to make such a statement surprises me. Any first year law student knows that any law, rule, regulation etc enacted but found to be inconsistent with the 1992 constitution is to the extent of the inconsistence null and void. Therefore, forcing Muslim students’ to worship in a particular way inconsistent with their faith is a clear violation of their rights under the constitution no matter the purpose of that institution.
Fourthly, Mr. Otoo wonders why this issue is now a subject of debate. It is true that Muslims and Christians have lived together peacefully in this country over the years. It is also true that some organizations in this country have denied Muslims from manifesting their faith by wearing the hijab. That is a fundamental right issue and for a lawyer of Mr. Otoo’s standing at the bar to suggest that if your rights have been denied in the past, then you have no business ever seeking to enforce that right is at best hypocritical. Here is a man ( Mr. Otoo) who goes to court everyday defending the rights of his clients guaranteed under the 1992 constitution to make a living now telling Muslims not to ever mention that their rights be respected, since, they never did that in the past. We Muslims refuse to accept this defective and hollow logic. In the words of Martin Amidu “several and destructive conflicts in Africa have resulted from a failure of the law and lawyers as the ‘gatekeepers’ and moral conscience of the country”. I cannot agree more with this statement. I think Mr. Otoo should take a queue.
Fifthly, Mr. Otoo’s claim that these current demands of the Muslim community is likely to lead to terrorist activities in Ghana is most infantile. How can a peaceful request for the respect of the rule of law lead to terrorist activities similar to that of ISIS and Boko haram. Right thinking Muslim scholars both home and abroad have time without number declared these groups as unIslamic because of their misdeeds. There is sufficient evidence from the Holy Quran to denounce the activities of these groups. Why would a person like Mr. Otoo try to link or even draw the issue in Egypt where a Christian Coptic was beheaded to make a point in the current discourse? I think such field display of utter propaganda against Islam and Muslims will not wash.
Lastly, Mr. Otoo’s recommendation that the solution to this issue is for Muslims to “let sleeping dogs lie” for the peace of the state will be treated with the contempt it deserves. Muslims are peace loving people and will never do anything to disturb the peace of the state. If in the mind of Mr. Otoo Muslims not ever pressing for their rights will ensure peace in the state while other religious faith flourish well in Ghana is what he meant by letting sleeping dogs lie, then he is asking for a suspension or removal of article 21 (1c) from the 1992 constitution.
In conclusion, in so as these provisions in the 1992 constitution continue to exist, we shall also continue to demand what is due us.
At this point, I commend the gentleman who instituted the legal suit at the Supreme Court for a true and proper interpretation of the constitutional provision above.
I urge all Ghanaians to be genuinely involved in the resolution of this issue. Let us remember that no single person or a section of Ghanaian population is more important than others. Article 17(1) makes it crystal clear that “all persons shall be equal before the law”
God bless our home land Ghana.

Nuhu Eliasu
eliasunuhu@yahoo.com