Fighting Corruption In Ghana 'The Korean Way' - Lessons From The Judgment Debt Scandals

Background

Thank God. After Waterville and Isofoton, the Citizen Vigilante and my Ghana's Fount of Integrity, Mr. Martin Amidu has won for our country his Review application to the Supreme Court against the 51.2 million Ghana Cedis dubiously paid to Mr. Woyome as judgment debt. 51.2 million Ghana Cedis is no small money at all. It really can do a lot especially in these times that Ghana is in serious economic 'challenges' (Government apologetics say we should not say 'crisis).

But one gargantuan nightmare is yet to be resolved! Ghana now faces the 'Mice Dilemma'. Some centuries ago, a certain cat was troubling some mice and had killed many of them. All the mice met to talk about this big problemto devise a plan to get rid of the cat. The mice sat and talked for a very long time but could not devise any tenable strategy.

An old mouse stood up and said, 'I know what we should do! We should tie a bell around the cat's neck. When the bell tinkles, we will know where the cat is!' This suggestion was happily and widely received by all. But one young mouse stood up and asked, 'That is a good idea, but may I ask who will bell the cat?' Who was going to tie the bell around the cat's neck? None of the mice wanted to do that.

Sections of Ghanaians have raised legitimate concerns about how wecan retrieve the 51.2 million from Woyome as ordered by the Supreme Court given that those who are to mount for the retrieval are the very same Government officials who defended and awarded the money to Woyome. Government apologetics have brushed away these concerns arguing that like Mr. Martin Amidu, the case of the Government has always been that the money was wrongly paid and Woyome is even in court answering criminal charges on that.

But critics rebut that government never made any case that the money was wrongly paid. On the contrary top Government officials including the then Deputy Chief of Staff, the then Attorney General and her Deputy, and virtually all government commentators and apologetics shockingly insisted that Ghana had a contract with Woyome. The dragging of Woyome to court by the Government was clearly an afterthought,after private citizens took it to the government and presented credible evidence disproving the Government's claim that Ghana had a contract with Woyome. The Government was therefore acquiesced to send Woyome to Court albeit unwillingly.

The crux of the matter
The retrieval of the money from Woyomeis even a minute part of the whole issue. Broadly, what is really critical is bringing before the law those criminally minded state officials and private people involved in the pursuit of these gargantuan crimes against the state. Viewed against the fact that the Government is yet to retrieve other dubious judgment debts ordered by the Supreme Court to be paid to the state byIsofoton and Waterville, critics argue that the likelihood for the nation wreckers involved in all these scandals to go unpunished isvery real.

It is also contended that as it stands now, given that the state's prosecutorial powers lie with ONLY the Attorney General (AG) who doubles as the Minister of Justice under this government, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to bring those involved in all these scandals to justice. The tendency to shield 'our own' is palpable in Ghana. Also, it is argued that there have been several instances where people in government who stood against such collusions were met with vilification and victimization - the dismissal of Mr. Martin Amidu from government eternally serves as an indelible testament to this.

It has been therefore argued that we arelikely to bring the involved corrupt Government officials and their accomplices to justice ONLY when the major cause and beneficiary of these gargantuan scandals namely, this (NDC) Government is changed. Until then, our quest tobring beforethe law the people involved in the scandals andto retrieve our monies from Woyome, Waterville and or Isofoton will remain only a Christmas tree of hope - after all the judgment debts as stated by one of the Supreme Court Judges, were created, looted and shared among Government officials and their accomplices.

Whilst I fully share the sentiments of the critics, I find their proposed solution not lasting. To always wait for a regime change before bringing corrupt people to book is not only cold but also clearly undermines the fight against corruption.

First, it weakens our national resolve to ruthlessly and timely deal with all cases ofcorruption - our biggest development nemesis. Second, it easily helps to turn the fight against corruption into political persecutions popularly called witch-hunting. Third, the desire to 'SHOW' former officials in the previous government leads to clear mistakes which makes it easy for perceived corrupt people to lose themselves off the hook - a case in point is Tarzan and KwadwoMpiani Ghana@50 case. Indeed all these Judgment debt scandals were borne out of this Government's own reckless desire to portray the previous (NPP) regime as those responsible for causing them in the first place.

Fourth, we will come back to face the same dilemma we are confronted today even when this government is voted from power - have apologetics of this Government (when in opposition and even now) not repeatedly takenitto President Kufuor's NPP Government for shielding his protégé Dr. Richard Anane?

In some quarters' it is suggested that the way forward is to allow private citizens to mount criminal prosecutions in Ghana. This way, such prosecutions are not tied to only the discretion of the AG for her to pick and exclude and or compromise cases involving government aides, cronies and ruling party stalwarts and supporters. However, whilst conceding that the putting of the state prosecutorial powers in the hands of only the AG is clearly problematic, I find the proposal for private prosecutions not fulsome in strength - it can also portend other serious problems.

There is no impossibility that unscrupulous private persons, armed by these powers will not use them mala fide (in bad faith) - to worry the courts with frivolous and vexatious cases, settle personal scores by dragging for instance government officials and other private citizens they may have hatred for to the courts. The Republic of South Korea has been in our dilemma before and they resolved their problem in an intelligent manner.

The Korean Case
In 2003, Choi Do Sul and two other former close aides of President Roh Moo-hyun were accused of abuses in raising elections funds of about $1 million in bribes from a South Korean conglomerate. Sensing that the state prosecutors might surely compromise the case, the National Assembly voted to appoint an Independent Investigator and Special Prosecutor to investigate and mount the prosecution of the President's top aides.

President Roh Moo-hyun vetoed the bill, arguing that it was premature to appoint an independent counsel given that a probe was underway. However, the National Assembly later overruled the President's veto with an overwhelming vote: of the 266 lawmakers who voted, 209 endorsed the motion to overturn Mr. Roh's veto, while only 54 voted against, one legislator abstained, and two votes were declared invalid. The Korea law required a two-thirds majority to override any presidential veto. So the Legislators wrestled the CONTROL of the investigation from state prosecutors and handed it over to a team of independent investigators headed by Special Prosecutor Kim Jin-hong.

Successfully Choi Do Sul was convicted of the crime and was handed an 18 months sentence. A study by Jong-Sung You of University of California, San Diego 'Transition from a Limited Access Order to an Open Access Order: The Case of South Korea' emphasize that this development was one of the active ingredients that helped to consolidate democracy and rule of law in South Korea because it clearly signaled that no person was above the law.

Lessons for Ghana
Political operatives especially opposition members willalways shout from roof tops, chanting their desire to root out corruption when voted into power. However, we all have unfortunately come to learn that they are all as vulnerable as those in government. Any President whichever political party that will bring her/him to power can easily succumb to temptation to come to the rescue of troubled loyalists and given the current arrangements under our laws, corruption can only be ruthlessly fought only when we have a highly principled-no-nonsense kind of President - a leadership type we are yet to and may never have in Ghana.

Even if we will ever have, why must we leave the fight against corruption - the single most gargantuan challengeto development to the whims and caprices and the (in)discretion of the President and his Attorney General?We have a lot of finely established anti-corruption agencies in Ghana, yet like the Economic and Organized Crime Office, they all need to be activated by the authoritative Attorney General before they can mount prosecutions.

Mr. Martin Amiduonce suggested to President Mahamato rather 'set up a bi-partisan committee of Parliament' when the President in the run up to Election 2012 threw a challenge that: 'I am prepared as the President of this country to appear before anybody, any institution to be investigated for corruption.' Mr. Amidu was calling for the Korean model. We are all aware of how the Public Accounts Committee has since its inception been revealing and digging out grave cases of corruption yet no real benefits have accrued from their work because only the President/Attorney General's desire to prosecute is what the law supports.

If we are serious about fighting corruption in Ghana then we may need to adapt the Koreans strategy.The Parliament must be empowered by law to establish a constitutionally independent body of reputable professional lawyers whose original jurisdiction will be invoked albeit SPARINGLY to INVESTIGATE and PROSECUTE criminal cases in which it will become REASONABLY apparent to even the ordinary man on the street that justice will likely not be served or may not be desirously pursued when left to the Attorney General. The functions, scope of activities and modus operandi of such a body can be clearly delineated to avoid conflicts with the AG Department and the other anti-corruption agencies working under the AG.

I believe if we were to have any such permanent institution today, the fear that those criminally minded Government officials and their accomplices involved in the Woyome, Isofoton, Waterville, SUBAH, GYEEDAH andthe other gargantuan corruption scandals may go scot free will never have emerged at all. We will also not need to wait for regime change to punish corruption. Straight away, those matters will be investigated and prosecuted by that institution.

Such an institution is highly imperative in view of the fact that we may never have many more Martin Amidus looking at how young growing men (like myself) and women of today are becoming excessively partisan. The works of investigative journalists like Anas and Manasseh Azure will become fully beneficial. Corruption will become a dangerous venture! Paying taxes will be less painful a bit!

I will not foolishly think that politicians who are the major beneficiaries of corruption in Ghana will easily agree to do this. However, if inter alia the general public, weighty people like the National Chief Imam and civil societies like the IEA, IDEG,IMANI,CCRG, TUC and other institutions like the National Peace Council, National House of Chiefs and the Christian Council push for such a body, I have no doubt that it will see the light of day.

Festival Godwin Boateng

A concerned Ghanaian