16.01.2022 Critics

Response To National Security And Military High Command On Withdrawal Of Military Personnel From Speaker's Office

Response To National Security And Military High Command On Withdrawal Of Military Personnel From Speaker's Office
16.01.2022 LISTEN

Today, I chanced upon a National Security correspondence on the withdrawal of military personnel from the Speaker's Office, I took a careful look at the correspondence from the Military High Command and it was signed by General Andoh (Chief of Defense Staff). Unfortunately National Security could not get anybody to sign their correspondence.

Surprisingly, both letters are saying two different things which is unfortunate. I thought as Security institutions if they wanted to lie , at least they could have both said the same thing, but they could not. The Military High Command per their letter want to correct a mistake which was done during the deployment of Military personnel to the Speaker's Office. Their letter supposedly say that the military personnel will be brought back after the mistake have been corrected. But National Security Letter is saying a total different thing. National security claim that the Speaker is not entitled to military personnel, so there is no problem on the withdrawal of the military personnel from the Speaker. Very laughable statement. But I sincerely believe that Ghanaians know the two institutions are telling us a lie.

Let me concentrate on the correspondence from National Security, which looks at people entitled to military protection. First and foremost, I must state that, the Commander in Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces (The President) can deploy the military to protect any citizen, such order cannot be questioned. The President can direct the military to give protection to any citizen, and the military have to follow the directive without asking any questions.

Any citizen can request for military protection and based on the assessment of the military and approval of the Defense Minister, the citizen can be given military protection. Example in question, Bishop Duncan Williams was given military protection for some time in the past.

It is imperative to note that, as a result of the two scenarios above, that is why people like Ministers, chief Justice, EC chair, some paramount chiefs are sometime given military protection.

But my concern on why the military are revoking their long term culture, norm of providing security to the Speaker. Let not the military high command and national security forget that NDC has been in government before and they know the curtesy given to Speaker's Office. So why are they behaving as if this is the first time they are hearing of military protection for the Speaker.

Currently the military provide security to the Defense Minister, Minister for National Security, Attenory General, chief Justice, some surpreme Court Justices, EC Chair, just to mention a few.

So Ghanaian must now ask why does the Speaker not fall into that category, or because he is an NDC. I can not say the reason behind this decision but let leave it to the court of public opinion. I know one of the institutions is lying to Ghanaians.

My advice to the Speaker is that, moving forward, he must take his security detail very seriously, the Npp can never be trusted. He must get a trusted military or police officer to take charge of his personal security and security for his residence.

Secondly, if the military come to their senses and return military personnel, he must be very careful about those military personnel especially if he did not select them. He must be very careful if some military personnel are brought for his protection.

Let stop the cheap politics