Mahama, Muslims and the Constitution: When Legitimate Questions Become Religious Suspicion

I read with considerable disappointment --- and, frankly, some surprise --- a lengthy social-media article titled “Mahamah's Political Sins?”, attributed to Rev. Emmanuel Boachie, which questions whether the government of President John Dramani Mahama is applying the same standards of fairness, recognition and sensitivity to Christianity as it allegedly does to Islam. There is much in the article that deserves serious discussion.

Indeed, I agree with its central proposition that government must treat every Ghanaian equally under the Constitution. I also agree that public policies should be scrutinized, that government expenditure must be transparent, and that neither Christians nor Muslims should expect religious privilege from the State.

But there is a problem. An argument that begins with constitutional equality can easily lose its intellectual credibility when it starts treating every policy targeted at a Muslim-majority community as presumptive evidence of Islamisation. That is where I part company with the author.

Rev. Boachie Asks
Let us begin with the question: “Does the Government of Ghana apply the same standard of fairness, recognition, opportunity and sensitivity to Christianity that it applies to Islam and other religious communities?” That is a perfectly legitimate question. But it is only the beginning of an inquiry, not its conclusion.

If we are going to establish religious favouritism, we need evidence showing that citizens are receiving advantages because of their religion, rather than because of poverty, geography, historical disadvantage, educational deprivation, social exclusion or some other legitimate public-policy consideration. This distinction is important because Ghana's Constitution itself recognizes it.

Article 17 prohibits discrimination on grounds including religion and creed. But Article 17(4) also expressly permits measures designed to correct social, economic or educational imbalances and allows different provisions for different communities having regard to their special circumstances, provided those provisions are consistent with the Constitution. That is a rather important qualification. It means that equal treatment does not necessarily mean identical treatment.

A government may legitimately target a deprived community without discriminating against everybody else. The question, therefore, is not simply: “Why is government helping this community?” It should be: “Why has government identified this community for special intervention, what evidence supports the intervention, what is its legal basis, who qualifies, how much is being spent and are similarly situated communities treated according to comparable principles?” That is the serious constitutional question.

Zongo Development Is Not Synonymous With Islamisation

The article repeatedly returns to Zongo communities and asks whether assistance to them amounts to religious patronage. Again, this is a legitimate area for scrutiny. But we must be careful with our terminology.

Zongo communities are not simply another name for Muslims. They are historically and socioeconomically distinctive urban communities, many of which have large Muslim populations. Their circumstances can include educational deprivation, overcrowding, unemployment, inadequate infrastructure and other socioeconomic challenges.

The NDC's 2024 manifesto itself describes its proposed Zongo and inner-city interventions as “targeted affirmative action measures to bridge significant developmental gaps.” The proposals include support for SMEs, educational infrastructure, STEM and TVET schools, scholarships and apprenticeship opportunities.

The same manifesto also contains specifically Islamic programmes, including strengthening the Islamic Education Unit, recruiting Arabic teachers, upgrading Islamic educational infrastructure, facilitating accreditation of Islamic schools and providing scholarships to Muslim students in fields such as Law, Medicine, Engineering and ICT.

These policies therefore deserve scrutiny. But the proper question is not whether they exist. They plainly do. The proper question is whether the religious component is constitutionally justified, objectively administered and consistent with Ghana's broader educational and social-policy framework. That is a much stronger line of inquiry than simply calling the policies “Islamisation”.

Targeted Assistance Is Not Automatically Discrimination

There is a dangerous misconception in some public discussions that equality requires government to distribute everything equally among every group. That is not how modern constitutional equality generally works. If a region has fewer hospitals, government may invest more heavily in that region. If girls face barriers in STEM education, government may design interventions specifically for girls. If persons with disabilities face structural barriers, government may create special programmes for them. If deprived communities require affirmative action, government may target them. The question is whether the classification is reasonable, lawful and directed towards a legitimate public purpose.

Indeed, Article 17(4) of Ghana's Constitution expressly accommodates measures to address social, economic and educational imbalance. So when Rev. Boachie writes:

“If deprivation is the criterion, wonderful. If academic excellence combined with financial need is the criterion, wonderful.” I say: Exactly. Let that be the standard. Let us examine the criteria. Let us examine the beneficiaries. Let us examine the expenditure. Let us examine the outcomes. Let us compare them with interventions for other disadvantaged communities. If the government cannot justify its classifications, then it should answer for them. But if the programmes can be justified by deprivation and special circumstances, calling them religious favouritism would be intellectually unfair.

The Hajj Village Deserves Scrutiny

Rev. Boachie also raises the Hajj Village. He asks whether support for Hajj represents religious freedom or State religious patronage. Again, a fair question. But we should establish the facts before drawing conclusions.

The Ministry of Transport says the Hajj Village is being developed by Ghana Airports Company Limited and is being financed through GACL's internally generated funds rather than taxpayer funding. It is intended not only to facilitate Hajj operations but also to function as a broader commercial facility outside the Hajj season. That does not make the project automatically good. Nor does it make it automatically beyond scrutiny. A state-owned enterprise is still a public institution, and citizens are entitled to ask whether its investment makes economic sense.

How much is being invested? What is the expected return? What percentage of the facility will be used for Hajj? What revenues will it generate outside the Hajj season?

What is the contractual arrangement? Who owns the asset? Who bears the risk? What is the opportunity cost? These are excellent questions. But they are economic and governance questions before they become religious questions.

If the facility is commercially viable, serves a large number of Ghanaian citizens and generates revenue for a state-owned enterprise that is a different proposition from government simply giving public money to Muslims to undertake a religious obligation. We should not collapse those distinctions.

And What about The National Cathedral?

The article compares the Hajj Village with the National Cathedral. That comparison is understandable. But it also requires intellectual honesty. The National Cathedral controversy cannot simply be reduced to: Christian project = rejected; Muslim project = supported.

The Cathedral became embroiled in questions concerning financing, governance, procurement, public expenditure, accountability and the relationship between government and religious institutions. If the argument is that government treated the Cathedral differently because it was Christian, then evidence must establish that. Otherwise, we are comparing two projects that may have very different institutional, financial and contractual structures. Consistency is indeed important. But consistency requires us to compare like with like.

The Arabic Question
Rev. Boachie asks why Arabic is receiving particular policy attention and whether language policy could become a vehicle for Islamic indoctrination. This deserves debate. But again, we must distinguish Arabic from Islam.

Arabic is simultaneously a language of religion, scholarship, diplomacy, culture and international commerce. Its association with Islam does not make every Arabic-language programme a religious programme. If government introduces Arabic into Ghanaian education, the relevant questions include: Is it optional? What curriculum is being taught? Who teaches it? What qualifications are required? What learning outcomes are expected? Are other languages treated according to comparable educational principles? Are religious teachings being imposed on children who have not chosen them? These are legitimate questions. But we should not begin with the assumption that Arabic education is a covert Islamicisation project. Evidence must lead the argument, not suspicion.

Wesley Girls and the Danger of Selective Memory

The Wesley Girls' High School controversy demonstrated precisely why religious neutrality must be taken seriously. A Christian school has a religious ethos. A Muslim student has religious rights. Parents have legitimate expectations. Educational institutions have legitimate institutional responsibilities. Government has a constitutional responsibility. These interests must be reconciled through law and policy --- not through political expediency.

If a Christian institution is subjected to an unreasonable restriction because of its religious identity, Christians should challenge it. If a Muslim student is denied a legitimate religious accommodation because of her faith, Muslims should challenge it. The principle must work both ways. That is what constitutionalism means. But the article makes a dangerous leap. At one point, the author asks whether: “Ghana's public institutions [are] gradually developing patterns of Islamisation accommodation that could weaken the principle of governmental religious neutrality?” That is a legitimate hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not a finding. It requires evidence.

The difference between asking whether Islamisation is occurring and asserting that government is Islamising Ghana is enormous. The first is democratic scrutiny. The second is a substantive political claim requiring evidence. We should not allow the language of “Islamisation” to become so broad that every scholarship for a Muslim student, every Zongo development project, every Hajj facility or every Arabic teacher becomes evidence of a grand political conspiracy. That would be confirmation bias. And confirmation bias is dangerous whether it comes from Christians, Muslims, NPP supporters, NDC supporters or anybody else.

The Most Troubling Section
I was particularly uncomfortable with the passage alleging that: “Three Muslim clerics have been seen inciting their violence, beheading, murder, defilement of children...” Such allegations are extremely serious. If the author has evidence that named clerics have incited murder, violence or child abuse, he should present the evidence. Who are they? What did they say? When did they say it? Where did they say it? Was the statement verified? Was anyone investigated? Was anyone prosecuted? Were the allegations established?

These are not matters that should be left as sweeping accusations against “Muslim clerics”. And there is an important principle here. The author rightly says: “Do not accuse politicians without evidence.” I agree completely. But that standard must apply to everybody. If evidence is required before accusing a politician, evidence is also required before accusing a religious community or its leaders. Otherwise, we are demanding intellectual discipline from others while exempting ourselves from it.

Christians Do Not Need Political Privilege

Here, surprisingly, I find myself agreeing strongly with Rev. Boachie. He writes: “Our demand should be: ‘Give every Ghanaian equal treatment under the law.’” Yes. That is precisely the position Christians should take. Not: Give Christians more. Not: Why are Muslims receiving this? But: What constitutional principle governs everybody?

Christianity does not become stronger because government gives Christians preferential treatment. Islam does not become stronger because government gives Muslims preferential treatment. The State becomes stronger when citizens trust that government applies the same constitutional principles to everyone.

Christian Passivity
Rev. Boachie asks: “Where are the Christian lawyers? Where are the Christian academics? Where are the Christian constitutional scholars?” Those are fair questions. But I would add another: Where are the Christian researchers willing to defend Christianity without turning Muslims into political enemies? Where are the Christian scholars researching poverty? Where are the Christian economists examining inequality? Where are the Christian lawyers analyzing Article 17? Where are the Christian academics documenting the contribution of Christian missions to education and healthcare? Where are the Christian institutions producing serious research on national development?

The Church does not need to become a political party. But it should become intellectually serious. And that means producing evidence rather than circulating fears on social media. The same challenge applies to Muslims. This is not a defense of Muslims against Christians.

Muslim Leaders Must Also Accept Scrutiny

If Muslim organisations receive public support, let the expenditure be transparent. If Islamic schools receive government assistance, let the criteria be clear. If Muslim students receive scholarships, let the eligibility rules be published. If Hajj operations involve public institutions, let the accounts be available for scrutiny. If Islamic banking is introduced, let the Bank of Ghana and other relevant regulators ensure that it operates under Ghanaian law and appropriate financial regulation. Muslims should not demand equality only when they are disadvantaged. Christians should not demand equality only when Muslims appear to be receiving something they want. Equal citizenship requires consistency. And that brings us back to President Mahama.

Should President Mahama Be Scrutinized?

Absolutely. Does his Christian profession exempt him from criticism? Certainly not.Does his Muslim “Northern” background, political history or engagement with Muslim communities prove anything about his motives? No.

Rev. Boachie is actually right when he says: “We cannot read another person's heart.” That principle should remain. We can examine Mahama's policies. We can examine his appointments. We can examine government expenditure. We can examine contracts. We can examine scholarship criteria. We can examine Hajj policy. We can examine Zongo development. We can examine educational policy. We can examine Islamic banking. And if we find discrimination, we should say so. But we should not begin by assuming the conclusion.

Ghana Does Not Need Christian versus Muslim Politics

This is where I believe the social-media article, despite its good intentions in places, goes wrong. It says: “Ghana does not need religious warfare.” I agree. But religious warfare does not begin only with violence. It can also begin with narratives. It begins when citizens start seeing every government programme through the prism of religious competition. It begins when a Muslim sees development for a Zongo community and thinks, “Christians are against us.” It begins when a Christian sees a Hajj facility and thinks, “Government is giving Muslims what it refuses Christians.” It begins when a policy debate becomes a competition over which religion is receiving more State attention. That is not where Ghana should go. Let us apply one standard.

The author's strongest principle is also the simplest: One Constitution. One citizenship. One standard of justice. I would add: One evidentiary standard.

If government favours a religious group improperly, expose it. If government targets a disadvantaged community lawfully, acknowledge it. If a Christian institution is treated unfairly, challenge it. If a Muslim institution is treated unfairly, challenge it. If a politician abuses religion for votes, expose it. If a religious leader abuses his position, expose it.

But do not condemn an entire religious community because of the conduct of individuals. Do not call development “Islamisation” merely because Muslims benefit from it. And do not call legitimate scrutiny “Islamophobia” merely because it raises uncomfortable questions about Muslim institutions. The same rule applies to Christianity. Ghana belongs to all of us

“The Constitution belongs to all. The nation belongs to all.”

Precisely. The Constitution belongs to the Muslim. It belongs to the Christian. It belongs to the traditionalist. It belongs to the rich. It belongs to the poor. It belongs to the powerful. And it belongs to the powerless.

And that is why religious equality cannot mean Christian privilege replacing Muslim privilege, or Muslim privilege replacing Christian privilege. It means no religious privilege at all where the Constitution does not permit it. But it also means recognizing that constitutional equality permits carefully designed interventions to address genuine social, economic and educational imbalances. That distinction is fundamental.

Let us question Mahama --- but let us also question ourselves. President Mahama should not be above scrutiny. Neither should the Church. Neither should the Muslim community. Neither should Parliament. Neither should the media. Neither should traditional authorities. Neither should anybody holding public power. But scrutiny must be based on evidence.

If we are serious about Ghana's constitutional democracy, we must resist the temptation to transform every policy disagreement into a religious conflict. There is a better question than: “Is Mahama favouring Muslims?” It is: “Is Mahama's government applying a transparent, constitutional and evidence-based standard to every citizen and every community?” That question is harder. But it is also fairer. And if the answer is no, let the evidence speak. If the answer is yes, let us have the courage to acknowledge it. That is what intellectual honesty requires.

My Thoughts: The Real Test of Our Citizenship

I am a Muslim. I therefore have a particular responsibility not to demand justice only when Muslims benefit from it. A Christian should have the same responsibility. A traditionalist should have the same responsibility. An atheist should have the same responsibility. The test of justice is not whether it benefits my group. The test is whether I am willing to defend it when it benefits someone I disagree with. That is the Ghana we should be building. Not a Christian Ghana. Not a Muslim Ghana. Not a Zongo Ghana. Not an NDC Ghana. Not an NPP Ghana. A constitutional Ghana.

And if Rev. Boachie's article ultimately calls Christians to civic responsibility, research, courage and constitutional engagement, then that is a call I can support. But let that courage be disciplined by evidence. Let that Christianity be disciplined by humility. Let that patriotism be disciplined by constitutionalism. And let our legitimate disagreements never turn our fellow Ghanaian --- Muslim or Christian --- into an enemy.

Ghana needs justice. Ghana needs equality. Ghana needs evidence. And above all, Ghana needs citizens courageous enough to defend these principles even when the beneficiaries are not members of their own religious or political community.

FUSEINI BDULAI BRAIMAH
+233208282575 / +233550558008
afusb55@gmail.com

   Comments0