The unexploded myth
By Elizabeth Ohene
"It is difficult to imagine a suitable replacement for the process whereby under the erstwhile constitutions of both countries, persons nominated to public office had to be publicly vetted by the elected representative of the people."Much has been made of the 'corrective' nature of regimes like Flight- Lieutenant Rawlings of Ghana and Major General Buhari in Nigeria.
Something very wrong was felt to be happening in both countries to justify intervention by force in the political process. The individual choice of words might be a little different but the essence is the same.
In the picturesque words of Flt-Lt. Rawlings, the economy of the country was like a runaway train and Maj-Gen. Buhari saw a structure that was about to collapse. In both cases, it was felt that desperate remedies were required and individual and basic human rights were considered worthy of sacrifice.
The question of punishment for those deemed to have been responsible for the problems assumed paramount importance in the consideration of the coup makers, culminating in the wholesale incarceration of everybody who had been in government. The word 'politician' acquired a prefix as in 'corrupt politicians' and we were told everyday that politicians, all of them, were corrupt. Flt-Lt. Rawlings went a step further, those he overthrew were criminals.
It is not too much, therefore, to expect that those who felt so repulsed by corruption that they took up arms and established what they themselves call "corrective regimes" would, at the very least, be clean themselves and those that they choose to work with them should be able to withstand public scrutiny. Nobody expects that they need be like Caesar's wife exactly, but they need to be a slight improvement on those that have been overthrown.
So far there is nothing to indicate that the standards of public morality have changed very much.
There is, to start with, what might be called the "with immediate effect" syndrome which afflicts both regimes. People are appointed to positions of grave importance and fired from them "with immediate effect". No reasons are given for their choice and there is no opportunity given to publicly examine their suitability precisely because no reason is ever given about why a particular person has been chosen for a particular position.
Somebody would have asked him to explain what niggling doubts there are that still remain about whatever happened to part of the prize money of Ghana's ex-world featherweight title holder D.K. Poison when Justice Annan took him to Tokyo to defend his title.
The turnover in public appointments has been spectacularly high and with no reasons ever given, speculation and gossip take the place of judicious public debate.
It is difficult to imagine a replacement for the process whereby under the erstwhile constitutions of both countries, persons nominated to public office had to be publicly vetted by the elected representatives of the people.
Currently in Ghana, Mr Justice D.F. Annan (to take one glaring example) was appointed to be a member of the ruling Provisional National Defence Council. He is referred to in the Ghanaian media as the Deputy Chairman of the PNDC and he is the Chairman of the National Commission for Democracy, the organ that is supposed to define a form of government for Ghana. If the retired judge were being appointed to any public office under a constitution, he would have had to satisfactorily explain the circumstances under which he had retired from the bench. Somebody would have asked him to explain what niggling doubts there are that still remain about whatever happened to part of the prize money of Ghana's ex- world featherweight title holder D.K. Poison when Justice Annan took him to Tokyo to defend his title. The chances are that there are good explanations, but because the opportunity was not given for the questions to be asked and the answers provided. This doubtless undermine whatever good he can possibly do under his job."
Mr G. Adali-Morty was appointed Information Secretary suddenly and with equal suddenness, fired from that position. How did he get appointed and why was he fired? Did it have anything to do with having been adjudged incapable or ineffective and by what standard?
The Trade Ministry in Ghana has historically been a problem ministry and it would be reasonable to expect that a 'corrective' regime would set an example of how that ministry can be run without corruption. The Trade Secretaries have been moved, changed and fired in rapid succession without any reasons being given. Recently Mr Ato Ahwoi was moved from the Trade Ministry under what can be described most charitably as strange circumstances. The rumours and veiled innuendoes that are circulating, some of which have even found their way into some Ghanaian newspapers, would have been reason enough to stage a coup if the government were being run by civilians.
Three years after in Ghana, and one year later in Nigeria, both regimes have discovered that most of the very lurid rumours about the politicians turn out to be harmless after the coup. Prior to December 31, 1983, very few people in Nigeria would have believed that the Presidential Task Force of Fertilizer was not the most corrupt institution in the country, challenged possibly only by the task Force on Rice, according to popular belief. Ten months after holding Adamu Giroma, he, the Chairman of the Presidential Task Force on Fertilizers, was released, no charges, nothing, in fact with an apology. No wonder many people believe that if Umaru Dikko had also quietly gone into Kirikiri at the beginning he would have been released equally quietly with no charges.
Both in Ghana and Nigeria, hundreds of thousands of people have been fired from their jobs 'with immediate effect'. Because no reasons are ever given there is a real danger that even crooks will take comfort in the general assumption that those being sacked are victims of the revolution or the purge.
In the public mind, three reasons can be given for being sacked "with immediate effect". The affected person is either corrupt, or incompetent or is a victim of a personal grudge by somebody who has friends in high places or purely a political victim.
Doubtless some of those sacked deserve to be sacked, or sent on indefinite leave or whatever ruse is adopted, however, because everybody is being fired under a blanket "with immediate effect" even those who know that they are corrupt or incompetent can, and will, claim victimisation later on.
It happened in Ghana after the Acheampong coup, when everybody who was sacked under the Busia '568 dismissals' not only got his job or an equivalent back, they all became heroes including those who had deserved to be sacked.
In much the same way many of those who were victims of the mass purges under Murtala Muhammed in Nigeria, found their paths back into public office precisely because they could claim to have been victims of a mass hysteria.
Both in Ghana and Nigeria, hundreds of thousands of people have been fired from their jobs 'with immediate effect'. Because no reasons are ever given there is the real danger that even crooks will take comfort in the general assumption that those being sacked are victims of the revolution.
It is difficult to see in what ways the regimes in both Ghana and Nigeria could be said to be corrective when they are perpetuating the myth that it is only those who have had the misfor- tune of having been overthrown who should be made to give an accounting of their stewardship.
In countries where the Inland Revenue Department and similar organisations hardly ever do their work, the indices of wealth remain conspicuous consumption.
If there is anything to indicate that there has been any change in Nigeria, it lies only in the fact that these past four weeks, the Nigerian ladies who have been in London for the sales are the wives of Major this, Captain that, Lieutenant Colonel the other one and the girl friends of Colonels and Brigadiers. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the money has shifted from the civilian politicians to the uniformed ones. Obviously if the current rulers did not have a monopoly on the instruments of power, their opponents would be convinced that there is enough corruption to justify an intervention.
And yet when the intervention does take place, we are then told that the problem lies with our inability to operate a particular system - Westminster or White House, Elysee or whatever. One is yet to find one African country where in the course of the operation of a constitutional form of government, the people have got up to register their unhappiness with the system.
Flt-Lt. Rawlings is currently engaged in a charade that is called looking for a new democracy. Three years ago he was quite clear in his mind that the democracy he wanted was the one practised by his friend Col. Gaddaffy, now he is trying to find a new one. Anything to avoid putting himself before the people and to be openly and fairly challenged by other people in an election. It might be worth his while to remember that the late Acheampong tried it and failed disastrously. When he staged his coup in 1972, there wasn't supposed to be anything wrong with the constitution or system, in fact, he accused the Busia people of contravening the constitution, in other words, their crime was that they had broken the rules of the system. Five to six years later, he decided the problem was the system and we had to have something uniquely Ghanaian.
Those years of the 70s, the epithet 'corrupt' was attached to the military. It was considered bad enough to make Murtala move, it was shocking enough to make Rawlings launch a house-cleaning exercise, and until the top hierarchy of the military was executed, Rawlings felt soldiers could not walk tall again.
Two years after those events, the corruption tag is now exclusively with the politicians, and the problem is with the system.
It is possibly time for the military establishment to take a closer look at their own system. There are not many places outside Africa where rank and promotion in the Armed Forces are simply for financial considerations.
Where else are there so many Squadron leaders with no squadrons to lead, or Brigadiers with no brigades, Captains with no platoons, Generals who have never even planned the crossing of a bridge by a detachment?
In the civilian sector, no self- respecting professional would agree to being called a nurse, a medical doctor, a lawyer, a judge, a fitter, a banker, an engineer, an architect, a chemist, even a journalist, unless he had the requisite qualifications and experience which will enable him use his skills anywhere in the world. When it comes to the military in Africa, the ranks bear no resemblance to what responsibilities they hold or the skills they possess.
Corrections are obviously needed in many parts of our society. We might need to start with corrections within the armed forces.
