THE ANTI-LGBTQIA+BILL: THE “HOLY PRESIDENT”, THE LAW AND THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Issifu Seidu Kudus Gbeadese

(Youth Imam from Laribanga)

0244198031

skseidu_14@yahoo.com

Government, no matter its form and shape, ought to reflect the will of the people. Sovereignty indeed resides in the people and this is the opening paragraph in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. It states in Article 1 thus, “the Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.” 

It is worthy of note that the architecture of the government is crystallized on the principle of separation of powers as was contemplated by the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. With this, the fundamental assumption is that the powers of government are evenly dispersed amongst the Three Arms (Executive, legislature and Judiciary), even though Ghana’s system is practically predicated on a Hybrid System where the Executive is partly fused in Parliament. 

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana confers distinct powers on these three arms and dictating strictly how the powers ought to be exercised. Within the framework of this arrangement, no arm can stampede the conduct of business of the other, except where the Constitution places substantive limitations to the exercise of any such powers.  So, if all three arms were to respect the dictates of the Constitution, there would not have been any overlaps, stampede, usurpation and arm-twisting in any form or texture. 

How needless is the ongoing brawl between the Executive and Legislature over The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024? 

Note the following:

1. Per Article 58 of the Constitution, Executive Authority is vested in the President and shall so be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and not applied capriciously.

2. The legislative power of Ghana shall be vested in Parliament and shall be exercised through bills and in accordance with this Constitution. (Article 93)

3. Accordingly the judicial power of Ghana shall be vested in the Judiciary and justice shall so be administered independently and subject only to the Constitution. (Article 125).

Per the above Constitutional provisions, the powers and duties are clearly cut out for the three arms, with each of them subject to the Constitution only without the discretion to do otherwise. 

With this arrangement, the Parliament of Ghana shall exercise the legislative powers (making of laws) through bills. Accordingly, the Constitution provides in Article 106(1) thus, “the power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.” 

The procedure of law making is set out in Article 106 and the adjoining sub-clauses. For the avoidance of doubt, Sub-Clause 7 of Article 106 provides for Parliament to transmit the Bill so passed to the President to assent to or opt for any other subsequent action provided by the Constitution. Sub-Clause 7 provides, “where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent he shall signify, within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assents to the bill or that he refuses to assent to the bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution.” Ordinarily, one would infer from this that, until a Bill is presented by the Clerk to Parliament to the President, the Law making process provided in Article 106 is incomplete. 

So, the attempt by the Clerk to Parliament to present the LGBTQIA+ Bill to the Presidency was only an execution of a constitutional mandate as per Sub-Clause 7 of Article 106. Nothing prior, in or subsequent to this Sub-Clause suggest that, an action before the Judiciary in respect of a subject matter should obstruct, truncate, suspend or creates a fetter on a public officer (The Clerk to Parliament) from executing a duty imposed on such an officer by the Constitution. Neither the President nor the Court has been clothed with any such powers to obstruct Parliament or its officers from carrying out a Constitutional mandate such as the transmission of a Bill to the President. And there is no case law so far as we know that set any such precedence.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Constitution allows for some level of discretion to be exercised by these three arms of government, by way of regulating their own business. So, the Judiciary by an Act of Parliament (Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and other subsidiary legislations like C.I 47, regulates the conduct of judicial proceedings.  Also, the Constitution allows for Parliament to conduct its business by its own standing orders. This is provided in Article 110 of the Constitution. Except where a provision in the standing orders is in contravention of the Constitution, the conduct of the business of Parliament cannot be restrained by the Supreme Court. And this was the reasoning of the Supreme in the case of Dr. Amanda Odoi V The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General.

The Sky’s Law Suit and the Law

On the 5th of March, 2024 Richard Dela Sky, a citizen of Ghanafiled a suit invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Article 2 and 130(1) for the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution relative to the LGBTQIA+ Bill. Interestingly, at the time this writ was filed before the apex court, The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill had not been transmitted to the President. It implies that, it is still a raw bill yet to be refined into a proper bill ready to be presented to the President. If this were the case, Richard Sky’s suit is premature, in that the right conferred on him as a citizen of Ghana in Article 2, to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Constitution is yet to accrue to him. 

For the sake of this argument, Article 2 of the Constitution states:

(1) A person who alleges that—

(a) An enactment or anything contained in or done, under the authority of that or any other enactment…is inconsistent with, or in contravention of a provision of this constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect. 

A Bill yet to be presented to the President does not have the force of law to be an enactment properly so called within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a). In fact, the Supreme Court can only determine the constitutionality of a LAW and not a BILL. And as the Law Lords asserts, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. The right to even sue is yet to accrue, and until there is an enactment to be interpreted as per Article 2, the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to consider such a premature action can be questioned in this case. 

In that “premature suit”, Richard Sky prays the court for an order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President for his assent. Unless the transmission of the Bill to the President as provided for by Article 106(7) is considered unconstitutional, respectfully, the Court has no business in restraining the Speaker or the Clerk from its transmission once it is power and duty conferred on them by the Constitution.

Also, relief 6 sought by Sky, praying the court to restrain the President from assenting to the Bill may equally suffer the same legal fate, since the act of assenting to a Bill is a constitutional mandate handed the President in Article 106(7). 

In the circumstances, the President of Ghana has no business, no power in any form or texture to have written the unfortunate letter to Parliament, seeking to dictate to the People’s Representative on how to conduct its constitutionally mandated duty. That singular act can constitute a violation of the Constitution which the President swore to uphold and defend. 

In the alternative, the President has the right to refuse to assent to the Bill. Sub-Clause 8 of Article 106 provides for the President to opt not to assent to any Bill. The provision further provides two options for the President in case he refuses to assent to the Bill; he had an option to signify to the Speaker through a Memorandum of his refusal to assent to the bill or refer the bill to the Council of State. The act of writing to Parliament and dictating to the August House to cease the transmission of the Bill to the President was not contemplated by the framers of the 1992 Constitution neither is it supported by any settled practice within the law. 

In any case, there are living precedents set by President Akuffo-Addo within the remit of this same subject matter of law suits pending before the apex court on an ongoing subject matter. It will be recalled that the Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, Hon. MahamaAyariga and another filed a law suit in the Supreme Court on April 19th, 2022, seeking to restrict the implementation of the E-levy. This was subsequent to President Akuffo-Addo’s act of not recognizing Parliament and the Judiciary and by extension, the will of the people when popular voices were against the E-levy, and went ahead to assent to it. While the suit was pending, the Ministry of Finance on the authority of the President went ahead to implement the E-levy with effect from 1st May, 2022. At the time, the Secretary to the President did not see reason, neither did the Attorney General see any legal question in respect of the pendency of the suit vis a vis the implementation of the E-levy.

Again, a coalition of Civil Society Organizations including the CDD, ACEP, SEND Ghana, Ghana Integrity Initiative, etc. filed a suit challenging the directive of President Akuffo-Addo in June 29, 2020, to the Auditor General to proceed on an involuntary accumulated leave of 167 days. While this suit was pending, the President upheld his directive and even appointed Mr. Johnson A. Aseidu to act in the stead of Mr. Domelovo. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s directive was unconstitutional although, belated. 

The Sovereign Will of the People

As indicated earlier, sovereignty resides in the people and for whose interest and welfare the powers of government shall be exercised. Anything done to massage the ego and serve the individual interest of the President or any person in government is a betrayal of the people who entrusted power in the President to exercise for and on their behalf.

It is on record and public knowledge that the passage of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, was unanimous in Parliament, without even a single dissenting voice when the voice vote was put by the Rt Hon Speaker. By implication, the will of the people was carried and affirmed through their 275 Representatives. Prior to that, the moral society of Ghana through its leaderships have submitted Memos in support of this Bill. Popular voices in Ghana are in support of this bill. How do we identify the sovereign will of the people, if not through these key stakeholders?  

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, was introduced in Parliament as a Private Members’ Bill, in response to a surging trend of advocacy, sponsorship and the propaganda for the activities of homosexuals in Ghana. In and around 2020/21, there were bill boards being mounted across Ghana by the LGBTQIA+ plus group, seeking to regularize their activities in Ghana. Prior to this, this group started a public display of their marriage ceremonies and finally chose Accra, Ghana to host their International Conference between 27th and 30th July, 2020.

These developments came on the back of President Akuffo-Addo’s opened assertion on Al Jazeera in 2017 that Homosexuality is still illegal in Ghana, because there are not enough activists pushing for its legalization. And if in the future a strong coalition should emerge and advocate strongly, its legalization “is bound to happen.” This assertion seems to have opened the floodgates for the activism, starting with the campaigns on bill boards. 

If indeed, homosexuality is illegal in Ghana in the words of President Akuffo-Addo, how come that its activities in the form described above were not criminalized and the perpetrators brought to book swiftly as it is done to Journalists who were alleged to have attacked either the President or his wife? The nonchalance demonstrated by the President and his government in the wake of the smuggled activism was what triggered Hon Sam George and his colleagues to have initiated the current Bill to partly criminalize same sex marriage, activism, promotion, sponsorship among other activities.

Indeed, the big brother of all democracies, the United States of America did not and still does not have a universal law legalizing same sex marriage applicable to all states. Until in 2013 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States V Windsor, declaring section 3 of the Defense of Matrimonial Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, states like Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas and 7 others, had explicit laws denying federal recognition to same sex marriage and its related activities. During this period, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which is issuing threats to Ghana and attempting to retrain the President from assenting to the LGBTQIA+ bill still had its headquarters in the United States, with the United States being its biggest beneficiary. 

The argument that the current Bill is discriminatory and could violate human rights in Ghana is weak and unfounded on common logic. Every law is discriminatory, futuristic and somehow preemptive. So, today, can we have Armed Robbers or Rapists or Thieves inaugurate their respective associations, have opened conferences and display their activities in the open, simply because of freedom of assembly and association as provided in Article 21(d) and (e) in the 1992 Constitution? If they cannot do so, how come that homosexuals are allowed to have their opened marriages and even attempted to organize their International Conference in Ghana at a time the Ghanaian laws are said to criminalize their activities?

It is worthy of note that, the enjoyment of human rights are not without conditions. In fact, Article 12(2) of Ghana’s Constitution states explicitly that, “every person in Ghana, whatever his race, place or origin, political opinion, colour, religion, creed or gender shall be entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual contained in this chapter (Chapter 5) but SUBJECT TO THE RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF OTHERS AND FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST.” This is a clear case of fetters to the so called absolute and complete enjoyment of fundamental human rights of citizens of Ghana.

Do we have “public interest” in the activities of the homosexuals? Of course yes. Every nation is built on its history which embodies its identity, traditions and customs. It is not for nothing that the 1992 Constitution of Ghana recognizes and guarantees the Chieftaincy institution and customary law and usage in Articles 270(1) and 11(2). 

It is trite knowledge that Ghana has lost a substantial part of its traditions, customs and its pristine identity to Colonialism and Slavery. Ironically, the British who raped us off our identity and customs in the wake of colonialism is still holding their customs and traditions to their chest. Until her passing, Queen Elizabeth was the most powerful woman who ever lived. The laws of the United Kingdom are still protecting their sacred chieftaincy institution with its attendant customs. 

While at that, the United Kingdom prohibits polygamy for whatever reason. Indeed, under section 11(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 of the United Kingdom, a person commits Bigamy if that person at the time of committing him or herself to a marriage was already married. This law is as discriminatory as the current LGBTQIA+ Bill of Ghana if we were to hold the two to the test of proper definition of what constitutes discrimination. And interestingly, this law is applied in Ghana as a Common Law country if a couple was to marry through Ordinance instead of Customary. How?

Will Ghana be a lone lamb in Africa if we were to allow the current Bill to become law and by extension will Ghana be economically impotent? Indeed, Uganda recently passed quite a stiffer law to crack down on homosexual activities. Also, in May 2019, the High Court in Kenya upheld laws criminalizing homosexual’s acts. 

Worthy of note is that, out of the 53 countries in the Commonwealth, most of them former British colonies, 29 of them have laws that criminalize homosexuality. Indeed, within the 54 states in Africa, it is only South Africa and the French Islands of Mayotte and Reunion that have explicit laws recognizing same sex marriages and civil unions. With these scenarios, how can Ghana be treated as a lone lamb if we were to proceed to make this Bill a Law?  The Saudi Arabia, which is one of the greatest allies of the United States, prescribes death as a legal punishment for same sex marriage. 

Comparing the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage across different jurisdictions, Ghana’s current Bill is very friendly, moderate and soft in its wording and application. For instance, Section 17(3) of the current Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, seeks to even protect homosexuals against extra judicial treatment. Per the above section, a person who verbally or physically abuses, assaults or harass a person accused of any offence relative to the activities of homosexuals, commits a misdemeanor and shall suffer the punishments prescribed in section 84 to 87 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, (Act 29).   

Perhaps, the last rape that will finally rip Ghana of its complete identity is the legalization of same-sex marriage. And where the arguments are going, just maybe, the dominoes are about to fall in favor of the legalization of homosexuality in Ghana. If we lose the ground to those seeking to undo this current LGBTQIA+ Bill, including, President Akuffo-Addo and his government’s nonchalance and intransigence, the grounds would have been fertile enough for activism to realize President Akuffo-Addo’s declaration of “IT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN.”

 

TO ASSENT OR NOT TO ASSENT—THE POWERS AND RIGHTS PROVIDED BY THE 1992 CONSTITUTION OF GHANA TO THE PRESIDENT

1. The power to make laws is vested in Parliament which shall be exercised by bills passed by Parliament as set out in Article 106 (1-14). These bills may come in the name of the President which are government sponsored by implication or introduced by an MP or group of them, and this is qualified as a Private Members’ Bill.

2. ⁠Depending on the turn of events, the Legislative Powers of Parliament shall lapse after a Bill has been passed and assented to by the President, except, where Parliament decides to postpone the operation of the law after it has been gazetted.

3. ⁠The President has a first option of refusal to assent to a Bill under Sub-clause 7 of Article 106 of the 1992 Constitution. The aforementioned Sub-clause, read jointly with Article 90 of the Constitution, imposes a duty on the President to refer the bill (he refused to assent to) to the Council of State (CoS) for consideration. The referral is reasonably accompanied by a Memo (statement) setting forth the issues, amendments, changes, etc. so proposed by the President for the consideration by the CoS.

4. ⁠The CoS proceeds to consider the referred Bill within the remit of Article 90(1-5), and ultimately transmit the considered bill with an accompanied certificate to the President for further action. The President may forward the considered bill back to Parliament without any amendments or cause for such changes, if there are any. 

5. ⁠The Second Option provided by the 1992 Constitution of Ghana is contained in Sub-clause 8 of Article 106. This provides that, where the President indicates his refusal to assent to a Bill, he SHALL so state his reasons in a Memo to Parliament within 14 days after his refusal. The accompanied Memo may provide further details of the President’s proposed changes, amendments to any part of the bill, it’s entirety, as the case may be. 

6. ⁠Sub-clause 9 of Article 106 mandates Parliament to reconsider the bill within the laid down procedure in Article 106 of the Constitution or as the rules of Parliament shall so allow.

7. ⁠Where a bill is reconsidered as proposed by the President, Sub-clause 10 of Article 106 provides that Parliament shall pass a Resolution which must be supported by votes of 2/3 of Members of Parliament. And when the resolution is passed under Sub-clause 10, the President SHALL assent to the Bill without an option of a refusal. Note!! No such opportunity of refusal again has been provided by the constitution.

In effect, the President has two options after the LGBTQ+ Bill has been submitted to him to assent to: Either he Assents to it within 7 days or He refuses. If he refuses, he has an option of referring the bill to the Council of State or back to Parliament for reconsideration. This is my raw reading of the 1992 Constitution. It is opened for additions or subtractions. 

Kudus Gbeadese I. S.

(Learning Student, GSL-Makola)

0244198031

ALHAJI INUSAH: A VERSATILE & CREATIVE SAVANNAH REGIONAL YOUTH ORGANIZER OF THE NDC

 Politics has become a rolling stone which gathers masses as it rolls and changes its nature in consonance with changing circumstances. It has no definite shape and obviously no formula. So, those who survive through it’s uncertainties are those who are creative, adaptive and versatile. To play it successfully, one must study the terrain and carve a strategy that can stand its test.

I have come to know Alhaji Inusah a couple of years ago. Like it is in most cases, if I were to judge him by what I heard from those who claimed to know him, I would have casted doubts in his capacity to handle the position of a Regional Youth Organizer. In my usual self, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and started to study him using my own measuring rod. My observations have so far revealed that he is not only creative and adaptive to the changing nature of the politics in our part of the world, he’s also versatile and smart in the game. 

This day and age, it is not the loudest who get it right with politics. And that is what I’ve come to know Alhaji Inusah for. He’s not too loud; not the type who enjoy the lenses of cameras when doing his job and obviously not the type who want to show results on social media. This observation is purely from my perspective, and it has nothing to do with hero-worshipping. 

Indeed, in the run up to the 2020 general elections, I was almost caught in the net of those who felt Alhaji was a one-way youth organizer—who instead of working across the region, rather concentrated in Salaga South Constituency. I am not by this implying that those who held that belief and perception were wrong, but just as it is said that every vote counts in an election, so it is the case that every constituency thus counts. At last, I came to know that the regional executives were divided to handle various constituencies, and in some cases concentrate in some areas where they have strengths and are very well needed. 

Eventually, the NDC was able to snatch the Salaga South Seat from a sitting MP who at the time, doubled as the SR Minister. This did not only add a seat to the NDC, but gave the party and urge, given that it has produced the first ever Female MP who is on top of the game so far. I am not saying Alhaji Inusah did it all, but per the confessions from Hon Hajia Zuwera herself, his presence, visibility and hard work indeed, counted for her victory. 

Fast forward after his election in the last regional contest, he’s proven to be the person I am describing within this bracket. Approach him with an issue anytime, and he will respond with the deserved alacrity. This is the responsive leadership the NDC requires at all levels. 

Last two months, under the auspices of Hon Yussif Sulemana Ori, the MP for Bole-Bamboi, who also doubles as the Chairman of the Savannah Regional Youth Wing, Alhaji Inusah in collaboration with his two deputies and other members of the regional executive committee, put together a very successful inauguration of the Youth Wing. Most of the attendees confessed that the program indeed, served as a platform to energize the youth and to prepare their minds towards the NDC victory. Aisde the underground works he does, some of which I am privy to, he acts with tact. He is also simple and an easy-going comrade who does extensive consultations before making very key decisions. 

He might not be perfect, after all, no one is, but his timely interventions on issues concerning the youth in the region in particular, is worth highlighting. Given that the Regional Executive Committee is made up of men and women with high morale and conviction for victory, it is my prayer that the team will be further charged to ensure Savannah Region remains an NDC stronghold, although the NPP is trying to share it. Where there is teamwork, I believe there is strength and direction.

I just saw a flyer from the NDC Regional Youth Wing, carrying an advert intending to mount a screen at the Damongo Lorry Park for the purposes of telecasting the Ghana-Mozambique match, on 22nd January, 2024. I was impressed by this creativity, although some might find it not enough, but I feel this is one step forward. Studying the terrain, understanding the youth and their needs and responding in this manner is commendable. This ought to be replicated in other places to keep the youth active, awake and in readiness to work harder for victory 2024.

I now understand why Pablo, the NDC National Youth Organizer, trust Alhaji Inusah and has since made him a key pillar in his administration. I urge you, Alhaji, to keep this up, double up and be this creative. This is purely my observation and not an attempt to artificially elevate him to an imaginary heights without a thing to show for it.

By Kudus Gbeadese

A DAY TO CELEBRATE THE DIFFERENT PERSONS IN PRINCESS ADISHETU JOYCE BAWAH MOGTARI

From your brother, Kudus Gbeadese. 

Here you are, one person in many colors, so that one can choose which person to appreciate. I choose your sense of fashion today as my point of appreciation.

You don't choose your clothes for the cameras, but for the occasion. It takes a versatile person to within a blink change her person into different persons. 

Where the legal brains are meeting, you choose your legal regalia to fit the occasion. Where mothers share a platform to discuss what motherhood entails, easy does it! you get your fashion right to fit in. Where young women meet to discuss contemporary issues about women's movement, you choose your clothes to get you the seat on that table. Indeed, where men can go in their slim fits, you are fast to dress to match them boot-4-boot. Who can't you be then? 

So, you ain't only a smart Lawyer, neither are you just an upright politician, but you are a sharp fashionista. Your sense of fashion is unmatched. As we celebrate you today, I choose to highlight this part of you many have not taken note of. Keep making us proud Sister Joyce Bawah Mogtari. 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, OUR ADORABLE PRINCESS FROM THE GONJA KINGDOM. CHEERS TO GREATNESS!

 

THE CRY OF A CONSTITUENT TO AN MP (ABU JINAPOR) WHO SUPPLIES CONTAMINATED WATER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS IN DAMONGO

By Issifu Seidu Kudus Gbeadese

(Youth Imam from Laribanga)

0244198031

Dear Samuel Abu Jinapor Esq,

I bring you compliments of the season from my hideout in the caves of Laribanga. I deem this a civic responsibility as your constituent, to draw your attention to that which is of utmost concern to us (including those in NPP who can only hide and whisper but cannot speak up in public).

It has been three years since the people of Damongo voted you to represent us in Parliament. Although, you openly made some remarks that but for the strangers you bused to Damongo, you would not have won the 2020 elections. In effect, you are just an exalted imposition on us by outsiders per your own submissions. 

I can very well appreciate that the concept of development can mean different things to different people. Reason is that every individual has his/her exclusive basket of needs and what development means to them. To that extent, I cannot bundle all the constituents into a whole in an attempt to raise issues of development. That said, it is common knowledge that water is life and a basic necessity at that. And so when I highlight the water crisis situation in Damongo constituency, I should think that I am only amplifying a common concern.

Hon. Abu Jinapor, may I remind you that in your quest to become the MP of Damongo, during which period you were the Deputy Chief of Staff in charge of operations at the Presidency, you made very juicy promises to the constituents just as your government did. Indeed, you promised to paint Damongo with “gold.” You did everything to buy our consciences and everything power could do including intimidations and abuse of office to secure the mandate of becoming the MP. Well, you won and nobody can fault you for some of the “dirty tactics” you adopted for the simple reason that in politics foul is fair and fair is foul.

In office for the past three years however, you have practically reneged on the very core promises you made including delivering the Damongo Water project as expected and presented to us in July 2020. Before the deception clothed in sod-cutting on the 29th of July, 2020, President Akuffo-Addo, Vice President Dr. Mahmoud Bawumia and you, had cause to make different promises in respect of the Water Project to the good people of Damongo on different platforms and in most cases at the instance of the Late Yagbonwura Tuntumba Boresa. 

Just to refresh your memory; in 2018, Vice President Bawumia at the forecourt of the Jakpa palace, made us to believe that your NPP government had secured about $49m to execute the Damongo water project and that in the very year he was making that claim, the project was going to kick start. Fast forward in 2019 or so, President Akuffo-Addo himself made the same promise to the Yagbonwura amidst applause. He further stated that as a stop-gap measure, 10 mechanized boreholes were going to be drilled in Damongo Township while working to deliver the water project. As for you my MP, the number of times you repeated the same promise on different platforms is countless. 

On that fateful 29th July, 2020, a sod-cutting ceremony was colorfully organized at the Damongo town park. On the platform, your submissions sounded as though water had started flowing down our taps and in our homes. I remember the slogan “promise made, promise fulfilled”, which was boldly printed on the flyer and repeated by you on that platform. We were told the project was going to take 18 months to be delivered. What happened thereafter? 

Fast forward in 2023, three years after that scam of a sod-cutting ceremony without even a single pipe laid, my MP, Hon. Samuel Jinapor, in his supposed magnanimity, secured a water tanker to supply us water. Guess what! The water tanker draws water from an abandoned dam (Damongo Agric Dam) to supply to our helpless mothers for domestic use. For God sake, that water is highly contaminated and I sincerely don’t think Hon. Abu Jinapor will allow for his beautiful flowers at his residence to be watered with his contaminated water he distribute to our mothers for domestic use. Even this, we are told to applaud him.

Meanwhile, other private water sellers, out of their sensitivity and empathy, source their water from mechanized boreholes they personally drilled for onward sale to the people of Damongo Constituency. The question is, between the private water dealers who have no ordained obligation to provide public goods such as water to the people of Damongo and Hon. Abu Jinapor, who has been voted for on the account of delivering basic necessities such as water, who should be sensitive to the plight of the helpless constituents? How come the private water sellers source their water from mechanized boreholes, while our rich MP only resorts to a typhoid infested dam water?

At least, we the ordinary people cannot be like you, because we are not entitled to the privileges at your beg and call as an MP and a Cabinet Minister for that matter. Being our representative however, who we expect to pretend to be like us, you could just ride down from your high horse and at least have some sympathy and be sensitive to the helpless situation our mothers find themselves. An unfortunate situation you and your government have collectively created with your own hands. There are existing boreholes that need ordinary repair works, is this too difficult for you to do? What about drilling new ones once we now know you cannot deliver our water project?

As a result of this singular act of sourcing contaminated water from the abandoned dam to supply us, the cases of typhoid fever have multiplied in Damongo and its environs. And because you have influence, resources and the power to mute and buy off popular voices within the constituency, you feel you have the field day to do as you please, after all nobody challenges your authority.

The Ministry you head, Lands and Natural Resources, has very resourceful public agencies including the Minerals Commission, Forestry Commission, Lands Commission, among others. Each of these agencies can undertake the drilling and mechanization of boreholes in large scales just in a year without any substantial financial implications. To top it all, your ministry oversees the giant mining companies including Newmont Ghana, Anglogold Ashanti, ect. Each of these mining companies have embedded social-corporate responsibilities as part of their contract, among which is to provide basic amenities such as water. 

Even if you feel the statutory funds allocated to you as an MP are meant for parties and not to provide public goods, why can’t you charge any of these agencies or companies to take up this responsibility in your stead? We would have appreciated and still give you the credit anyway. 

Available information has it that, one need just about GHC 25,000 to GHC 30,000 to drill and mechanize a borehole. Meanwhile we are told by some of your kitchen cabinet members that you spend about GHC 100,000 to organize just one party. Just this Christmas period, you have organized at least two different parties plus other entertainment programs. The amount spent on these parties could get us about 6 or 7 mechanized boreholes from which you can draw the water for our mothers. Is this too much to ask? Must man live by bread alone? Must it always be partying or entertainment? Must it always be sharing and splashing cash? Well, this might win you power, but it will obviously not sustain you in power forever. 

Just a reminder! Your government came to power in 2017 to meet an existing agreement signed by the John Mahama administration with Eco Bank Ghana, for a loan of $35m for the purposes of executing the Damongo water project. As part of the scope of work, the water was to be sourced from the White Volta through the communities along the Fufulso-Damongo-Sawla road. Implying, all these communities, including Busunu, Laribanga, Mole, etc. were billed to be connected to the water project. You and your government abandoned that fine agreement, went for a so-called Bi-water, Turnkey project which has become a white elephant. Is this wickedness, witchcraft or just a deliberate act to punish the people of Damongo for making you our MP?

You may have succeeded in silencing most of the people who today can only whisper in pain, but you cannot silence all of us. You can buy the voices of most of the people, but even as faint as some of us may sound, we will shout and scream until the voices of conscience respond in tandem. This may sound political to you and your “attack dogs” who, I know will be unleashed to come after me sooner than later, but to me, this is a genuine fight for freedom. And in the voice of the great Nelson Mandela, the road to freedom has never been seamless. It has always been bumpy, muddy and rough, but for what democracy presents us with, we dare to undertake this uncertain journey until we get liberated. 

I can only wish you well sir. Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year.