Speaking on a panel interview on
Sahara TV, Lord Hammah, brother of the embattled minister bemoaned the
injustice done to his sister through a blatant intrusion of her privacy and the
swift dismissal that followed after the leak of the tape purported to be her
voice saying she intended to make $1million before quitting politics. “There
has been about 5 months of more taping of my sister; some concerning a very
deep part of her private life”, he said indicating that Miss Hammah was the
victim of a deliberate ploy by some faceless elements possibly within the
corridors of the ruling National Democratic Congress.
He added that the issue bordered
on state security since his sister was a government official and had to be
protected against such acts since she could have been discussing issues of
state relevance. He also condemned Miss Hammah’s dismissal. “This is the
swiftest executive decision in terms of appointments in the history of our
governance” he stated adding that it amounts to rewarding wrongdoing.
President John Dramani Mahama
fired Ms. Victoria Hammah less than 24 hours after a tape with a voice
purported to be hers went viral after playing first on a local Accra radio
station. The owner of the voice was heard in a conversation with another female
apparently in a moving vehicle saying she would make a million dollars before
quitting politics. The voice also made other serious comments including an
allegation that Nana Oye Lithur, Minister of Gender Affairs, Children and
Social Protection who is also the wife of President Mahama’s lead counsel in
the 2012 election petition met with the judges of the Supreme Court the night
before the verdict was read.
Miss Hammah’s driver, Mr.
Lawrence Quayeson was arrested on suspicion that he was responsible for the
taping but has since been released by the police.
Contributing to the discussion,
senior broadcast journalist Stephen Anti also raised an interesting angle to
the whole story. According to Mr. Anti, the dismissal of the deputy minister
may have been rushed since the voice on the tape has not been critically
examined by forensic experts to determine its genuineness or otherwise and
since more serious allegations of impropriety in the ruling government have
gone unchecked. “I think it is very unfair if she was dismissed on the basis of
corruption for example because the NDC government and the current government
has had several issues involving GYEEDA and Suba, all of which are corrupt
issues, … so far nobody has been asked to proceed on leave or sit back while
these investigations continue”.
He suggested that the mere
expression of an ambition might not necessarily amount to an offence or even a
proclivity for corruption. He also proposed that the allegation of Nana Oye
Lithur’s meeting with the judges was said without any real conviction and
called for further investigations into the matter. “If you listen very
carefully to the tape which I listened to, her reference to Nana Oye Lithur and
the Supreme Court were all like gossip... so for me I think the first thing
that the state machinery should do in order to put our minds at rest and Ms. Hammah’s
mind at rest and her family’s mind at rest is to come out clearly with any
investigation that has been conducted into the tape allegation”.
On his part however, senior
broadcast journalist and legal practitioner Samson Lardy Ayenini who had
earlier condemned the arrest of Ms. Hammah’s driver on the grounds that he
allegedly recorded Ms. Hammah’s conversation defended his position and
suggested that Ms. Hammah may rather be the one who has questions to answer to
the police. “Looking at the interpretation that is put to it and the
question of the suggestion of judicial interference and corruption of the
judiciary then she should rather be the one who should be answering questions
at the police station or at the BNI or EOCO”.
He said even though the constitution
protects individuals against the invasion of their privacy, in acute cases,
public interest outweighs that of the individual, such intrusions may be
permissible. “The criminal laws of Ghana do not criminalize the act,” he said.
Mr. Ayenini added that even if
it was proved Mr. Quayeson was responsible for the taping, he indeed qualified
as a whistleblower and should rather be protected by the police under the
Whistleblowers Act of 2006, Act 720. “We are in a country where we are also
promulgating a Witness Protection Act so that if you look at it from a certain
larger principled perspective, rather, if it is the case that he taped it and
took it out, it is a question of someone who may qualify as a whistleblower”.
He described the police action as “shameful” and “a lazy job”.
Sahara
reporters
No comments:
Post a Comment