Ghanaians should be concerned whenever comments from political leaders appear to go beyond political criticism and begin to suggest what the outcome of an ongoing legal or accountability process should or would look like.
Accountability is not the problem.
In fact, Ghanaians should demand accountability from anyone entrusted with public resources. But accountability must operate within the law, and nobody whether politician, government official or ordinary citizen should be treated as guilty before the relevant institutions have completed their work.
It is against this background that recent comments by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin regarding the bail conditions that will be imposed on some leaders of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) when they are doing post administration accountability deserve serious public attention.
During a press briefing at Parliament, the Minority Leader described the bail conditions that will be imposed on the GoldBod officials in connection with losses made arising from transactions as “scary.”
At first glance, this could easily be dismissed as another political statement from the opposition.
But perhaps Ghanaians should look beyond the politics.
The bigger question is: What message do such comments send about the independence of Ghana’s institutions and the way political actors perceive the country’s accountability system?
Accountability should not become political warfare
There is nothing wrong with questioning the actions of GoldBod officials.
If public resources have been mismanaged, if laws have been broken or if the state has suffered financial losses because of wrongdoing, those responsible should be held accountable.
That principle should apply regardless of political affiliation.
But there is a difference between demanding accountability and appearing to prejudge how an accountability process should or would unfold.
Once a person has been arrested or placed before the courts, the appropriate question should be whether the law is being followed.
Not whether the conditions are convenient for a particular political party.
Not whether the accused person is politically connected.
And certainly not whether the outcome serves a political agenda.
Should politicians be commenting on the “fear” created by bail conditions?
This is where Afenyo-Markin’s comments deserve closer scrutiny.
If a Minority Leader says bail conditions that will be imposed on particular officials will be “scary”, Ghanaians have every right to ask what exactly he means.
Is he the going to determine the bail condition without the application of the law?
Is he suggesting that the conditions are going to be excessive?
Or is he simply making a political observation?
Whatever the intention, politicians should recognise the weight of their words.
The public is watching.
When a senior political figure comments strongly on the treatment of individuals involved in a legal process, it can create the impression that political actors have an interest in the eventual outcome.
That perception alone can damage public confidence in institutions.
The danger of deciding the outcome before the process ends
Ghana does not need politicians telling citizens what the conclusion of an accountability process should or would be before the evidence has been fully tested.
We have courts for that.
We have investigators.
We have prosecutors.
We have public institutions responsible for financial accountability.
If GoldBod officials are accused of causing losses, let the evidence be presented.
Let the accused respond.
Let the appropriate institutions investigate.
Let the courts determine criminal responsibility where necessary.
And if wrongdoing is established, the appropriate punishment should follow.
That is what the rule of law is supposed to mean.
The danger begins when political actors appear to suggest that they already know who is right, who is wrong and what should happen to the individuals involved.
Ghana has seen enough examples of political influence
This concern becomes even more significant when viewed against Ghana’s broader political culture.
There have been several instances where political actors have publicly intervened in matters involving arrests, investigations and prosecutions involving people associated with their political parties.
The sight of politicians rallying around individuals facing legal trouble raises an uncomfortable question:
Would the same politicians show the same urgency if the person involved had no political connection?
That is the question citizens should be asking.
Because if political connections determine who receives protection, intervention or special attention, then the ordinary Ghanaian is placed at a serious disadvantage.
What about the independence of state institutions?
Perhaps the most troubling implication is what political interventions can make citizens believe about state institutions.
Ghanaians are constantly told that institutions such as the courts, investigative agencies and other public bodies operate independently.
But when political leaders openly intervene in cases involving politically connected individuals, citizens can begin to wonder whether these institutions are genuinely independent or whether political influence is quietly operating behind the scenes.
That perception is dangerous.
Institutions do not have to be controlled by politicians to lose public confidence.
Sometimes, the mere perception that politicians can “pull strings” is enough.
And when citizens begin to believe that justice depends on who you know rather than what the law says, trust in the entire system begins to collapse.
Are we creating a system where connections matter more than the law?
Imagine a young Ghanaian with no political connections being arrested over an alleged offence.
Would Members of Parliament sit on the floor demanding his release?
Would political leaders hold press conferences about his bail conditions?
Would powerful individuals immediately intervene?
Probably not.
That is precisely why political intervention in legal matters deserves scrutiny.
The issue is not whether politicians should care about people.
They should.
The issue is whether their political power is being used to influence processes that should operate independently.
If you need a politician to intervene before you can receive fair treatment, then the problem is much bigger than one particular case.
It means the ordinary citizen may already be losing confidence in the system.
Citizens must demand accountability from politicians too
Ghanaians often demand accountability from presidents, ministers and public officials.
But perhaps we should also demand accountability from politicians themselves.
A politician who speaks about the rule of law must also respect the institutions responsible for enforcing it.
A politician who demands justice must be prepared to accept justice even when the outcome is inconvenient.
And a politician who wants power must explain how that power will be used.
Because power is not supposed to be a weapon against political opponents.
It is supposed to be a responsibility exercised for the benefit of citizens.
The 2024 election lesson should not be forgotten
Ghanaians have repeatedly changed governments through the ballot box.
That is one of the strengths of our democracy.
But changing political parties in government does not automatically change the culture of political power.
If one political party leaves office and another takes over only to use the same institutions in the same way, then the citizen has gained very little.
The real question should therefore not simply be:
“Who is coming to power?”
It should be:
“What will they do with power when they get there?”
If politicians spend their time defending their allies, attacking institutions and influencing accountability processes, citizens should be worried regardless of the party involved.
Ghana needs institutions stronger than politicians
The Ghana we want cannot be built around personalities.
It must be built around institutions.
A citizen should not need a powerful friend to receive justice.
A public official should not need political protection to do their job.
An accused person should have their rights protected regardless of their political connections.
And a person accused of wrongdoing should face the law regardless of how powerful they are.
That is the Ghanaian democracy worth protecting.
We should demand accountability but for everyone
There is a temptation to choose sides whenever politically sensitive cases emerge.
Supporters of one party defend their people.
Opponents condemn them.
Social media turns the issue into another political battle.
Meanwhile, the bigger issue gets lost.
The issue should be the integrity of the process.
If GoldBod officials are responsible for losses, let the evidence establish it.
If they are not, let them be cleared.
If bail conditions are excessive, the appropriate legal channels should address them.
But politicians should be careful not to create the impression that they can determine how justice should or would work.
Ghanaians should not be against accountability.
We should be against selective accountability, political interference and the use of state institutions as weapons.
And perhaps that is the bigger lesson from the current debate.
The people who seek political power today will eventually become the people exercising that power tomorrow.
So before we cheer for them, we should ask one simple question:
If they get power, will they strengthen the institutions or strengthen their control over them?
Because a country where politicians are stronger than institutions is a country where ordinary citizens eventually pay the price.
Ghana deserves institutions that work for the citizen, not politicians who make citizens depend on political connections to get justice.
Editorial note: This is an opinion article based on the comments by the minority leader Alexander Afenyo Markings. Allegations and interpretations concerning individuals or institutions should not be treated as established facts unless confirmed through the appropriate legal or investigative process. HeraldGH does not present the opinion expressed here as a determination of guilt or wrongdoing.
