[ 2016-12-05 ]

You’re Being “Aggressive” – Kan-Dapaah To Chief of Defence Staff
A former Minister of Defence Albert Kan-Dapaah has
written to the Chief of Defence Staff, Michael
Samson-Oje, describing his posturing ahead of the
elections as “aggressive”.

The army boss last week told the media
troublemakers will be dealt with ruthlessly.

“I want to sound a note of caution to any person
or group of persons who intend to cause any form
of trouble during the elections to rethink.

“Any unlawful act will be met with the force
that it deserves because we are ready to apply the
laws of the land appropriately. As far as these
elections are concerned, no one is bigger than the
country,” he added.

However, Mr. Dapaah feels the army chief’s
stance “pose a threat to the Liberal Democratic
path” ahead of Election 2016.

Below is his full statement:


Dear Air Marshal Oje,

I did not have the benefit of listening to your
Press Conference held on Friday, 25 November 2016,
but I have read the reportage as captured on
Ghanaweb the same day and to tell you the truth I
was not amazed. You will recall that I had the
great honour of serving my country as Minister of
Defence and in that capacity I worked with you and
many distinguished servicemen and women. I got to
know you personally during that period and as you
are aware I have tremendous respect for your high
sense of professionalism and patriotism. I think
that some of your pronouncements and indeed
posture at the press conference were an attack on
some of the values that the military hold dearly.
I have since taken the liberty to discuss it at
length with my friend the former Deputy Attorney
General, Hon. Kwame Osei Prempeh and we have
decided to send to you this Open Letter. We do
this not out of malice but because we believe that
certain principles must be protected.

Our first concern is that your pronouncements at
the said Press Conference pose a threat to the
Liberal Democratic path (a hybrid of the
US/Westminster systems) which we have embarked on
since the beginning of the fourth republic in 1993
and this must be of concern to all well-meaning
Ghanaians. The concept of civilian control of the
military has been dealt a big blow. Coming from
the CDS and considering the timing, we think that
this is rather unfortunate and should be a matter
of great concern to all of us – politicians,
including the ruling government, civil society
groups, the Council of State and the public at
large.

Secondly, we are of the opinion that considering
your position as the CDS, especially your
mentoring responsibility, your posture was too
aggressive and your choice of words and
patronizing manner as you delivered your warnings
to your compatriots (including His Excellency the
President) left much to be desired of a top
military officer in a liberal democracy. Not
surprisingly, many people have commented that your
attitude was akin to military dictatorship or the
authoritarian democracies that are gradually
emerging in our part of the world. Certainly your
posturing did not suggest to many observers that
as the head of our Armed Forces you would want to
submit yourself to civilian control. Did the
Chairman of the Armed Forces Council or the
Minister of Defense authorize you to come up with
all those policy statements which have serious
implications for the security of our country?

You stated that you have assessed the security
situation in the run up to the election and you
see enemies of state everywhere who are hell bent
to disturb the peace and stability of our dear
country and that such law breakers or
“warmongers” would be crushed on election day.
But, if we may ask why not before? Why do you want
to wait till the day of the election? Again what
would happen after the so called warmongers have
been crushed on the day of the election?

Thirdly, two fundamental issues arise out of this
conference and must be answered.

Did you as the CDS, hold the press conference on
your own initiative without the approval of the
Commander in Chief or his representative, the
Minister of Defence?
Did the President and the Commander in Chief or
the Minister of Defence approve the press
conference and thus the plan to crush unarmed law
breakers on Election Day with military force?

An affirmative answer to either question has
serious implications not only on civilian control
of the military in a liberal democracy but also
the use of military force in any internal security
operations.

Fourthly, we find it strange that you as CDS took
the centre stage at a joint press conference with
the Inspector General of Police in a security
operation in which the military must only play a
supporting role. Any wonder that some members of
the populace have argued that the purpose of the
press conference was to create fear and panic with
a view to intimidating voters who want to exercise
their franchise?

Our humble advice to you is to tone down the
rhetoric and also reduce your public
pronouncements. Such public pronouncements should
be led by the Minister of Defence with the CDS in
support to explain operational issues, if
necessary. That way, the Minister takes
responsibility for any lapses and shields the CDS
from public attacks which have the potential to
erode confidence in the military.

If indeed, you had the permission of the President
to embark on this media blitz where you threatened
to use the full force of the military on unarmed
civilian protagonists in an election in which the
Commander in Chief himself is a candidate then
this must be worrying.

Equally disturbing is the moral question of using
the military force against one’s own citizens in
an election disturbance which the civil police
should ordinarily be able to handle.

Furthermore, it raises the issue of unwittingly
inviting the military into the political space. We
must at all times insulate the military
institution from politics and public attack and
ridicule.

It is important to emphasise that civilian control
of the military in a democratic dispensation is
all about the civilian authority being the
ultimate decision maker in as far as the use of
military force is concerned .The military then
carries out the execution of the assigned tasks
professionally and without much interference from
the civil authority.

Our humble plea is that at this point in time we
must focus on finding solutions to all issues
which have the potential to trigger violence even
before the elections on 7th December 2016. We do
not have to wait until Election Day before we
“crush” the warmongers so to speak. That will
be too late in the day and in any case, what
happens after we have crushed the warmongers? The
unintended consequences are too dire (including
military takeover) for us to contemplate.

At this stage, permit us distinguished CDS, to ask
you to join us to admonish the major actors during
this election season as follows. The main actors
in this election are the political parties, the
Electoral Commission, Civil Society groups
including the media, Ghanaians, our security
agencies and most importantly our President and
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces who is also
a candidate and has the responsibility of
controlling the security agencies.

We appeal to all the actors to exhibit
professionalism tinged with a high sense of
integrity and selflessness in discharging whatever
duties are expected of them. In particular we urge
you to advise the President not to get the
military involved in any contentious election
duties (such as keeping ballot boxes in its
custody) in order to avoid dragging the military
into any quagmire.

The current arrangement whereby the military plays
a supporting role to the police in election
security should suffice for now if we are to avoid
embroiling the military in any election dispute.
The military is so vital an institution whose
image we must all protect.

All political party leaders should urge their
members and supporters to refrain from any acts of
provocation that can lead to violence. Whereas it
is the responsibility of the governing party to
ensure there is peaceful election, the opposition
parties should also note that they cannot achieve
their aim of effecting a change in government if
the election cannot take place due to violence.
They both have a shared responsibility of peaceful
co-existence and therefore must exercise restraint
even under extreme provocation.

The Electoral Commission (EC) has a very herculean
task. The success or otherwise of this election
rests squarely on its shoulders. There will always
be provocation from the political actors. The
EC’s ultimate goal is to deliver a free, fair
and transparent election. The professional
abilities, integrity, selflessness and above all
the emotional intelligence of its staff will come
into play if the EC is to succeed. The Commission
has a rich history of delivering credible
elections and we recall the wonderful work of
Justice Abban (Electoral commissioner in the
1970s) who fearlessly refused to change the
people’s verdict to the wishes of the then
military government during the UNIGOV referendum
in 1978. How we wish we could return to those good
old days when the value of integrity and
selflessness of state officials was the norm
rather than the exception.

Our final advice to the security agencies is for
them to discharge their responsibilities to the
best of their ability bearing in mind the timeless
values of Service and Integrity.

We assure you, our distinguished CDS that we have
published this Open Letter without any malice and
we hope that you will carefully consider the
suggestions and pieces of advice contained in this
letter.

With assurances of our highest esteem, we remain,

Hon. A. Kan-Dapaah, Hon. K. Osei-Prempeh

Former MP and Minister of Defence Former Deputy
Minister of Justice & Deputy Attorney General

Source - Daily Guide

... go Back