I am neither a lawyer nor a mere spectator but a citizen of Ghana. Like you, the reader, I have rights, and those rights must be safeguarded by the Constitution of Ghana. No one is inherently superior to another, and our responsibilities toward fellow citizens must be exercised in accordance with the laws of the land.
Public officials, entrusted with positions of authority, must diligently uphold their responsibilities and remain mindful of the burdens associated with serving the public interest. Once they accept the duty to serve, they must do so with integrity and accountability.
As a conscientious citizen of Ghana, I find it necessary to highlight some noteworthy observations regarding former Finance Minister Kenneth Ofori-Atta’s decision to sue the National Security for carrying out its mandate.
I have read elsewhere that, in legal terms, the necessity and validity of impromptu investigations by public officials depend on the constitutional and statutory framework. Which I believe applies to Ghana. However, in general, a person accused of “mismanaging national resources” may find it “legally” and logically unnecessary to sue public officials for conducting such an investigation at their residence for several reasons:
1. Public Interest
The accusation of “mismanagement of national resources” is a matter of public interest. When allegations arise, authorities have a duty to act swiftly to prevent further losses and secure evidence. Courts often recognize the broader public good in holding officials accountable over individual inconvenience.
2. Investigative Powers of Public Officials
Public officials—especially law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies—are often legally empowered to conduct investigations, including impromptu searches, provided they follow due process. If their actions align with legal authority, suing them would likely be dismissed as baseless.
3. Scrutiny in Public Office
Mr. Kenneth Ofori-Atta has held positions of responsibility. He should have known scrutinization of his office was a reasonable action to be done by the state. Attempting to sue investigators for fulfilling their duties may be seen as an effort to obstruct justice.
4. The Principle of Clean Hands
I understand in law, the “clean hands” doctrine suggests that one cannot seek legal remedy when they themselves are “guilty” of wrongdoing. Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta’s lawsuit may lack merit, as they approach the court with unclean hands, assumingely.
5. Procedures in Investigations
The trespassing accusations filed by Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta on the National Security operatives of an illegal search could be inappropriate, rather he should challenge the admissibility of any evidence obtained unlawfully, not to sue them outright. One may assume that the former minister’s lawsuit may be viewed as motions to suppress evidence or disciplinary actions against overreaching officials, who were just doing their work.
6. *Avoidance of Frivolous Litigation*
Is the former Finance minister attempting to delay the long arm of the legal system? One can suspect his case to be a “frivolous
lawsuits” that serve no substantial legal purpose other than meant to delay proceedings or intimidating investigators. A lawsuit based on mere inconvenience rather than clear legal violations could be dismissed outright. I suspect!
Thus, unless there was clear abuse of power, a violation of constitutional rights, or procedural irregularities, suing the National Security operatives for conducting an investigation would be legally unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. My take!
I am a citizen, not a spectator.
Rashad Abdulai
Deputy Communications Officer
NDC-USA