Thaddeus Sory writes: Mea Culpa for Doing Nothing

1. Our laws uphold two cardinal principles of justice—so fundamental are these rules that they are regarded as “natural.” One of these, which is the subject of my reflection today, is the principle that no person should be  judged without the opportunity to be heard.

2. Every individual must be given the chance to explain their actions before judgment, even if their explanation appears unjustifiable or outright foolish. This right is inherent, regardless of who the person is or claims to  be.

3. Some argue that, apart from God’s direct instruction to Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, the second rule God established—by example—was the principle of hearing before  condemnation.

4. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, both God and Adam knew that the inevitable had occurred. Yet, instead of instantly casting them out, God first sought Adam out, engaged him, and asked for an  explanation. Being all-powerful, God could have wiped them off the face  of the earth without discussion—but He did not.
5. This principle was echoed in the New Testament when Nicodemus, in response to those who sought the immediate condemnation of Jesus, wisely asked:

“Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he  doeth?”

6. Recently, reports emerged that certain individuals entered the residence of the former Finance Minister. The Special Prosecutor (SP) appeared to know who they were. He was certain, at least, that they were not armed  robbers or thieves.

7. The SP acknowledged that these were state officials, just like himself, carrying out their duties—yet he never sought an explanation for their actions. Instead, he branded their entry into the Minister’s home as  “roguish.”

8. But who made the SP the judge of their official duties? What authority does he have to determine whether other state officials are acting lawfully or unlawfully? Do they require his approval before executing their  mandates?

9. Disagreeing with an action is one thing. Declaring it wrongful—or even criminal—without knowing the full facts is another. The SP did not know whether these officials were executing a warrant. He did not verify  whether it was a search warrant or an arrest warrant. If I were among  those officials, I would demand an apology.

9. And then came the needless, hypocritical apology:

“Please, Mr. Minister, I did not do it ooo. Those people are just thugs.  They acted wrongly. I WILL NEVER DO SUCH A THING.”

10. Why apologise when you were not responsible for the entry? Did the Minister accuse you? Or was this fear? Or an attempt to court his friendship while publicly pretending to be searching for him?

11. You announced to the world that you were “looking for” the former Minister. Why? If you are looking for him, then find him. That is your job. We don’t need updates—we need results. Enough with the complaints.  First, the courts are not cooperating. Now, the Minister has “run away.”  So, what should we do?

12. If I were the Minister, I would ignore you. The man has stated that he is seeking medical attention. His lawyers have offered assistance—so give them the opportunity. Whatever information they provide, take it. If you  need more, ask. If they do not cooperate, request that their client  produces the necessary documents. If he refuses, execute the  appropriate search and arrest warrants.

13. If you believe you have enough evidence to prosecute him, then proceed. The law allows for trials in absentia. That is what we expect—not storytelling. Instead, you have wasted valuable time and public resources  on grandstanding and unnecessary announcements. You have, in effect,  caused financial loss to the Republic by spending work hours beating the  “gong gong” instead of doing the job.

14. And what of the officials you condemned without facts? They were there to execute an arrest warrant. Not a search. They were there based on a formal report. They acted within their statutory mandate. Did you cross- check that before your public pronouncements? They did not need to  explain themselves to you. Let them do their work.

15. These same officials have intercepted containers of counterfeit money and gold, working tirelessly for Ghana’s benefit. Yet, they do not stand on rooftops touting their achievements. They do not moan about obstacles  or frustration. They remain focused. They let the public judge their work.  Learn from them. Do not be the chick that lays an egg and clucks all day f or attention. Be the elephant that delivers a calf in silence.

16. And then there’s Parliament. Why did you apologise? Did you enter the Minister’s house? Did you send those men? Did they ask for your approval? So why apologise? If Parliament felt it necessary to intervene,  the logical step was to ask for an explanation—not to offer an unsolicited  apology. And why only this case? Did Parliament apologise to the Emirati  woman who was abducted? Or to Bongo Ideas? If not, then do so now.  They are human beings too.

17. Is the ex-Minister a Member of Parliament? Does he have immunity from searches and arrests? If not, why should investigating him attract parliamentary scrutiny?

18. I have fought for many individuals victimized by security officials. I have spent nights at the Police Headquarters with politicians picked up at odd hours. I have been there to demand reasons for their arrests. Some were  never even charged. There were even no reasonable grounds to pick  them up. Worse still, no need to detain them.

19. Many times when I am at one or other office of security officials who are dealing with my clients, I have the media pushing me for a voice note on the matter. I never yield. Let the security men do their work. The rule is  Audi alteram partem. That is our law. Even the Almighty God applied it.  So ye saints, you cannot be false to the rule.