Up until recently, Ghanaians used to hold certain personalities in awe and high esteem for their roles in national discourse. When Sixth Form education was a major prelude to tertiary education, pronouncements by these “big” people were topics that students never ignored if they wanted to pass with flying colours. Those were the days when majority of the cream of society spoke with passion and the country at the heart of their conversations with the people.
In the early days of our present democratic dispensation, we could still look up to a section of national leadership even in politics, chieftaincy, religion, business, academia and media to speak to issues without partisan and parochial considerations.
Now certain personalities expose the colour of their political parties by the statements they make although they style themselves as neutral commentators.
Others who even identify with particular political parties take the position of opposition from within because of one reason or another.
In most cases, they decide to piss in because they have become bitter after being denied certain privileges by the President of the Republic. For instance, we are at our wits end to understand why Professor Stephen Adei would make such wild claims against the government of which he is a key adviser.
We can only conjecture that he has become bitter since he was denied reappointment as Chair of the GRA Board. Our leaders sometimes take so-called principled positions because of personal gains.
Too many examples of such ingrates abound in the Fourth Republic, making it difficult for society to showcase some of its leaders as role models.
Today, where would society place Professor Kwabena Frimpong Boateng, a renowned surgeon, after his infamous claims against certain government appointees for their involvement in galamsey but failed to substantiate the allegations before the police.
William Atuguba, a retired Supreme Court judge is the latest person to have stirred the conscience of the nation with his interrogation of the ruling of the apex court on the Gyakye Quayson’s case. The eminent jurist came to the limelight during the 2013 Election Petition when people like the late Sir John, Sammi Awuku, and Kenneth Kuranchie were made to see their real levels when they attempted to undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court.
During the eight month public hearing, Justice Atuguba, presiding, made it clear that the court would not tolerate disrespect from any member of the public.
And during the hearing, some members of the public perceived some of the jurists to be partisan but they were given the benefit of the doubt believing that the judges would always keep to their calling of providing justice without fear or favour or ill will or affection.
Judging from the polarised nature of the society, they assessed the ruling from that perspective. Unfortunately, therefore, every institution of state is looked at from that point of view, and not operating according to their statutory functions.
It is in this vein that a section of our society looked at the statement of Justice Atuguba at a public lecture at Legon where he took his colleagues at the Supreme Court to the cleaners.
The Gyakye Quayson’s case at the Supreme Court would not die. The Dormaahene stoke the fire a few months ago and for some reasons Justice Atuguba resurrected the case by describing the ruling as scandalous. We wonder whether by his expose, Justice Atuguba has added to the knowledge about dual citizenship or just ended up deepening the political divide.
We are of the view that Justice Atuguba has never forgiven the NPP government for by- passing him as the most senior judge to appoint his junior as the Chief Justice, and has since not hidden his frustration. Thus, he has not missed the opportunity to paint the picture of gloom and doom in the delivery of justice.