There is an unusual jostling for the top job in the law enforcement system as it is becoming clear that the days of the Chief Constable in his position are numbered.
It is normal for people to lobby for positions but it is also a standard practice for seniority and merit to be the guiding principles.
What happens to the professionalism required in the Service when a superior officer attains that position through a smelly lobbying campaign?
The position of President – the personality who has the constitutional authority to appoint persons for this exalted assignment – comes with a number of challenges one of which is the intensity of lobbying which he has to contend with under the circumstances.
While lobbying is not an indecent thing to do, it is iniquitous when it is shrouded in defamation of others in line for the nod.
Some have engaged the services of their traditional rulers to intervene on their behalf and we feel saddened that our President who is busy attending to equally important issues of state should be finding time to listen to such interventions out of deference to such guests.
The law enforcement system is an exceptional department of state whose efficiency depends upon consistency to standards. Indeed, it is a regimented service which when tampered with contagions of lobbying for unfit persons would reduce its quality.
Over the years, the Ghana Police Service (GPS) has had to undergo various forms of interventions under the current Inspector General of Police in the face of glaring challenges as in the recruitment of, sometimes, elements with criminal tendencies.
A transformational programme is ongoing as part of efforts to give the GPS a needed facelift. When however self interest and other myopic tendencies come to play in the choice of an IGP, there is genuine cause to get apprehensive as we are now.
If the intensity of the lobbying can be overlooked, the outright running down of each other as it is becoming clear is something to be condemned. Not only is it ungentlemanly, it is also against the tenets of the faiths of the world to lie to be given a position as in the case under review.
The President as we observed in a preceding paragraph has the prerogative in such matters but under the circumstances and in line with his project of ensuring propriety in matters about governance would restrict himself to merit and seniority.
There is a hierarchy and a record of performance of those at the top which should serve as criteria for consideration. Indeed, in such regimented circles, the senior number applies in such matters.
We urge the President to ignore them who come with stories about their colleagues as means of being considered.