FORMER CPP GENERAL SECRETARY RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS IN GHANA’S JUSTICE SYSTEM

Presidential Staffer and former General Secretary of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), Nana Yaa Jantuah has waded into the discussion on corruption and presidential pardons in Ghana’s justice system.

She argued that the fight against corruption must be devoid of political biases and selective prosecutions, as she questions the practice of governments pardoning individuals convicted of corruption-related offenses, stating that such actions undermine accountability.

She raised concerns about the tendency of governments pardoning individuals convicted of corruption offenses when leaving office, citing past instances where individuals like Kwame Peprah, who in 2003, was convicted of a crime but later granted presidential pardon, which, in her view, created a perception of politically motivated prosecutions.

Jantuah questioned the rationale behind such pardons, asking why a government would pardon individuals it had previously prosecuted and convicted.

The Presidential staffer cautioned against politically motivated prosecutions, arguing that such practices damage the credibility of the judiciary and the justice system.

She pointed to instances like the case of the Aveyime Rice Project where individuals were imprisoned for allegedly causing financial loss to the state, only for later revelations to suggest otherwise, stressing that before prosecuting someone for corruption, there must be incontrovertible evidence to prevent wrongful convictions and subsequent government pardons.

In defending former President John Mahama’s stance on corruption, Jantuah asserted that Mahama’s government never interfered with the justice system and allowed due process to take its course, regardless of political affiliation.

Nana Yaa pointed at  cases where Mahama’s government ensured that even it’s own appointees faced the law.

She refuted claims that Mahama’s government selectively prosecuted corruption cases, maintaining that it upheld justice irrespective of political loyalty.

Acknowledging criticisms that Ghana has failed to recover stolen public funds in some corruption cases, she agreed that financial recovery should be prioritized over mere incarceration, especially in a country with limited resources.

She however emphasized that even when financial restitution is made, there should still be consequences for corruption, proposing non-custodial sentences as a more effective form of punishment.

Jantuah further suggested adopting plea bargaining practices where individuals who admit to corruption could receive reduced sentences while repaying stolen funds.

“In America, if you go before the judge and they ask you, ‘Are you guilty?’ and you plead guilty, you get a reduced sentence. We should look at some of these things. Bring the money if you are clear that you have stolen money or have been involved in some procurement deal. Bring the money back, and then you will be punished as well but maybe with a minimal punishment,” she said.

Nana Yaa Jantuah’s comments highlight the inconsistencies in Ghana’s fight against corruption, particularly in how different administrations handle corruption cases.

She argued that selective prosecutions and political pardons undermine public trust in the justice system,  emphasizing the need for evidence-based prosecutions, alternative punishments such as community service, and financial restitution in corruption cases.

Jantuah’s stance presents a broader question for Ghana’s political leadership, highlighting how the country can ensure that the fight against corruption is free from political interference and truly serves the national interest.