Member of Parliament (MP) for Oforikrom constituency, Ashanti Region, Dr Emmanuel Marfo in his opinion believes the Majority Caucus were in a haste to suspend their request for Ken Ofori-Atta’s dismissal.
The MP in a Facebook post on Thursday, October 27, 2022 stated that,” I read the Statement by the NPP caucus in response to the President’s plea for more time with lots of concern. I do not fully agree with it and perhaps would have been better to say we have taken all concerns on board and will do what will be in the best interest of the political and economic stability of our country”.
On Tuesday, October 25, 2022, some Members of Parliament who are part of the Majority Caucus called for the immediate dismissal of the Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, as well as the Minister of State at the Finance Ministry, Charles Adu Boahen.
They argued that relieving the duo of their duties will aid in fixing Ghana’s struggling economy, which has been plagued by rising inflation and debt.
In light of this, President Akufo-Addo met with the dissatisfied legislators and demanded that the Finance Minister conclude Ghana’s negotiations with the IMF and submit the 2023 Budget Statement to Parliament.
Briefly after the interaction, the Majority Caucus in a statement dated Wednesday, October 26, noted that after deliberation among members, it will withhold its current demands.
Read Dr Emmanuel Marfo’s Statement here:
*DR. EMMANUEL MARFO (MP) writes:*
Statement by the Majority caucus in Parliament on call for sacking Finance Ministers
I read the Statement by the NPP caucus in response to the President’s plea for more time with lots of concern. I do not fully agree with it and perhaps would have been better to say we have taken all concerns on board and will do what will be in the best interest of the political and economic stability of our country.
I think the turn of events post the press conference begs for some questions in order to come to a conclusion whether the action was needed in the first place. Was the grievance of the 80 MPs and their subsequent action well communicated to the leadership of the Party and the Caucus? Did the Caucus leadership communicate to the President? Did the President provide a response consistent with his plea to leadership? Did leadership convey the President’s response to the concerned MPs or the Caucus?
In effect I am asking whether there was effective engagement within us. If indeed there was, and one may say the President was ‘recalcitrant’ then the press statement may be justified, if not, then perhaps in my humble view, the press Statement was too early.
However, we are made to believe that the sentiments were rightly conveyed to the President and that his response was unfavourable to the concerns of the MPs. In that case, I dont think the MPs, and now the caucus, should have backed down on our demands. Why? Because for MPs in a ruling Party to come to a point of going public to demand of their President to sack an appointee, and no less an appointee than a Finance Minister, a lot of public pressure, political and intellectual thinking and and assessment MUST have gone into that decision.
Securing public and perhaps Party interest must have been stretched beyond its elastic limit and that nothing should stop them from going back. The MPs must have reached a point where the die is cast and that no amount of words were going to stop the crossing of Rubicon. It must be the point of no return and here the words of Sun Tzu come to mind “he will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” Now the cake is half-baked, you cannot eat it, you can’t throw it away!
In any case, I think the response in the Statement, especially the condition that the President must sack them after the IMF and budget assignments, will even worsen the plight of the President, politically-speaking because he has been put in a very tight corner; indeed between the devil and the deep blue sea. If we were going to listen to the President’s plea, then my view is that we should not have given him any conditions and allow events to take their natural course. And indeed, if I were Ken or Charles, perhaps this is the time to have honourably resigned. Why? Because we seem to have passed a death sentence on them and that regardless of what they will do, we are only waiting for the clock to tick, just to wait for their day of cruxificion. Wow!! This is most unfair, to say the least. How would they be in the right frame of emotional, pyschological and intellectual mind to execute the very critical job for which we have been begged to wait till completed? Are we looking for quality output or just to tick the check box that a job is done?
In any case, I cannot also stand for the Statement because it defeats, fundamentally, the very principle for which we called for the cruxificion. Are we saying that regardless of the Ken-led IMF negotation, a role I dont support anyway, or how good his 2023 budget will look like, he must still go? If that is so, and indeed as the statement suggests, then we have already declared no hope in their competence and that nothing good can come from Nazareth. If indeed that is our fatal hope and expectation, then I beg to suggest that there is no need to waste any further time on these gentlemen, they must go! However, the flip side is, if for any reason, they deliver a good IMF programme and a great budget to our satisfaction, would we still insist they go? One may say, of course not but then we would have already created the fertile conditions for their dismissal by the ‘agreement’ in our Statement.
The President, and indeed all of us majority MPs, will come under immense pressure, especially when the press Statement has received immense public applause.
In summary, I think if we really came to a point of going public, then nothing should have stopped us for standing on our demands. If we were going to yield, then we should not have given any conditions to the President. Afterall, it cannot be the case that the 80 MPs did not know that Ken was busy leading an IMF negotation and that he was busy preparing the 2023 budget. It cannot be that the MPs did not contemplate the consequences of our demand on these ongoing assignments.
For me it is a zero-sum game, this symbolic win-win semblance will come back to bite us. Mark my words! He who fights and run away, lives to fight another day-Bob Marley
I like the slogan of an insurance advert, if it must be done, it must be done well. If Ken and Charles must go, they must go now, else lets forever hold our peace and pray for something good to come from Nazareth. The Parliamentary group is a very powerful, respectable and honourable arm of our Party. Next time, when we have to leap, we must weigh and watch and when we leap in the glare of the public, we must never return to base. Before we speak, we must have come to a point of no surrender, less we make mockery of ourselves. This is politics, Selah!