Education makes a people easy to lead but difficult to drive, easy to govern but impossible to enslave – Henry Peter Brougham.
In 2009, Prof. John Evans Atta Mills assumed office amidst controversy when Parliament was enmeshed in dispute over whether new levels of remuneration, especially retirement benefits of public office holders identified under Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution, were approved by the House, as required by law.
Some members of the National Democratic Congress publicly denounced the attempt to “steal” the levels and insisted that the House never approved any conditions of service for the listed officials and that the recommendation of the Chinnery Hesse Committee was never discussed and could thus not be legitimate.
Although there were many MPs from the New Patriotic Party who staked their integrity that indeed, Parliament approved new service conditions, the authority of the House could not be brought to bear on proceedings, hence, President Mills’ repudiation of the decision and the setting up of the Ewurama Addy Committee to come out with fresh recommendations to legitimise the process.
Two months to the end of the tenure of the government, it has emerged that based on the recommendations of the Ewurama Addy Committee report, the Executive has approved a new salary level of GH¢7,200 for MPs effective January 2009, creating the impression that MPs would be receiving huge arrears. Then suddenly in hushed tones, it emerges that Parliament has approved huge salary increases for public office holders serving under the Executive.
The most disheartening thing in the two situations is that Parliament in both situations was not transparent in handling the matter, which has serious implications for the Consolidated Fund.
The public is justifiably angered and incensed by the fact that the arrears are to take effect from January 2009. That seems to be unjust and unfair since most public sector employees are made to forgo arrears in the name of non-budgetary provision for such payments. Teachers in particular have been made to forego arrears because of their huge numbers.
However, it would be rare for the average teacher to get any single increment of more than GH¢100, so in the face of this reality, where politicians have gained salary increase of 100 per cent over 48 months, in addition to end of service benefits, that sounds unjust and unfair.
Probably, those who leaked the information about the salary of MPs intended that public anger would be directed against the MPs and shield the executive from any liability.
Whilst the public was brooding over the huge pay for MPs, Parliament muddied the waters by secretly approving new salaries for those serving under the Executive. It emerges that beyond the leadership of the House, other MPs had no knowledge of the quantum of salaries they approved. Then there is an intervention; President John Dramani Mahama issues an appeal to Parliament to review the new salary levels.
Does it mean that the President was not privy to deliberations until the new salaries were approved? Why was there no review of the level approved for MPs? What was the basis for the approval by the Executive? And if the structure is that Ministers of State be paid higher than MPs, then how is the review to be done? More importantly, how are the relativities in the salaries determined?
Again, are Presidential aides, staffers or special assistants, however they may be designated, covered under Article 71 or they must be treated with other civil and public servants, such as in the Parliamentary Service?
The President has asked for a review, but it would have been better if that had been done prior to the approvals rather than after. This is critical because in such situations, it appears the Executive is more thoughtful of the Ghanaian than the legislature, and that Parliament has become subservient to the Executive rather than play equal and independent.
But if indeed salaries of the Article 71 appointees are aligned, for instance that of MPs is said to be aligned to that of High Court judges, then why should we waste resources in setting up remuneration committees. Terminal benefits for civil and public servants are determined on the basis of actual earnings from year to year, rather than a uniform amount at the end of service over the period served.
But if indeed, the President did not know of the new salaries prior to parliamentary approval, then we have not learnt anything. If on the other hand he was privy to all the processes but is reacting to the popular outcry from Ghanaians, then he would not have been faithful to Ghanaians.
One argument that must be denounced is the claim that the salary took into account the dollar value. Which Ghanaian worker’s salary is adjusted on the basis of the dollar?
How could Parliament, suo motto, act beyond the recommendations of a committee it did not appoint? What was the content of the accompanying letter sent from the Executive with the Ewurama Addy report since it is the President who has the duty to receive that report?
Parliament has an obligation to redeem its integrity. In 2009, when some MPs stated that the House had not discussed the terms and conditions, and encouraged Prof. Mills to abrogate the decision, it was Parliament which suffered a loss of credibility. This time round, the Executive again has taken the credit. Indeed, some MPs have again indicted the House for not giving them insight into what they approved.
In all these, Ghanaians may never know the truth because the piece of legislation that would have empowered them to demand information, Freedom of Information Law, has been stalled again by the same Parliament, which despite its own processes and technicalities continue to assure Ghanaians that the law will be passed this year, when the matter is not before the House.
There are many Ghanaians, including myself, who argued during the Constitutional Review Commission Conference that MPs must be paid better than Ministers of State. To such people, anytime Parliament plays subserviency to the Executive it undermines the advocacy to elevate MPs. Parliament and MPs have to maintain the highest level of integrity to win public trust, respect and confidence. Therefore, circumstances in which the leadership of the House holds members to ransom to approve documents whose contents they do not know are not the best and must be discouraged.
That might have accounted for why MPs were encouraged to deal with the instruments introduced by the Electoral Commission for the creation of constituencies even when copies were not available to the House, let alone MPs. If in 2009 and 2012, MPs approved conditions of service for Article 71 (2) office holders without knowing the details of their content and the impact on the Consolidated Fund then what about processes that could be described as neutral?
That is why we need a Freedom of Information Law and constitutional amendment to place all salaries drawn from the Consolidated Fund under the Fair Wages Commission and the Single Spine Salary Structure.
If the salaries have aroused sentiments, what constitutes the end of service benefits? The process of the Executive-Legislature Circus of scratching each other’s back must end. It is neither healthy nor functional.