In recent days, you have taken to the airwaves with an air of moral absolutism, pontificating on public accountability and the purity of motives behind national advocacy. You did so in your callous attempt to obfuscate the matters in relation to the politically tainted process that saw the removal of Madam Araba Esaaba Sackey.
In fact, on national television, you made it quite clear that one of the reasons why the woman was removed was due to the Afenyo-Markin v The Speaker of Parliament case. To you, it is quite weird for an injunction application to be filed the same day and heard the same day.
You argued that the speed with which the application was heard points to a certain misconduct which ought to lead to a removal from office, and that is what has been done. You have soon forgotten that, in Republic v Moffat [Ex parte Allotey], the injunction application was filed the same day and heard the same day by the High Court.
Your point that what happened in the Afenyo-Markin v The Speaker case is something that has never happened under our jurisprudence is flawed. I must also remind you of the policy reasoning underlying Order 1 of CI 47 (the concepts of expeditious trial), which was well-crafted and inserted into the rules book by the Rule of Court Committee.
Your position on that matter as a justification for the removal of Madam Araba lends credence to those who say that you need to revisit your law report for the purpose(s) of acquaintance
Your eloquence, no doubt, is polished. But even polished metal carries its scratches when turned against the light.
It is precisely because of your stature as a lawyer, a teacher of advocacy, and one who has long enjoyed proximity to the architecture of public power, that certain matters widely discussed in the public square cannot be left unaddressed. You cannot continue to poison the air in such a manner unbefitting of a senior lawyer with so many years standing at the Bar.
For years, concerns have circulated regarding the opaque nature of your legal engagements under the 8th Parliament, including questions about procurement processes, rates charged, and the propriety of representing constitutional bodies.
These concerns may be allegations, they may be misunderstandings, but they remain unanswered. Unanswered questions in the life of a public intellectual are like unattended embers; they glow quietly, yet they burn reputations over time. The records show that under the 8th Parliament, the current Speaker of Parliament awarded you contracts that never went to the Public Procurement Authority.
In fact, we saw the embarrassment on your face when the then Attorney General of the Republic raised preliminary legal objections about your purported representation in the Supreme Court on grounds that the same was fraudulently illegal.
It is, therefore, surprising, almost theatrically so, that you would now position yourself as the grand arbiter of motives, lecturing citizens on purity of purpose, while issues that call for candour from your own end lie unspoken. A person who has been the subject of public scrutiny cannot, with any moral elegance, expect others to accept his critique without the courtesy of self-reflection.
You speak of “personal interest” as though it were a plague affecting everyone but yourself. Yet, if ever there was a season in which silence might have served you better than moral sermonising, it is the present one. A man who walks through a market of mirrors must be mindful of his own reflection.
Until then, it may be wise to temper the tone of judgment you cast at others who choose to fight for causes you may not subscribe to. For even if you disagree with their mission, they do not stand before the Republic seeking to rewrite their shadows. They have chosen the sun, and for that, their glare may be inconvenient, but not illegitimate.
In the words of Achebe, “A man who brings home ant-infested firewood should not complain when lizards pay him a visit.” Before lecturing others on the insects they attract, perhaps it is time to examine the wood in your own storehouse.
Respectfully submitted, Eric Dawda, Esq.
