Thank you, I have
taken a cue and I am particularly very amused about his fine distinction of people who were killed and those who were murdered. But I will continue to indicate that it is not about the specific personalities that this occasion draws. It is about the principle that the hon. Colleague has raised that there are fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life, enshrined in our Constitution. So we are talking basically about the principle that this particular occasion brings and not necessarily going to the specific.
All that I have been trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that regardless of who you are in this society, you are entitled to enjoy the fundamental human rights in the Constitution. And that should even
a person that is roaming the streets meet a tragic and untimely death, it should be something that should prick our public conscience very much like it has done in relation to the Judges; very much like it should do in relation to the situation in Dagbon; very much like what happened to Mobila and possibly very much like what would happen to many people if the public conscience is not aroused in relation to this development.
Mr. Speaker, as a nation, it becomes very important that on occasions like these we try as much as possible to keep the political dimensions away from these events. In fact, I can say that the type of sympathy in relation to the murder of the Judges and the support and consistency that it has built over the years has been a very significant one. I have always said it that never again should such a thing happen in the history of this country; and I take that very seriously. I say that never again should an occasion like that ever come in relation to any person of Ghana, be he a judge, a farmer or a fisherman. I also think that this Statement has always to be put in its proper context.
Mr. Speaker, fundamental human rights are very, very enduring types of principles that everybody should try and imbibe in a democratic system. What becomes difficult is when we choose to pick the beneficiaries of these human rights and deny others the opportunity to have them. Because if human rights, as it is often said, are too serious to be left to only individuals, it becomes important that all of us ensure that at any point that we see that the fundamental right of anybody, whether he is perceived to be an opponent, whether he is perceived to be a friend or not, we will have to rise up. That is the only way that we will never have this type of recurrence.
Mr. Speaker, with these few words, I would like to associate myself with the Statement.
Mr. John A. Ndebugre (PNc --
Zebilla): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to make some comments on this very important Statement. I must as well make this statement because at the time of this sad event, I was a member of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Government. I was the PNDC Regional Secretary for the Northern Region, now known as Regional Minister for the Northern Region.
I think that the incident was a very sad one as the two hon. Members who spoke previously have already stated; and on an occasion like this, it is my considered view that it serves no purpose to try to wax eloquence. I think that if we are to move forward as a nation, a united nation for that matter we must try and find a way or ways and means to put matters like these behind us and proceed with our lives.
It is my view as well that anybody who was connected with this incident, no matter how remote it was, must try as hard as possible and search his or her inner self and reconcile himself or herself with the God Almighty without worrying himself or herself about what we mortals are saying now. That is the maximum repentance that one can pay for this sort of attitude.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few points about this incident. The first point is that, it ought to be recognized that this incident was not an institutional one. In other words, it was not committed on behalf of an institution. It was not committed as a result of a government
policy; and I am saying it on authority because as I have already said, I was part of the Government of that time.
The Government at that time was made up of the Provisional National Defence Council otherwise called the PNDC. Then we had a Committee of Secretaries, made up of Sector Secretaries and Regional Secretaries. Sector Secretaries sat once every week performing the functions of a Cabinet and the Committee of Secretaries as a whole met once every month.
Therefore, as Regional Secretary, I was part of the Government and I am not aware that at any specific meeting of any of these organs, it was decided that some three High Court Judges and the retired Army Major should be abducted and murdered. And being a lawyer, I would like to state specific authority -- and I have in my hand -- I hope I am not waxing eloquence -- but I have in my hand the Executive Summary of the National Reconciliation Report of October, 2004. And Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I refer to page 186 of that document, paragraph 5.7.5.14. It says as follows -- and if I have the permission of the Rt. Hon. Speaker, I will read:
“5.7.5.14. What then was the truth? The truth was that the murderers knew that they were on an assignment which had the blessing of the PNDC. Of course, there is no evidence to suggest that the PNDC held a formal meeting at which it was decided to abduct and, perhaps, murder the judges.”
I think that what the paragraph is trying to say is that even if any members of the PNDC or the PNDC Government, for that matter, were involved in this matter, they were involved not as members of the institution, PNDC. They were involved as
