Mr Speaker, I was not present when the Statement eulogising June 4 came to be made.
Mr Speaker, I believe in the principles espoused by June 4. I believe that as a country, all of us subscribed to the principles espoused by June 4. These principles are captured in the preamble of the Constitution, and we all voted for the Constitution.
So, in my view, as a country, we all subscribed to the principles of June 4, especially, the emphasis on justice, probity and accountability. I do not think that anybody can run away from that. As I said, as a country, we voted massively for the 1992 Constitution, underpinned by the principles of June 4th. So, to that extent, I would say that all of us as a country subscribed to the principles of June 4.
Mr Speaker, however, there is a world of difference between principle and action. So, if one should indicate that he subscribes to the principles of June 4 and is inspired by it, I would
not worry about that. However, I disassociate myself from the feuds and commissions of June 4. So, if anybody should rise up to say that he associates with the commissions on the missions of June 4, then we would have a problem with that.
Mr Speaker, an Hon Colleague said that some of the issues now in the country, with respect to the burning of excavators, are extra judicial and illegal. That may as well be. However, if a person has his excavator burnt, that person is not prescribed, and indeed, prevented under any law to go to the court to seek remedy, and that is the difference.
Mr Speaker, if you look at our Constitution, in article 35, which talks about the transitional provisions, if we relate to session 34 (3), it says that for the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that no executive, legislative or judicial action taken or “purported” to have been taken by the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) or the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), which was born out of the June 4 order, or a member of the AFRC, or by any person appointed by the PNDC or the AFRC, in the name of either the PNDC the AFRC, shall be questioned
in any proceedings whatsoever, and accordingly, it shall not be lawful for any court or tribunal to make any order or grant any remedy or relieve in respect of any such act.
Mr Speaker, what can be much more barbaric than this provision? Please, we should not glorify insanity. That is why I say that I remain committed to the principles of June 4, but not the commissions. If there is nothing to hide, then why insert such a draconian condition in the Constitution of this country? That should appeal to common sense.
Mr Speaker, with your permission the preservation of confiscation and penalties imposed by the AFRC, captured in session 35 (1) says and I quote:
“Any confiscation of any property and any other penalties imposed by or under the authority of the Armed Forced Revolutionary Council (AFRC) or the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) under any decree or law made by the Council shall not be reversed by any authority under this Constitution in perpetuity”.
Mr Speaker, does this appeal to common sense? That is why I am surprised that this Statement even came to be admitted.
Mr Speaker, I think we are making progress.
What actions and inactions that are being commented on under this regime, not everything can be applauded just as what happened under the Mills-Mahama Regime, or even former President Jerry John Rawlings' or former President John Agyekum Kufuor's regime, we cannot applaud everything, but we have the recourse from the courts that we have to go and seek remedy.
If the doors and windows are closed in such a manner to every citizen of this country, can we in Parliament rise up and sing and applaud? Mr Speaker, we should be careful. That is not to say that whatever was done by the AFRC was right; I cannot say that. But if we seek to put everything in one basket and justify it, I have a problem with that.
Mr Speaker, I believe going forward that we should be circumspect in what we say on the Floor of this House.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.