The Judgment Debt Commission is "using less money to chase more money," this is the position of the Dean of the GIMPA Law School, Mr. Ernest Kofi Abotsi, in a debate on the relevance of the Commission.

Giving a "deeper" view on why the Commission was set up, Kofi Abotsi explained, the commission is a surgical opportunity for "institutional reform" of the Attorney-General's department.

Despite the presence of several state agencies that could investigate the sorry saga of judgment debts, Abotsi believes, not setting up the Commission would have exposed a preference for a "business as usual" type of governance.

Mr. Abotsi was speaking at the maiden Joy FM Debates held at the Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT last Thursday evening. The debate was moderated by Emile Francis Short, former head of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ).

The motion for the debate was "Ghana's Judgment Commission is a Waste of Public Resources." Mr. Abotsi spoke against the motion.

The debate was rated highly by a visibly impressed audience, as providing a buffet of thought-provoking opinions on the motion ‘Ghana’s Judgment Debt Commission is a waste of public resources’.

A judgment debt is a legal obligation to pay a debt or damages evidenced by a judgment entered in a court of record and enforceable by execution or other judicial process

The Judgment Debt Commission (JDC) was set up last year, at a time when a series of scandalous judgment debt stories seized the nation's attention.

The scandal began in 2011 with investigations into how the state doled out Gh¢51 million to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, a businessman with ties to the governing National Democratic Congress. 

Episode after episode running for a whole year, radio stations from Morning Shows to late night political discussions devoted  unprecedented attention to the subject of judgment debts.

In response, President John Mahama established the JDC in November 2012 to enquire into inordinate payments within a specified period.

Seven months short of two years, many have questioned the Commission’s usefulness. This urged Ghana's thought-leader, Joy FM to organise a debate addressed by Mr. Ernest Kofi Abotsi, and a senior attorney at ‘Faibille and Faibille’, Mr. Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr.

Egbert Faibille's argument - for the motion

Egbert Faibille from the outset said the judgment debt commission was not just a waste of public resources but a "needless" waste of public resources.

He equated the setting up of the JDC to setting up a presidential committee to investigate the causes of malaria - something he said, nobody today would waste time doing.

"The answers are common. They are all around us. It will not take a commissioner to tells us," he said.

He recalled that an Attorney-General in this country went ahead to "tie an [international] deal with CP [Construction Pioneers] without even a witness; [implying] that all Ghanaians are dead. Is it only the A-G who is alive so that he or she alone can sign a contract to bind the state?"

He wondered what exactly would government want to find out in an example like this, when the straight forward procedure was to take action against the said official.

"What is the Judgment Debt Commission doing that EOCO and the Police CID cannot do?" he asked.

He said eventually, Commissions of Inquiry (COI) become tools used by government to harass political opponents and said with the exception of a Commission set up to investigate Accra's 2001 Stadium disaster and a few others, all Commissions of Inquiry are "hounding" tools.

He cited the Kwame Nkrumah Asset Commission headed by Justice Apaloo, saying it was used to degrade a deposed Kwame Nkrumah who could not appear before the commission.

"Even Nkrumah's girlfriends were a subject matter [at the commission]", he said, noting the commission's work was "one of the most serious things that should never happen to anybody".

He said that Justice Taylor Assets Commission was used against President Kofi Abrefa Busia whose assets were seized. It was returned to his family in 1996 under Jerry Rawlings. It was actually President Mahama, then Communications Minister who announced the decision to return the assets, Egbert went further.

He said as of 1969, it had been decided to do away with Commissions of Inquiry, because a High Court had said "based on the years of misuse of Commission of Inquiry...no one should be prosecuted with the findings of a commission."

He said Abostsi's claim that the JDC is a "forward -looking" work was curious. He wondered , if the JDC is not a money-collecting machine, then it is "much ado about nothing".

"You are not going to get a dime at the end of this", he predicted, alluding to efforts to retrieve money wronfully paid to people under the guise of judgment debts.

Abotsi's arguments Against the motion

The law lecturer said seeing the JDC as a waste of resources is a "simplistic" view.

For the purposes of "bold" and "informed decision-making", the setting up of JDC was the right way to go, he said.

He dismissed as "piecemeal" and reactive", Egbert's suggestion that the Attorney-General should rather give the president monthly updates on judgment debt payments to check abuse.

He said the President was right in setting up a commission of inquiry because the constitution says where there is intense public interest in an issue, the president could set up such a body. The saga of judgment debts clearly meets this requirement, he noted.

 According to Abotsi, it is a "feedback mechanism" for the President and others entrusted with power to "cause changes".

Lending his version of an illustration, he said even though automobiles are potential murder weapons, people have not stopped using cars. It is "bad drivers" who kill, he said, counteracting Egbert's claim that commissions of inquiry almost always abused.

"Commissions of Inquiry are good", he stressed, "findings of a Commission of Inquiry may not be applied", he noted, nonetheless, we ought to focus on the "inherent quality" of COIs just as cars have their own inherent quality despite bad drivers.

He said using commissions of inquiry to get public institutions to carry out their functions properly amounts to saving a lot of money.

"We are going to use less money to chase more money. This is the basic principle in public finance; we are going to save more money for generations to come", he said.

Once the loopholes for dubious judgment debts are blocked, the country would be saving a lot of money, Abotsi predicted.

"If we are able to save tomorrow's money then money saved is money gained," he stressed.

Using institutions or "models" such as EOCO or the Police to investigate judgment debts as suggested by Egbert cannot be the same as using a Commission of Inquiry, he argued.

There are "subtle" differences, he said, insisting police investigations do not have the backing of a High Court as a Commission of Inquiry.

"The Police cannot compel you to speak the truth" which only attracts "lying to public officials" but under a COI, this would carry greater punitive action - perjury, he observed.

Although he conceded to Egbert's claim that history doesn't speak well of commissions of inquiry, he dismissed Egbert's suggestion that they should therefore be done away with.

He said "Ghana has failed in many respects. It's been 50 years plus of our independence. We have failed in many respects. We continue to soldier on. We wake up every morning braving that traffic, believing that tomorrow will get better.”

He said Egbert's historical account of the weaknesses of previous COIs should serve as a guide and not as a basis to dismiss them.

The End of the matter

The impressive turn out turned up the applause after both speakers ended their rebuttals. The Moderator Emile Short invited comments and questions and soon found himself having to cut off the invitation. The contributions and comments appeared ceaseless.

In the ensuing vote, 43 people voted for the motion, 31 voted against the motion while four found reason to abstain.

Abraham Amaliba and others raised their hands to vote