The National Security Council (NSC) last Wednesday banned seven former service commanders from military and police installations and garrisons (GNA, 9/17/08). Dr. Sam Amoo, National Security Coordinator, who signed the statement, argued that the action was “in the interest of national security.” Even though Dr. Amoo’s explanation (in the statement) was vague, not to mention that reasons adduced by and from government circles have lacked some specificity as to what exactly led to the decision, indications are that the action was a direct response to the meeting that took place between the former President, J. J. Rawlings and some former top military and police commanders at which the issue of national security was top on the agenda.Thus, I want to take up two issues in this piece:

1. Was it right for the former military and police officers to have met the ex-president purposely on an issue of national security?
2. If it was right or wrong, is the NSC’s decision to ban these ex-security chiefs and to reinforce an existing one regarding the former president a good idea?

As far as I am concerned, in a constitutional democracy that places premium on freedom of association, speech, and movement, individuals or groups can, at anytime, decide to meet and discuss, freely, matters of interest to them, unless, of course, the government or the hierarchy of the security forces have some prior information that strongly indicates that such a meeting or private conversation will threaten national security or destabilize the peace of the country.Of course, even without such prior information, if government finds out that the outcome of such a private conversation will be detrimental to national security, it has every right to act in the interest of the security of the country. But, can we merely regulate private conversations? I say, No! Not necessarily! Did those officers have to meet the former president to discuss issues of national security? I believe there was nothing necessarily wrong with that. If the issue of national security came up in passing, while these ex-security chiefs were having lunch with the former president, we can consider that as one of the many things we all do when we meet at such gatherings. However, was the topic on the agenda premeditated? Personally, I think that for the former top brass of the military and the Police Service to have gone to the residence of a former president to discuss issues of national security without channeling their concerns through the current administration that has the mandate to deal with such issues is both scary and worrying, and should make any administration fret. The most logical process the former officers could have undergone was to have walked to the office of the Minister of Defence, the Minister of the Interior, or even the National Security Minister to discuss such important “national security” issues. Situating the issue within a broader perspective, it is important (for me) to state and for those men to have known that

• the relationship between the government and the former president has not been a very good one, that
• this is an election year in which not only the issue of security has been central, but the NDC and the NPP are even prepared to use the most unconventional means to win the elections, and that
• the former president is not only an angry ex-president, but a successful two-time coup maker.

Viewed from these contextual factors, a stronger argument could be put forward that the meeting had all the traits of conspiracy, even though not enough to say that they were plotting a coup. I am one of the few who will argue that the former president is a tired man, who will not stage a coup, at this point, in the country. More so, I am not sure that after having masterminded, ushered, and nursed a post-1990 Ghanaian democracy and presided over a democratic Ghana for over eight years, he (the former president) will destroy all the gains the country has made. Many of the utterances that usually come from the former president that people claim to threaten national security are only symptomatic of a man who is still struggling to define a new identity for himself, especially having been both in the military and served as president of the country for so long. The challenge he’s always faced with while he was even president has been how to choose an appropriate rhetorical maneuver when he has the chance to make any statement whether in political circles or in any other area. It is said, however, that it is better to be safe than sorry. It is for this reason that I think the NPP government’s hypersensitivity to issues of national security, at least in the context of the meeting between the ex-president and the former capos is good. At least it shows that government is alert to such developments and will rise to the occasion in the event of an attempt (by any group) to destabilize the peace or threaten the security of the country. In fact, given that this is an election year, any legitimate action from government to clamp down on nation wreckers will be welcome by Ghanaians. Nonetheless, is government’s action to ban the former security capos legitimate? I will consider such an action appropriate, if government has some useful information that indicates that these men are a threat to national security. This should be legitimate enough to warrant preventing them from disturbing the peace of the country. It is crucial, however, to draw the line between a legitimate action that will save the country from trouble and some politically-motivated scare-mongering action, especially in an election year.For me, this is at the heart of the issue, because needless rumours of coups and coup plots create antipathy and disaffection towards some groups, unfairly project some groups, divert the attention of Ghanaians from the real issues of the day, and destabilize the democratic atmosphere of the country. As far as I am concerned, the NSC’s decision to ban these ex-security capos only begs the question of what government has to really do to protect the country from coups or other such disturbances. If your son wants to pursue Biological Sciences, you don’t send him to the Ghana Institute of Languages to first learn languages. (You) send him to the appropriate institution. Does anybody believe that banning these ex-officers, including the former president, from military facilities will be enough to prevent what the National Security Council (NSC) fears most? I don’t think so! How can a mere ban from military and police installations prevent people from destabilizing the country if they really want to do that? What use will the physical presence or absence of those people at those grounds/events/places be in an age of technology when people could run businesses from their houses/rooms? The best case has been made by former Chief of Defence Staff, Brigadier General (Rtrd) Nunoo Mensah, who, in an interview on JOY FM, noted that “Banning me, to me, is a useless exercise. I will sit in my house here and know all that is happening at Burma Camp. I don’t have to move out of my house, I have got enough intelligence things to know what is going on there. “So if you ban me, you are wasting your time. The only way they can ban me is to stitch my mouth that I can’t talk.” Banning these former security capos is not only inadequate, but needless! In fact, on hindsight we will note that just before the 1981 action that toppled the Limann administration, many different actions (including arrests) were taken against former President Rawlings and those who masterminded the coup. In fact, personnel of the then Special Branch, Military Intelligence, and vigilante groups were all over the residence of all those who led the action to overthrow the Limann-led government, but it did not stop them from going on with their actions. What the NSC and the government need, at this time, are not needless press releases banning people, especially on matters of national security. If you want to address issues of national security you don’t rush to the media with every bit of information (at the least opportunity). Such (mis)behavior either creates needless panic among the citizenry or upsets the security system put in place to track the targets. Government has the benefit of history, which should guide its conduct on matters such as this. What the government needs is an effective security and surveillance system to monitor the activities of not only these ex-security capos, but any individuals or groups, including even those in the NPP whose activities genuinely border on national security. Instead of creating unnecessary panic, government could have contacted these individuals privately and communicated the ban (or whatever action) to them, while mounting an effective surveillance of their activities. In fact, with concrete evidence against these ex-officers, government could have used other methods such as bugging their phones, limiting contacts among these ex-officers, restricting their movements, and even inviting them to answer questions. In an election year (as all times) the issue of national security and peace is paramount and government should use all legitimate means to protect the country and its people from any disturbances. I believe Ghanaians will support any such positive action. We have come too far to allow these disturbances to mar the peace we enjoy. I believe Ghanaians want to choose their leaders through the ballot box.It is only the condemned who will want to see Ghana destroyed. That said, though, government should not create unnecessary panic that will play on the fears of the people. Such a move will not only backfire, but will have far-reaching consequences.Godwin J.Y. Agboka [presidoo@gmail.com]