In proven democratic societies certain behavioural options by people holding public positions tend to confirm the level of morality practised by politicians in those societies. Among those ennobling behavioural traits is the alacrity with which high-ranking officials who unfortunately come under some sort of cloud, in both the private and public sectors, resign their appointments. In aspiring democracies such as ours, our politicians seem to have taken a cue from our traditional rulers and insist on staying in office until death do them part. They wait until their appointing authority wields the axe on their necks. However, there is currently the expectation that given the Supreme Court's decision that the 25 million Euros that the state of Ghana paid to a contractor, Waterville Holdings Ltd, was wrongfully done and should be retrieved, Ghana may be on the threshold of enthroning such culture in our body politic. Lawyers who were in charge of the Attorney-General’s Department at the time of the payment and who allegedly persuaded the Presidency to approve the illegal payment and also dissuaded it from authorising steps to retrieve the money, include Ebo Barton-Odro, who now holds executive positions in the 6th Parliament of the Fourth Republic and that of the African Union. He stands indicted in his former role as a Deputy Attorney General. The Supreme Court ruled that the company, Waterville, to whom the state paid 25 million Euros had no valid contract with the Government of Ghana. If so, on what basis was a decision reached and approved for payment? The choice before the former deputy AG is a hard one, for three appointments are at stake – his seat as MP, his appointment as First Deputy Speaker and his representation of Ghana in the AU Parliament. However, given the blackness of the situation, Gye Nyame Concord would urge him to be a man and say “I quit”. Gye Nyame Concord thinks, however, that he should relinquish his appointive positions, which are executive positions, but cling to his seat in Parliament, which he won in a competitive election. At least, he should quit from his overhead responsibility as member of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament (PAC), which is the parliamentary oversight body responsible for upholding accountability in public office. We do not want to stridently demand his resignation from Parliament because of the fact that his constituents may have been in the known of these issues before the 2012 elections, yet chose him to still represent them. The constituents may, therefore, be in the best position to demand his resignation. Whether he should forfeit his parliamentary seat is a decision for his constituents. He may be their best choice to represent them, warts and all! But when it comes to his oversight of the PAC, we think he ought to quit and not wait to be sacked by public opinion, as the baying has begun. The honour attached to such unforced resignation would go some way to brush up his image a bit. It would demonstrate that all may not be lost with him. No matter the depth of one’s fall there is always something that can be salvaged about one’s image. His resignation would suggest that he has a conscience, and that trip in the past was a result of a momentary loss of concentration. Anyone who thinks otherwise should feel free to utilise the recall process provided for by the 1992 Constitution.