Ex-gratia abrogation: Only a fool does not change his mind, let’s applaud Mahama – Prof Gyampo

Political Science Lecturer at the University of Ghana, Prof. Ransford Gyampo is happy former President John Dramani Mahama has seen the light and is advocating to outlaw the payment of ex-gratia in the country should he become President again.

John Mahama last week vowed to cancel the policy if he wins the 2024 presidential elections but has since been derided by a section of the public. Some of those castigating him want him to return all such perks he may have enjoyed in the past, while others suggest he may not be committed to honouring the pledge because it is not feasible.

Prof. Gyampo however, in notes he shared with Myjoyonline, says the debate to scrap the obnoxious ex-gratia policy should not be led by “a few not too smart people” “with the support of the media”, or “a few greedy politicians who want to keep enjoying the dissipation of our meagre resources on the unwarranted payment of pension to themselves every four years.”

“It is only a fool who doesn’t change his mind. The idea of ex-gratia paid every four years is nauseating. It is that very greedy milking arrangement that allows some politicians and appointees to always cheat all other public servants, which has attracted severe criticisms from very well-meaning Ghanaians.

“After enjoying it in the past, I am sure President Mahama has heard the criticisms that have been levelled against recipients and he is now vowing to discontinue such an arrangement. I am of the view that we should rather be applauding such a bold resolve whose implementation would require serious constitutional hurdles to be scaled over.

“Unfortunately it appears the discourse on this is being led or shaped by a few greedy politicians who want to keep enjoying the dissipation of our meagre resources on the unwarranted payment of pension to themselves every four years. Their argument in calling on President Mahama to refund his already used ex-gratia, to my mind, is quite cheap and disingenuous.”

Below are Prof. Gyampo’s views on the subject.

On President Mahama’s pledge to abrogate ex-gratia, I have this to say:

1. It is only a fool who doesn’t change his mind. The idea of ex-gratia paid every four years is nauseating. It is that very greedy milking arrangement that allows some politicians and appointees to always cheat all other public servants, which has attracted severe criticisms from very well-meaning Ghanaians.

2. After enjoying it in the past, I am sure President Mahama has heard the criticisms that have been levelled against recipients and he is now vowing to discontinue such an arrangement. I am of the view that we should rather be applauding such a bold resolve whose implementation would require serious constitutional hurdles to be scaled over.

3. Unfortunately it appears the discourse on this is being led or shaped by a few greedy politicians who want to keep enjoying the dissipation of our meagre resources on the unwarranted payment of pension to themselves every four years. Their argument in calling on President Mahama to refund his already used ex-gratia, to my mind, is quite cheap and disingenuous.

4. Legislations and policies do not take retrospective effect and this is a basic or elementary A.V.  Dicey principle on rule of law. I do not honestly understand why in this country, we tend to allow a few not too smart people to lead very important debates with the support of the media. This hasn’t helped our democratic maturity and it is certainly a serious affront to our quest to extricate ourselves from the quagmires of poverty and under-development.

5. Why did we not ask for those who were murdered under the regime of Rawlings’ PNDC jurisdiction to be resurrected by Rawlings after Ghana’s Truth and Reconciliation Process? In Britain and other countries, there were laws that supported hanging and death penalties. When these laws were abrogated, why didn’t people ask for the resurrection of those who had been killed? When the current regime reversed the ECG-PDS deal, the revenues accrued under PDS were not refunded even when they legitimately have to refund those monies.