,

When “Guilty” Is Not the Final Word: Seven Grounds for Challenging a Conviction Based on a Guilty Plea in Ghana

Introduction

When an accused person is arraigned, the substance of the charge is stated and explained to them, including the date, time, place, the person or thing affected, and the law creating the offence. The accused may then answer “guilty” or “not guilty.” In practice, a third response is common, namely “guilty with explanation,” even though, as the discussion below shows, Ghana’s Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960, (Act 30) does not use that phrase itself.

A guilty plea is a serious matter, but it is not always the end of the road. Ghanaian courts have repeatedly held that where a guilty plea was unclear, mistaken, legally defective, or accompanied by an explanation amounting to a defence, the resulting conviction may be set aside, and in appropriate cases the accused may be acquitted and discharged. This article works through the three kinds of plea before turning to its central concern: the seven grounds on which a guilty-plea conviction can still be undone.

  1. The Plea of Guilty

A plea of guilty means that the accused admits the offence charged, and, where properly taken, the court may convict and sentence without requiring the prosecution to call evidence. This is because a guilty plea is treated as a prima facie confession of guilt, capable of discharging the prosecution’s burden to prove the offence.

The court must nonetheless proceed with care, since a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty or until they have pleaded guilty. An accused cannot be treated as having admitted guilt unless the admission is made in unmistakable terms, and the trial court must satisfy itself that the accused understands the charge, understands the consequences of the plea, and that the facts support the offence charged. Even where these requirements are satisfied, however, section 199(5) of Act 30 prohibits the court from accepting a plea of guilty to an offence punishable by death.

In the case of Darkurugu v The Republic [1989-90] 1 GLR 308-324, the High Court stressed that a guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent. In other words, the accused must understand his rights, including the right to a full trial, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and the consequences of his plea. The plea must also be supported by a factual basis: the facts presented by the prosecution must support the charge, and the accused’s explanation must not tend to negate any of its essential ingredients, such as the requisite intent. It follows that the court must guard against any threat, promise, inducement or misunderstanding that could affect the plea before accepting it.

These safeguards matter because even a fine, a caution or a discharge following conviction can leave the accused with a criminal record and its attendant consequences. A valid guilty plea therefore requires more than the bare word “guilty”; it requires clarity, voluntariness, understanding and a factual foundation. Where these are absent, a conviction founded on the plea may be disturbed on appeal.

  1. The Plea of Not Guilty

A plea of not guilty means the accused denies the charge, or does not admit all of its essential elements. Once such a plea is entered, the court must proceed to hear the case, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Under section 171(3) of Act 30, where the plea is not guilty, the court proceeds to hear the case; and under section 172 of the same Act, the court must hear the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the charge. The constitutional presumption of innocence likewise means that an accused who pleads not guilty remains presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

A plea of not guilty may also be entered by the court itself, where the accused refuses to plead, fails to plead under section 171(4) of Act 30, or gives an answer that is not a clear admission of guilt. For indictable matters, section 238 of Act 30 allows the court, where an accused stands mute or cannot answer directly to the indictment by reason of infirmity, either to enter a plea of not guilty or to determine whether the accused is of sound mind. This was made clearer in Moshie v The Republic [1968] GLR 1016-1026, where the Court of Appeal explained that where an accused person charged on indictment fails to plead, the court must first consider whether the accused is merely refusing to plead or is unable to plead by reason of infirmity of mind. If the accused can understand the proceedings, the judge may enter a plea of not guilty and the trial proceeds.

  1. The Plea of “Guilty with Explanation”

“Guilty with explanation” arises where an accused pleads guilty but adds an explanation which the court must consider before deciding whether the plea amounts to a clear admission of the offence. This expression is common in Ghanaian criminal practice. As the Court of Appeal pointed out in Nokwe v The Republic [1999-2000] GLR 49, Act 30 does not use that phrase, and its ordinary plea-taking provisions formally recognise only guilty and not guilty pleas. That does not mean the practice floats free of the statute, however. It sits within, and is tested against, several connected provisions: section 171(2), which asks whether there is “sufficient cause to the contrary” before a conviction can follow a plea of guilty; section 199(4), which requires a plea of not guilty to be entered where an accused on indictment adds words indicating a possible defence; and section 238, which governs how a plea is taken and recorded where the accused’s response is not a straightforward admission. Read together, these provisions show that Act 30 has always required courts to look past the bare word “guilty” to what the accused actually said.

In Nokwe (supra), the Court of Appeal held that although the phrase itself is absent from the statute, the practice has become part of Ghana’s criminal procedure, and that a court receiving such a plea should convict only where the explanation does not amount to “sufficient cause to the contrary” under section 171(2). Where the explanation instead negatives the plea, by rendering it equivocal, the trial judge is disabled from convicting and must enter a plea of not guilty. On the facts of that case, the accused’s explanation disclosed a lack of knowledge of the narcotic substance found in his possession, negating an essential ingredient of the offence, so the conviction entered on the guilty plea could not stand.

Again, in Kwabena Appiah v The Republic1, the Court of Appeal set out the approach a trial judge should take where an accused adds words to a guilty plea: the words must be recorded as nearly as possible, the court must assess whether they disclose a possible defence or otherwise render the plea unclear or ambiguous, and if they do, a plea of not guilty must be entered. The court adopted the guidance in Dorvlo v The Republic (2001-2002) 1 GLR 679 that the plea should be recorded, the explanation recorded word for word, the court’s assessment of the explanation recorded, and a conviction entered only if the explanation amounts to an admission of guilt.

When “Guilty with Explanation” Remains a Guilty Plea

Where the explanation does not deny the offence but merely asks for mercy or explains why the accused committed it, the court may still treat the plea as one of guilty. In Kojo Ameyaw v The Republic, Civil Appeal No H2/3/17 (Court of Appeal, 29 June 2017) (Unreported), the appellant explained that he had lost both parents, bore responsibility for younger siblings, and turned to robbery because things had become difficult; the Court of Appeal treated this as mitigation rather than a denial of guilt.

Furthermore, in Gundaa v The Republic [1989-90] 2 GLR 50-57, the High Court, speaking through Benin J (as he then was), made it clear that where the explanation is consistent with guilt and the accused maintains it, the court may convict on the plea after explaining its consequences. “Guilty with explanation” therefore does not automatically save an accused; everything depends on whether the explanation legally negates guilt or merely reduces moral blameworthiness.

When “Guilty with Explanation” Becomes Not Guilty

Where the explanation is inconsistent with guilt, discloses a defence, or renders the plea ambiguous, the court must enter a plea of not guilty and proceed to trial. Section 199(4) of Act 30 provides, for trials on indictment, that where an accused pleads guilty but adds words indicating a possible defence, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty and record it as entered by order of the court.

Even in summary trials, governed by section 171, the courts have held that the same principle applies: if the explanation creates “sufficient cause to the contrary” within the meaning of section 171(2), the court should not convict on the plea. In Gundaa (supra), the High Court held that there is no statutory plea of “guilty with explanation” under Act 30, and that it is wrong to convict on such a plea without first deciding whether the explanation is consistent with guilt. If it is consistent, the plea may be treated as guilty and a conviction entered; if it is not, the court must enter not guilty and proceed to a normal trial.

In Ntumy Francis @ CJ and Kwabena Boakye @ A1 v The Republic, No F17/02/2023 (Court of Appeal, 3 November 2022) (Unreported), the High Court applied the Gundaa case and held that where the accused’s explanation was capable of both an innocent and a guilty interpretation, the court should not resolve that ambiguity against the accused, since the burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was accordingly set aside.

The fullest illustration of this principle is Notetio @ Kwame Anthony v The Republic2, where the Court of Appeal held that a plea of guilty accompanied by an explanation that is not fanciful, but casts doubt on the genuineness of the plea, cannot be allowed to stand; the court must instead enter a plea of not guilty. The Court of Appeal explained that an admission of guilt must be genuine and free from controversy, since it amounts to a judicial confession carrying serious consequences, and that a trial court is not entitled to resolve any resulting doubt in favour of a conviction. On the facts, the court found that the prosecution’s own stated facts did not, in any event, support the charge, and that the appellant’s explanation went further still by negating the essential element of stealing. For both reasons, the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  1. The Seven Grounds in Alpha Zabrama v The Republic

Having set out how the three pleas work in practice, the article now turns to its central concern. The leading Ghanaian authority on when a guilty-plea conviction may still be disturbed on appeal is Alpha Zabrama v The Republic [1976] 1 GLR 291, 298-302, decided by Taylor J (as he then was) at the High Court. Taylor J reviewed the Ghanaian, English and West African authorities in detail and drew out seven grounds on which an appellate court will interfere with a conviction entered on a plea of guilty, notwithstanding the general rule that a person convicted on their own plea has limited rights of appeal. He was careful to note that the list is not exhaustive, since the deciding question is always whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. Each ground is set out below in turn.

First: the accused did not appreciate or understand the charge, and pleaded guilty by mistake

This ground applies where the record shows that the accused did not truly understand what they were pleading to. In R v King3, the English Court of Criminal Appeal quashed a conviction where a warder’s conversation with the accused led her to change her plea to guilty in circumstances where, in Lord Reading CJ’s words, it was not clear that she understood what she was doing. The Ghanaian courts have taken the same approach: in Kofi alias Fiozo v The State4, Lassey J (as he then was) applied the same principle, consistent with the West African Court of Appeal’s decisions in Essien v R5 and Duah v Commissioner of Police6, both of which relied on Avory J’s classic formulation in R v Forde7 that, among other recognised circumstances, a plea of guilty, once recorded, may found an appeal against conviction where the accused did not appreciate the nature of the charge.  .

 

 

Second: the accused pleaded guilty to a crime that does not exist

Nothing is a crime in Ghana unless it has been made one by statute, or under statutory delegated power. It follows that a guilty plea to a charge disclosing no such offence cannot stand. Annan J (as he then was) applied this ground in Amadu v The State8, quashing convictions entered on guilty pleas to offences under regulations that, at the material time, no longer made the conduct charged illegal. The same reasoning underlies the more recent decision in Fuseini Alhassan v The Republic9, where the High Court held that a guilty plea is only valid where the charge discloses an offence known to law, and quashed a conviction for mining without a licence entered under a provision that had by then been repealed and re-enacted elsewhere, the trial court having in any event lacked jurisdiction under the Act as charged.

Third: the plea itself is ambiguous

As explained earlier in this article in relation to Notetio @ Kwame Anthony and Ntumy Francis @ CJ and Kwabena Boakye @ A1, a plea capable of more than one meaning cannot establish a conviction. Justice Taylor traced this ground to Ofei v The State10, where Ollennu JSC held that a court must not treat an accused as having admitted guilt unless they do so in unmistakable terms, citing the English cases of R v Golathan, R v Field, R v Ingleson and R v Emery11. In Golathan, an accused charged with entering a dwelling house by night with intent to steal pleaded guilty to entering, but added that he had not entered to steal; the Court of Criminal Appeal held that this was not a plea of guilty at all, and that any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of a plea of not guilty. Annan J (as he then was) applied the same reasoning locally in Zongo v The State12.

Fourth: the explanation given amounts to a defence

This ground connects directly to the discussion of “guilty with explanation” earlier in this article. Justice Taylor himself applied it as a High Court judge in Kotokoli v The Republic13, quashing a conviction for hunting a wild animal in a game reserve where the accused’s explanation, that he fired his gun in fright rather than to hunt, amounted to a defence that nullified the plea. It is the same principle already seen at work in Nokwe (supra), where the accused’s explanation negated knowledge of the narcotic substance in his possession, in Notetio (supra), and in Dorvlo‘s guidance on recording an explanation properly. Mahamadu Mumuni @ Osaman v The Republic14 illustrates the same point: an explanation showing, at most, presence at the scene did not admit the elements of robbery, so the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted and discharged. Justice Taylor traced the underlying principle to the West African Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Muambo15 and the English case of R v Durham Quarter Sessions; ex parte Virgo16, which held that where an explanation nullifies a guilty plea, a plea of not guilty must be entered.

 

 

 

Fifth: the plea, properly understood, is no plea at all

A related but distinct ground covers cases where the accused’s answer cannot fairly be treated as a guilty plea to the charge at all, for example where the accused pleads guilty to a lesser or different offence than the one charged, or where a plea is purportedly changed by counsel without the accused’s instructions. In R v Lloyd17, the accused was charged with breaking and entering but pleaded guilty only to entering; Lord Hewart CJ held that there had, in substance, been no plea at all to the charge as laid. In the Nigerian case of R v Nze18, defence counsel purported to change the accused’s plea from not guilty to guilty, without instructions, midway through the trial; the West African Court of Appeal held that the appellant had never in fact pleaded guilty, and that proceedings founded on a plea wrongly understood to have been entered are a nullity. Annan J applied the same principle locally in Yakubu v The State19.

Sixth: the prosecution’s own facts disclose no offence

A guilty plea is only as good as the facts the prosecution places before the court in support of the charge. Justice Taylor traced this ground to Osei Tutu v The State20, where Koranteng-Addow J held that if no offence has in fact been committed on the prosecution’s own stated facts, both the charge and the plea are a nullity, and the accused need not have pleaded at all. The Court of Appeal took the same view in Amartey v The State21, following its own earlier decision in Dagomba v The State, holding that where the prosecution’s stated facts, as set out in the charge sheet, disclose no triable offence, the court should acquit and discharge the accused. Osei-Hwere J applied the same reasoning in Watara v The Republic22.

Seventh: the residual ground, any other miscarriage of justice

Taylor J (as he then was) was careful not to close the list. He added a seventh, residual ground: that in any situation not covered by the first six, an appellate court will still intervene where, having regard to the facts, there has been a miscarriage of justice in the trial court’s acceptance of an apparent guilty plea. Justice Taylor found statutory support for this residual ground in section 26(12) of the Courts Act 1971 (Act 372), now section 31 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), which permits an appellate court to allow an appeal in a criminal case wherever it considers that a conviction cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, is wrong in law or fact, or has otherwise resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

 

Conclusion

Taken together, these seven grounds show why a guilty plea, however final it may look on the day it is entered, is not always the last word. Ghanaian courts have consistently protected one simple idea: a conviction must rest on a plea that is genuine, informed and unambiguous, or, failing that, on proof beyond reasonable doubt after a fair trial. Anyone advising a client who has pleaded guilty, or considering an appeal against such a conviction, would do well to test the record against Justice Taylor’s seven grounds in Alpha Zabrama before assuming the case is closed.

Notes

  1. [2021] DLCA 11559, accessible at <www.dennislawgh.com>.
  2. JELR 111579 (CA), accessible at <www.judylegal.com>.
  3. (1920) 15 Cr App R 13 (CCA).
  4. [1965] GLR 28, 30.
  5. (1950) 13 WACA 6, 7.
  6. (1950) 13 WACA 85.
  7. [1923] 2 KB 400, 403 (CCA).
  8. High Court, Tamale, 17 March 1967 (Unreported).
  9. [2024] DLHC 17825, accessible at <www.dennislawgh.com>.
  10. [1965] GLR 680, 686.
  11. R v Golathan (1915) 11 Cr App R 79 (CCA); R v Field (1943) 29 Cr App R 151 (CCA); R v Ingleson [1915] 1 KB 512 (CCA); R v Emery (1943) 29 Cr App R 47 (CCA).
  12. High Court, Tamale, 16 March 1967 (Unreported).
  13. High Court, Kumasi, 7 November 1969 (Unreported); digested in (1970) CC 24.
  14. (2024) JELR 111816 (HC), accessible at <www.judylegal.com>.
  15. (1941) 7 WACA 27.
  16. [1952] 1 All ER 466 (DC).
  17. (1923) 17 Cr App R 184 (CCA).
  18. (1941) 7 WACA 24; see also R v Baker (1912) 7 Cr App R 217 (CCA); R v Ingleson (n 11); R v Hussey (1924) 18 Cr App R 121 (CCA).
  19. High Court, Tamale, 17 November 1966 (Unreported).
  20. [1965] GLR 593, 596 (Koranteng-Addow J).
  21. Court of Appeal, 27 January 1967 (Unreported), following Dagomba v The State, Court of Appeal, 1 November 1966 (Unreported).
  22. [1974] 2 GLR 24, 31.

 

 

By Fred Seth T. Mireku Jnr, Esq.

Kusi-Appiah and Associates

/0 Comments/by

Should corruption be legalised in Ghana?

Ghana is blessed with a lot of resources largely categorized under both human and natural among several other endowments, yet we lack behind so far as development is concerned. Why? What could possibly be the cause?

The level of underdevelopment that has hit the country can largely be attributed to the emergence of corruption that has bedeviled this country. Several media houses over the years have reported several corruption cases yet these culprits find their ways off the hook. It is indeed the occurrences of these incidences among others that had awakened my consciousness to come up with this piece christened “Should corruption be legalized in Ghana?”

Many schools of thought trust that corruption is not a new canker but rather as old as Adam and Eve as former president John Agyekum Kufuor in one of his speech reiterated.

This claim really lends credence to the fact that corruption has been in existence since the time of creation and it looks as if this problem is not going to end anytime soon. In fact, corruption is inevitable!

Where can we find some of these corrupt cases? In churches, both private and public sector, amongst politicians, just to mention a few. In 1988, Professor Adu Boahenegave a lecture at the Ghana Academy of Art and Sciences; this was amongst a series of lectures he delivered on that occasion.

Speaking on the “Ghanaian Sphinx”, Prof. Adu Boahene enumerated a lot of problems that this country has been facing and chief among them was corruption. It was surprising to note that the kind of corruption scandal and corruption related practices that smash this country during the era of the military regime in the early 1970s to the late 1980s was shocking, as he used one local term “Kalabule” which means cheating to clearly depict this. The level of dishonesty and greediness amongst the public and private workers were appalling.

During this era, only a few people benefited from the numerous resources in the country. “The big men at the top enjoyed life in this country”.

One could justify the existence of corruption under a military regime because in most cases, state institutions mandated to check and control the issue of bribery and corruption did not function. Rather, those closer to the leaders and other family members ripped the gains whereas state institutions authorized to control and check the menace of corruption are not considered.

The era of military government came to an end subsequently after Prof. Adu Boahene delivered his lectures in 1988. Also, Ghana entered another constitutional regime in 1992 and paved way for democracy. Still speaking on the lecture on corruption, Prof Adu Boahene made some suggestions that will go a long way to curb corruption and called for the existence of vibrant institutions to check and control the problem.

There are a lot of institutions in this country which have been mandated by the constitution of Ghana to check the issue of corruption and corruption related scandals. The Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO), and the Ghana police service among others are institutions entrusted to fight corruption.

The recent institution that has joined the train of institutions to fight corruption cases in this country is the creation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which is headed by Mr. Martin Amidu. Have these institutions been able to tackle these cases? Has there been any issue regarding corruption that has hit this country?  Readers will answer these questions for themselves.

It is important to note that the rate at which corruption is growing in Ghana is terrible thus ripping the country of her gains.

On daily basis, we hear stories related to corruption on several media platforms. Did you know that before Ghana could sell part of the Ghana Telecom to Vodafone company, our parliamentarians had to receive five thousand dollars each? This was according to P.C Appiah Ofori former Member of Parliament for Esikumah Odobeng constituency yet most of his colleagues denied the claim. Mr Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin was spotted to have said that parliamentarians receive money before they pass some bills.

Are these the only corruption issues that have happened in this country? This is but a few. Did you hear of Ghana’s Guinea fowls flying all the way from Ghana to Burkina Faso? What about GEDA and SADA? The issue of bus branding in 2016? The 2014 Brazil fiasco where a minister appears before a committee and is granted pardon over his corrupt act because he cried?

The list is tall, but no one has been tried before the law. Very often, I get bewildered when I hear people talk about evidence, even at the moment when the culprit is caught red-handed. This is shocking! These corruption related matters happened during the time of former President John Dramani Mahama.

In the run-up to the 2016 general election, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) campaigned vehemently on corruption as if they knew the antidote to it. Little did they come into power than the situation worsened.

A government of two years in office and the sort of corruption allegations levied against them are alarming. Cash for seat saga, where people must pay some amount of money before one could sit with the president is no exception.

The funny aspect of this was that the closer you sat by the president the higher the amount you pay. Parliament had to then set up a committee to investigate the matter but before the committee could bring out their findings, the president had already declared the minister innocent. The Australia Visa scandal too is another, as some people found their way to Australia for the commonwealth games through illegal means.

The then Deputy Minister for Youth and Sports Mr. Pius Enam Hadzide was then suspended pending the findings of a committee that was set up to investigate the matter and as usual, the report came out as the minister was exonerated. Indeed, the conclusion still affirms the fact that issues of corruption is not a current menace but has been with this country since time immemorial.

Even though these cases were visible during the tenure of former president Kufuor, former president Mahama, and the current president Nana Addo yet this issue future dates to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and even before him.

Anas Aremeyaw Anas, an ace investigative journalist has been doing tremendously well with the issue of corruption and most at times after his tireless effort to name and shame people who engage in corrupt related matters, the state does not pursue it any further.

A clear example of such a case is his reported incident at the Osu Children home, where food and other items designated to be given to the Orphans were selfishly sold. He also conducted another investigation amongst some members of Ghana’s judicial service entitled “Ghana in the eyes of God” where a lot of corrupt judges were caught on camera taking bribes.

Some of the items were money, goats, and others. In this particular case, the magnitude of your case before the judge determined the kind of gift that you will offer. Recently, he brought out another documentary concerning football and the activity of the Ghana Football Association dubbed #12.

Indeed, this was one of the documentaries that really shocked the entire Ghanaian populace. In resolving the crisis, the Ghana Football Association (GFA) president Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi, was relieved of his position while the government also dissolved the GFA. Mr. Anas thereafter petitioned FIFA about the documentary and FIFA after studying it banned Mr. Nyantakyi from all football-related activities for life, yet Ghana’s Attorney General says there is not enough evidence to prosecute him.

So there you go again, almost all the corruption cases that have sprung out in the country have not had any fruitful outcome.

It becomes even worrisome when the issue has got to do with politicians.  Looking at how corruption cases are treated in the country, “will it be ideal to legalize it to enable the players in the game to do it well”? Should we have a Ministry headed by a Minister who will oversee the affairs of corruption and be promoting its course? There has been no strategic improvement from the 1970s and the 1980s; something Prof. Adu Boahene alluded to. One can observe that the issue has rather escalated from worse to worst and our institutions are not “biting hard enough” and even if they are biting, they are not biting the big fish.

We will suffer as a country if we do not go beyond the lip service of fighting corruption. Who suffers when corruption is eminent in the society? Simple! The poor, the vulnerable, and the minority.

What then can we do as a country to control and curtail the endemic nature of corruption? It is imperative that as individuals we note that corruption will sink this country deeper to destruction and as such, we must change our attitude. Also, state institutions mandated to fight corruption and its related matters should be well resourced and labor with a high level of integrity made to man such institutions. Honestly, we do not need more institutions in addition to the ones that we already have been burdening the state coffers without any result.  It is better to make the already built ones stronger and workable.

Going forward parliamentarians should also pass the Right To Information (RTI) Bill which has been before parliament for more than two decades. Corruption can’t be legalized because we are just not ready for its consequences.

Let us rise above this canker and prosper as a country. Say NO to corruption! Ghana must work again. Ghana will work again. YOUNG POSITIVIST, a concerned citizen of Ghana.

Source: www.myjoyonline.com

/0 Comments/by

Ethical Leadership and Ethics must attract National Attention

Developmental efforts have been pursued without adequate attention to ethical leadership and sound work ethics for some time now.

The assumption is that if we have the right developmental policies/programmes and the availability of financial resources we will be able to accomplish our developmental aspirations and political manifestoes.

Ethical leadership and sound work ethics have not attracted bigger space in public discourse, public policy formulations, and national developmental efforts.

It has been public knowledge that our high professionals and experts are supervising construction of shoddy roads and other public buildings. Fake drugs and other sub-standard products have found their way into our markets.

Investments of innocent people have found their ways into the hands of corrupt people who were considered to be credible. Corruption in both private and public sectors are no more a perception. The quest for political power is at the mercy of cheating and violence.

Traditional leaders who are selling lands cannot be trusted as double sales of lands have become a norm in many communities. Indigenous people are fronting for foreigners in contracts and extraction of natural resources who are just destroying our water bodies, farmlands etc. with impunity.

Examination malpractices in our academic institutions at all levels is getting out of hands. Some security officers have become security threats to the public.

The list is just endless.

The most shameful part is the numerous un-ethical people who are parading themselves in churches, miracle prayer meetings, marketplaces, commercial buses etc. in the name of Prophets, Bishops, Apostles just having undue advantage over the vulnerable people.

We have lived over the years with the notion that if we get the foreign loans and other internally generated resources, development will be ours. It must be noted that national/public resources under the care of intelligent criminals will make hopeful people disappointed. We need ethical leadership to fulfill our developmental dreams.

Ethical leadership is leadership that is directed by respect for ethical beliefs and values and for the dignity and rights of others. It is thus related to concepts such as trust, honesty, consideration, contentment, fairness etc. Ethics is concerned with the kind of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate.

Furthermore, ethics is concerned with the virtuousness of individuals and their motives. The choices of leaders must be influenced by their moral development.

We cannot and should not pursue our developmental programmes without the consciousness of ethical leadership and ethics. Our academic institutions must consider seriously the place of ethics in the curriculum.

Tertiary institutions may need to consider running ethical leadership and ethics programmes as service courses for all students who are the potential managers of our development efforts. It must be considered at all times that education without moral, ethical, spiritual values will always produce intelligent criminals. Academic institutions must be worried about the numerous intelligent criminals that they have graduated and sent out into the system.

Our educational curriculum must focus on the head, hand and the heart.

Without missionary religions like Christianity, Islam, etc., African Indigenous Knowledge Systems have embedded ethical values that have been used over the years for moral formation. Our traditional leaders must join the campaign towards ethical leadership and attitudinal change.

Governments, developmental officers, donor agencies, etc. must acknowledge that they cannot achieve their dreams with un-ethical leaders and workers. State agencies must create space for regular formation of work ethics and sound morality.

Ethics and morality must remain at the heart of Christian education and formation. The relevance of the church must be considered on the moral standards and the difference that church members bring on both public and private spheres.

The church must raise her moral standard among young people, family life, Christian professionals, church workers, and their ordained pastors. There is an urgent need for the re-awakening of the moral witness of the church.

‘Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.’ Proverbs 14:34.

Rev Dr. Kwabena Opuni-Frimpong

Lecturer, Department of Religious Studies

KNUST, Kumasi

Source: www.myjoyonline.com

/0 Comments/by