Dismantling National Foundations

The Importance of Strong Institutions

In a notable speech delivered in August 2009, former U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the Parliament of Ghana, emphasizing that “Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions.” He elaborated on the necessity of robust institutions to enforce law and order, implement policies, check corruption, and promote good governance. Obama highlighted that strong men have often led the continent into turmoil, and it is time for a shift towards institutional strength.

Despite this advice, many state institutions in Ghana are currently being weakened or sacrificed for political gain. The current administration appears to be following a pattern that Obama warned against, using brute force rather than legal processes to achieve political objectives. This approach is undermining the peace and stability of the country.

Landmark Decisions and Their Consequences

One significant decision made by President John Dramani Mahama shortly after taking office was to restructure the military hierarchy he inherited from his predecessor. This move resulted in the forced retirement of several military generals, with severe consequences for the military as an institution and potentially affecting the national psyche.

Similarly, changes in the leadership of the Ghana Police Service were implemented, likely to consolidate control over these critical state institutions. While changes in the police service may not seem alarming, shifts in the military hierarchy can disrupt the established order of seniority and discipline within the armed forces.

Both the Police and the Armed Forces are meant to be independent entities that foster leadership development and serve the nation. These institutions invest heavily in training their personnel, with the expectation that they will remain loyal to any government that comes to power through legitimate elections.

Leadership Structures and Political Influence

Over time, incoming governments have prioritized undermining the leadership structures of these institutions to align with their political ideologies. Although members of the police and armed forces are not supposed to affiliate with any political party, many tend to do so in practice. Evidence suggests that some individuals in uniform hold membership cards of major political parties like the NPP and NDC. This behavior often leads to internal conflicts and divisions based on political affiliations.

Frequent changes in leadership risk politicizing the armed forces, eroding discipline, and weakening institutional cohesion. Such changes can also lead to a decline in the effectiveness of military operations due to constant shifts in command and policy. Over the years, security appointments have become tools for political patronage, fostering loyalty to political leaders rather than the institutions themselves. This dynamic can result in a breakdown of hierarchy, decreased morale among soldiers, and ultimately, instability within the military and the country.

Implications of Politicization

Security analysts have pointed out the dangers of rapid changes in the hierarchy of the Armed Forces, describing them as costly decisions for the country. According to some analysts, the current leaders of the Armed Forces were promoted above their seniors, leading to the automatic resignation of 15 senior army generals. These retired generals were trained to serve the country, but their forced retirement may have been motivated by political expediency.

The extreme politicization of security agencies is not only damaging professionalism but also compromising the security of the country. If any government has nothing to hide, it should not be concerned about who leads the security agencies. After all, these agencies belong to the state, not any political party. The practice of retiring security heads with the outgoing government is wrong and must be stopped. Using political patronage for promotions and rewards in the Police and Armed Forces is destroying the fabric of our security institutions.

The Chief Justice and Judicial Independence

After cleansing the Armed Forces leadership, attention turned to the removal of the former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. Her removal began in February 2025 with unfounded petitions. The process was shrouded in secrecy, and her removal was seen as unfair and unconstitutional. Many supporters of the current government equated her removal to the dismissal of Madam Charlotte Osei of the Electoral Commission (EC). However, the two cases are not comparable, as the EC faced internal conflicts that necessitated intervention, while the Judicial Service did not experience similar issues.

The removal of the Chief Justice raised concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the potential for political vendettas. The process was perceived as an attempt to assert presidential authority over the judiciary, which could set a dangerous precedent for future governance.

The Electoral Commission and Political Manipulation

During the 2024 elections, members of the NDC openly declared their intent to deal with members of the EC if they came to power. Once Gertrude Torkornoo was removed, attention shifted to Mrs. Jean Mensa, who became the obvious target. The NDC’s Chairman, Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia, released a statement suggesting that the EC needed reform, hinting at the possibility of disbanding the commission.

When the NDC came to power, members of the EC exchanged their independence for job security. A clear example was the manipulation of election results in Ablekumah North, where the outcome was skewed in favor of the ruling party. This manipulation highlights the dangers of allowing political influence to dictate the functioning of key institutions.

Dangers of Political Patronage

If the EC Commissioners are removed, it would likely be attributed to their affiliation with the NPP, which appointed them. Similarly, new commissioners appointed by the NDC would be assumed to be NDC supporters. This cycle of political patronage undermines the credibility of institutions and hinders democratic consolidation.

It is becoming common for heads of state institutions to be retired with the outgoing government. This practice raises questions about the kind of Ghana we want. Strong institutions are essential for legitimate governance, providing stability, ensuring the rule of law, and fostering public trust. They also help manage societal divisions and prevent conflict by addressing grievances effectively.

Ultimately, the strength of institutions determines the quality of governance and the well-being of the nation. Long live Ghana.