"When the Table Turns": Will Justice Become Revenge?

Unless one is politically jejune and callow, it is difficult not to see a broader political calculation behind the increasingly aggressive attacks by elements of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) on government officials, including Sammy Gyamfi and, more recently, the Chief Justice.

One must not lose sight of the NPP’s recurring political mantra: “When the table turns.” The expression has become so common among some NPP communicators that it is often repeated during political interviews, sometimes almost as a campaign refrain. This raises an important question: What exactly do they mean when they say the table will turn?

Politics is ultimately about power, and political parties plan not only for the present but also for the possibility of returning to government. It is therefore reasonable to interpret the repeated invocation of “when the table turns” as a warning of what some within the NPP intend to do if and when political power changes hands again. The concern for many Ghanaians is that such rhetoric could signal a politics of retaliation—an approach in which today’s prosecutions, investigations and institutional decisions become tomorrow’s justification for pursuing political opponents.

The recent attacks surrounding the Chief Justice should therefore not be dismissed merely as another episode of partisan political disagreement. Comments attributed to Affenye Markins about bringing back the former Chief Justice have also fuelled concerns that there may be a political agenda surrounding the judiciary. The judiciary must, of course, remain subject to legitimate constitutional scrutiny, and no public official should be beyond accountability. But accountability is fundamentally different from partisan manipulation of constitutional institutions. Ghanaians should be concerned whenever political actors appear to view state institutions primarily through the lens of who controls them, because the Constitution must remain supreme regardless of which political party occupies the Jubilee House.

Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of Ghanaian politics is the tendency for political actors to defend an action when their party is in government and condemn virtually the same action when their opponents are in power. Take the controversy over the Chief Justice’s administrative powers during the legal vacation. Lawyer Atta Achiea, representing Adu Boahen, has previously been reported as having defended the exercise of similar powers when the NPP was in government. Today, however, he is among those questioning the exercise of such powers under a different political administration. This raises a fundamental question: Should the constitutionality or propriety of an action depend on which political party is in power? If an action was legitimate when one’s own party was in government, it cannot suddenly become illegitimate merely because the political tables have turned; conversely, if an action was wrong then, it should not become right simply because one’s party now controls the government. Ghana needs consistency, not political convenience.

There is another issue that deserves serious attention: the suggestion that the NDC should refrain from prosecuting alleged corrupt former NPP officials because the NPP could retaliate when it returns to power. If such a position has indeed been advanced by political leaders, it represents a deeply troubling philosophy of governance. The fight against corruption cannot be based on an unwritten agreement between political parties that “you don’t prosecute our people today, and we won’t prosecute yours tomorrow,” because that would amount to turning accountability into a political bargaining chip. Corruption is not an NDC crime or an NPP crime; it is a crime against the Republic of Ghana. If there is credible evidence that a public official misappropriated state resources, the appropriate institutions must investigate the matter and, where the evidence supports it, prosecute the individual, because the political identity of the accused should be irrelevant.

For the governing NDC, however, there is an equally important lesson. The promise to implement the Operation Recover All Loot (ORAL) initiative is one of the issues by which this administration will inevitably be judged. Whether the government likes it or not, Ghanaians will assess its commitment to fighting corruption partly by looking at what happens to assets allegedly acquired through corrupt means. Those who dismiss ORAL as political witch-hunting should also recognise why many ordinary Ghanaians are demanding action. For decades, Ghana’s anti-corruption record has left many citizens frustrated. Governments have changed, allegations have been made, investigations have been announced, prosecutions have sometimes followed, and yet the broader public perception remains that politically connected people rarely suffer consequences proportionate to the alleged harm caused to the state. That cannot continue indefinitely.

If billions of cedis are lost through corruption while ordinary citizens struggle to pay school fees, access quality healthcare, find employment, secure decent housing or obtain basic infrastructure, the demand for accountability is not necessarily political persecution; it can also be an expression of legitimate public anger. Ghanaians want to see a different narrative with regard to the fight against corruption, and they want a system in which political office does not provide an effective shield against accountability.

At the same time, the NDC must be careful. Implementing ORAL cannot mean pursuing only former NPP officials while ignoring wrongdoing involving NDC officials. If the government wants Ghanaians to believe that it is genuinely committed to fighting corruption, the principle must be universal. The government must investigate allegations, establish the facts, follow the evidence and prosecute where the evidence warrants it. That standard should apply to former ministers, current ministers, former government appointees, current government appointees, NPP members, NDC members and politically unaffiliated citizens alike. Anything less will weaken the credibility of the exercise.

The greatest danger is that Ghana could become trapped in a perpetual cycle of political revenge in which one government investigates the previous government, the next government investigates the one before it, political actors threaten retaliation, and public institutions become instruments in an endless partisan contest. That is not the democracy Ghanaians deserve. The real objective should be to build institutions strong enough that a person who steals public money knows that the law will catch up with them regardless of the political party in power.

If the NDC implements ORAL fairly, transparently and within the confines of the Constitution, it could become an important step towards changing Ghana’s culture of impunity. But if it fails to deliver on its promise, the disappointment could be profound. Ghanaians did not vote merely for a change of political colours. Many voted with the expectation that governance would be different, that corruption would be confronted more seriously, and that public resources would no longer be treated as the private property of those fortunate enough to occupy political office.

The NDC therefore has a responsibility not only to investigate alleged corruption but also to demonstrate that justice can be pursued without political vengeance. The NPP, for its part, must answer an equally important question: If the table turns, will justice remain justice, or will it become revenge?

Ghana cannot afford a political system in which every party in opposition waits patiently for the opportunity to settle scores when it returns to power. The table may turn, governments will change, and political fortunes will rise and fall, but the Constitution must not turn with the table.

The Trial News