A lot is going on concerning the coup d’etat in Guinea that occurred on the 5th of September 2021 where the current constitution of the country was overthrown and power was forcefully ceased. Many have been heard that support the need for the coup and more so doing it without any reported death.
What worries me is the way some prominent people are supporting and justifying the antiquated act even with constitutional provision in Ghana. Only God knows the selfish interest they seek to satisfy.
Article 3 of the 1992 Constitution presents the DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION as captured below;
Article 3.
(1) Parliament shall have no power to enact a law establishing a one-party state.
(2) Any activity of a person or group of persons which suppresses or seeks to suppress the lawful political activity of any other person or any class of person, or persons generally is unlawful.
(3) Any person who
(a) by himself or in concert with others by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends or overthrows or abrogates this Constitution or any part of it, or attempts to do any such act; or
(b) aids and abets in any manner any person referred to in paragraph (a) of this clause; commits the offence of high treason and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to suffer death.
(4) All citizens of Ghana shall have the right and duty at all times
(a) to defend this Constitution, and in particular, to resist any person or group of persons seeking to commit
any of the acts referred to in clause (3) of this article;and
(b) to do all in their power to restore this Constitution after it has been suspended, overthrown, or abrogated
as referred to in clause (3) of this article.
(5) Any person or group of persons who suppresses or resists the suspension, overthrow or abrogation of this Constitution as referred to in clause (3) of this article, commits no offence
It is difficult to see how Article 3(4) could be used to support the coup in Guinea? If there is anything to condemn, then that should be the current coup that has overthrown a constitution. Did Alpha Conde become a President by an illegal means? He went through a process to change the constitution. No matter how we may dislike the desire to go for other terms as President, he used what the constitution prescribed to have his way. Could the people who voted in the referendum not refuse? It is preposterous for anyone who suggests that the coup in Guinea could be supported and justified. It must be condemned in all manner of defence and in no uncertain terms.
Alpha Conde assumed power lawfully and those supporting the overthrow by a coup in my view reveal their own quests of selfishness. It is sad for Africa. Not even one COUP has ever given better life as the perpetrators claim when they assume power initially.
Some have claimed that the referendum that gave President Alpha Conde the chance to seek a third term in office was marred with dozens of people killed, the voter turn out was about 58% of which 92% supported that change, the African Union cancelled an electoral observations mission, citing major issues with the poll, the European Union also highlighted its doubt on the poll’s credibility, internet services were blocked before, during and days after the referendum, over 2 million unverifiable names from the president’s hometown and only Ecowas supported the process.
Does that mean a referendum did not occur? I failed to see that and to agree with those who think the coup must be applauded. There must be other remedies than what many seem to support due to its rippling effect on society and the future. The inability of people to endure processes no matter how harsh they might seem is the bane of our underdevelopment.
Is it hypocrisy? Not long ago we were as a country running around and bashing the government for not trying to strike a deal with the Russian government to get COVID-19 vaccines, a government that through the same constitutional process of referendum extended its mandate to serve two more terms. Is it about long service to possibly produce better results? If not, why compare with Malaysia and Singapore when we talk about matters of development but condemn similar processes through the constitution to extend service?
This is never to support those who seek to use diverse means to change the constitution to suit their interest but that would anytime be preferred to any other process not prescribed in the document that describes the sovereignty of a nation.
It is shameful to support a coup d’etat in any form because history should teach us enough to appreciate the use of the constitutional processes to get the desired changes. No one can justify a coup because someone had held a referendum to extend time in service. What makes those against it think that the people who voted were not rational?
Let those who seek to live by constitutional rule not shift the goal post when it goes against their expectations. We endure improving the shortcomings than overthrowing it no matter how peaceful we think it may be.
We live to see …!