Petitions Are Democratic Right, Not Political Favour – Prof Agyeman-Duah Warns Government

A prominent governance expert has cautioned Ghana's government against dismissing citizen petitions outright, arguing that such dismissal undermines the foundations of democratic engagement and citizens' constitutional rights.

Prof. Baffour Agyeman-Duah, a former UN Senior Governance Advisor, made the remarks after the Deputy Director of Operations at the Presidency, Mustapha Gbande, stated that government would not consider a petition from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) following demonstrations against what the opposition describes as politically motivated arrests of its members.

The Principle at Stake

Speaking on Joy FM's Top Story, Prof. Agyeman-Duah stressed that petitions are not optional extras in democratic systems—they are integral to how citizens seek resolution to conflicts and address grievances. Ghana's Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to demonstrate, making public protests a legitimate channel for expressing concerns and demanding state accountability.

"If you make a blanket statement that the government is not going to look at it, then I think we need to reconsider that," the governance specialist said, cautioning against the principle of wholesale petition dismissal.

However, Prof. Agyeman-Duah also acknowledged legitimate concerns raised within the petition framework, including issues around freedom of expression and complaints about bail conditions imposed on arrested individuals. These matters, he argued, warrant serious examination regardless of the political affiliation of those affected.

The Partisan Distraction Problem

Both the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and opposition NPP have allowed partisan considerations to cloud the core governance issues at stake, according to the expert. Rather than treating allegations of wrongdoing as isolated criminal matters to be handled through proper legal channels, both parties have weaponised arrests as evidence of systemic persecution.

Prof. Agyeman-Duah criticised this approach, noting that it obscures public understanding of criminal proceedings and undermines legitimate accountability mechanisms. When politicians treat every legal action against party members as a partisan attack on the entire party, it creates a false equivalence that shields individuals from proper scrutiny.

"Politicians are somehow creating the impression that they do no evil, which is not true," he observed.

Why This Matters for Ghana

Ghana's democratic credibility depends on maintaining clear distinctions between legitimate law enforcement and political persecution. When government officials announce they will not consider petitions, it suggests governance decisions are predetermined rather than informed by citizen input—a troubling signal for a democracy.

Simultaneously, opposition parties that treat all arrests of their members as political attacks weaken their own credibility and make genuine cases of misconduct harder to distinguish from false claims. For ordinary Ghanaians watching these exchanges, the result is deepening cynicism about whether the rule of law applies equally.

Prof. Agyeman-Duah's intervention highlights a critical middle ground: petitions deserve consideration on their merits, but that consideration should not translate into immunity for politicians who commit genuine crimes. The proper response to credible evidence of corruption or theft of state resources is arrest, proper legal protocols, fair trial, and judgment—not dismissal because the accused holds political office.

As Ghana navigates this tension, the governance expert's message is clear: both government and opposition must treat democratic institutions with the seriousness they deserve, or risk further eroding public trust in democracy itself.