|
A GNA Feature by Boakye-Dankwa
Boadi
Accra, March 30, GNA- The headline of this piece has been
chosen deliberately because the Writer is very much aware of
the passion that the issue being discussed could engender.
So, before one starts one would like to quote the 1992
Fourth Republican Constitution which states in Article 162
(4): "Editors and publishers of newspapers shall not be
subject to control or interference by Government, nor shall
they be penalised or harassed for their editorial opinions
and views or the content of their publication."
Now with the path cleared let us discuss the issue of
"privacy of public officers" that has been on the airwaves
and in the pages of newspapers, recently.
The first school of thought holds that public officers like
all other persons have the right to privacy and the media
must, therefore, close their eyes on their private life,
while the second school holds that the word 'public' has a
certain connotation that sets such people apart, hence the
media have the right to puck nose into their private life.
For the avoidance of doubt this Writer belongs to the second
school that holds that public officers have no private life
and the media must constantly put the searchlight on them.
While not attempting to appear to be adroit in the
Constitution, one is constrained under the circumstance to
make references to the fundamental law of the land to press
home his viewpoint.
Article 162 (5) states: " All agencies of mass media shall,
at all times, be free to uphold the principles, provisions
and objectives of this Constitution, and shall uphold the
responsibility of the Government to the people of Ghana."
From the above it becomes clear that the Constitution has
imposed a great responsibility on the media - indeed the
watchdog role of the media is succinct here.
How should the media go about playing this role? It stands
to reason that the media should ensure that provisions of
the Constitution are applied. For example the media and
indeed every Ghanaian, are enjoined in Article 41 (f): to
protect and preserve public property and expose and combat
misuse and waste of public funds and property."
Now let us consider this scenario, which a contributor on
the Internet described recently. The contributor said:
"Public Officers drive expensive fuel-guzzling cross-country
vehicles that are meant to be used during their travels to
the hinterland, where the roads are bad, on asphalted roads
in Accra as status symbol in a country, whose budget is
subsidised by other countries." Is this a private matter?
Should the media take such public officers to task or look
on unconcerned?
Let us consider other scenarios. If the public officer is
using the public vehicle to convey his children to school
and his wife to the market it might be tolerable. But if he
or she decides to use the vehicle to go round in the evening
to pick up the young girls or young men in the neighbourhood
for carousing, then it must raise concerns.
The main concern is that he or she would be putting State
property at risk. This is because the young men or the young
girls, whose girlfriends or boyfriends are being snatched
from them by this public officer, might decide to vandalise
the vehicle as it happened recently.
The story is told that a public officer went and parked his
official vehicle in front of the house of his girlfriend and
after he had finished whatever he went to do, he came back
to discover that the battery of the vehicle had been
removed. Those who removed the battery left a terse note for
him: "Mr man do not worry at all. While some like sleeping
with young girls others like removing batteries."
Should the media or Ghanaians allow such behaviour because
the public officer has the right to choose whomever he or
she wanted to associate with? What example would this public
officer be giving to the younger generation?
"Best practice elsewhere" is vogue in this global world. In
this respect what comes to mind readily is the case
involving Eliot Spitzer, Former Governor of New York, and
the 22-year-old prostitute, Ashley Alexandra Dupre from
Manhattan.
It may be pertinent to quote James Tedisco, a Republican
Assemblyman from Schenectady. He is reported to have said:
"The Governor, who was going to bring ethics back to New
York State, if he is involved in something like this, he's
got to leave. I don't think there's any question about
that." Former Governor Spitzer did the right thing. He
resigned.
This shows clearly that public officers cannot associate
with whomever they wanted.
Let us consider another scenario where the Ghanaian taxpayer
provides accommodation for the public officer and pays the
telephone, water and electricity bills.
If the children of this public officer are in the habit of
leaving the tap running after having their bath is it a
private matter?
If the security lights in the house are left on after 0800
hours when the sun is up should the media look on
unconcerned because it is a private matter?
If a public officer is in the habit of drinking to the state
of stupor is it a private matter?
This Writer is of the view that if a Journalist saw that a
public officer had urinated into his trousers, the first
responsibility of the Journalist is to go and inquire from
the public officer whether he has a urological problem. If
that is the case, then the Journalist should exercise a lot
of circumspection in reporting this.
However, if it were discovered that the public officer
urinated into his trousers because he drunk himself to the
state of stupor, then the Journalist should go ahead and
report without any inhibition at all.
It must, however, be admitted that the media sometimes go
beyond the limit. For instance the story is told of how a
Journalist went to search the dustbin of a public officer to
count the number of snail shells in order to write about the
quantity of snails eaten in his household.
Journalists must, as responsible citizens, always remember
that they are operating within a socio-cultural context,
which has the Constitution as the fundamental law. The
Constitution states in Article 18 (c): "No person shall be
subjected to interference with the privacy of his home,
property, correspondence or communication except in
accordance with the law and as may be necessary in a free
and democratic society for public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the protection of health or
morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the
protection of the rights of others."
This Writer would like to advise Journalists to be on the
look out for the thin line between what can be described as
a person's privacy and what is of public interest.
To conclude this Writer is of the view that public office is
not meant for everybody.
A Magistrate; Circuit Court, High Court, Appeal Court and
Supreme Court Judges must for example know that their
profession is such that they cannot behave like ordinary
Ghanaians. This is because the nature of their job puts them
above ordinary human beings. They are gods in their own way
so they have to behave as such.
Public office bestows privileges, responsibilities and
risks. To quote our American friends: "If you find the
kitchen too hot, you've got to get out." Public officers
have no private life. Everything they do or do not do is of
public interest.
GNA
|
