Some of the arguments I’m hearing against MPs being given Police Protection are so simplistic, populist, Petty, inconsistent, and downright ridiculous.
I am not a fan of our present parliament. It is way too large. I don’t think they do such a good job at scrutinizing agreements especially. Many of them seem to contribute very little and to me, their absence from parliament won’t be felt.
Again it is silly that whereas the Executive arm (MMDCEs) is the mandated ones to provide infrastructure, a combination of ignorance-based expectations on the part of the populace, and diarrhea mouth Parliamentary Candidates making infrastructure promises, have turned the LAW MAKING body into an infrastructure providing office.
MPs are now held responsible for, not bad laws and agreements, but bad roads, bridges, and general infrastructure. Whilst the MMDCEs have official cars, police protection, and all the perks but do little.
However, we should learn to judge certain issues independent of our personal feelings and perception of people or institutions.
So the fact that I’m not a fan of the present parliament (reasons explained in previous paragraphs) doesn’t mean I should automatically be against everything they fight for or agitate for. That is base instinct, reflex reaction and it takes us nowhere Parliament is one of the 3 arms of govt. They are “article 71” officeholders. Our laws say we should provide them with official cars and official security.
2 other arms, the Judiciary and Executive, all have official cars and police protection.
Judges, Ministers, MMDCEs have all these. Only one arm, the Legislature (parliament) is denied these.
Parliamentarians buy their own official cars. They do not have police protection.
So they now ask for police protection.
According to the Interior Minister, there are a lot of security men to spare in the protection of legislators “yes, we have enough men to provide security for members of parliament” he said. So the Executive agrees. And hell breaks loose. I have asked many people who are vehemently against this arrangement why they are against it and many don’t give any concrete reasons, as usual.
However some have reasons like there is the need for better security for all of us so MPs should not be treated specially; a Legon lecturer was killed and it doesn’t mean all lecturers should get protection, there will be fewer policemen on our streets when MPs get protection from the police, etc.
Please these arguments fall flat. By these arguments are you suggesting that all other Article 71 officeholders (Ministers and their Deputies, The Presidency, over 200 MMDCEs, 100s of judges, etc) should forfeit their police protection and be like the MPs so that our police numbers will increase? Why do you think all these people deserve police protection but MPs don’t? Why!?
At Legon where the illustrious lecturer was killed, why don’t you ask that University security for the VC and his Pro VC should also be removed, or that the security should be extended to every single lecturer and senior administrator?
Again in which country do we have absolute safety and security for all citizens? Does that mean those nations don’t cater to the security of all 3 arms of Govt? By the way, do the records at the interior ministry show an increase in the crime rate this year? I don’t think so. Sensationalism is what is on the increase for reasons including political propaganda!! And the MPs have been fighting for their rightful due in terms of security for over a decade if I’m not mistaken.
We can all dislike, disrespect, or detest MPs and the Legislature all we like.
But we must RISE ABOVE such emotional pettiness and unfairness, and add some objectivity to the discussion on this issue
Most of what I hear and read are base emotional tantrums and nothing concrete and logically convincing.