There is a dangerous tendency in our public discourse to confuse political opposition with a licence to threaten violence.
Ghana is a democracy. Its citizens have every right to criticize the President, condemn government policies, organize against the governing party, insult political ideas, and demand change. Opposition is not a crime. Dissent is not treason. And vigorous political speech is an indispensable part of democratic life.
But democracy does not mean the absence of limits. The freedom to speak does not confer an unrestricted right to threaten another person’s life. Political activism does not place anyone beyond the reach of the criminal law. And this principle must apply irrespective of who is making the threat.
The President of the Republic cannot be treated as though he were an afterthought. He occupies a constitutional office entrusted with the leadership of the State. The security and continuity of that office are matters of national importance.
Protecting the President from credible threats of death or serious physical harm is therefore not an act of benevolence. It is an obligation of the Republic.
Indeed, if the State were to ignore credible threats against the person who occupies the highest executive office, what message would that send to those who accept the enormous responsibility of serving the nation in that capacity?
It would suggest that the Republic expects its leaders to carry the burdens of public service but will hesitate when it becomes necessary to protect them.That cannot be the standard of a serious constitutional state.
If there is credible evidence that individuals have crossed the line into criminal threats of death or serious physical harm, then the State has both the authority and the responsibility to act.
The question should therefore not be: Are they opposition activists?
Nor should it be: Are they critics of government?
The million dollar question should be: Has a criminal offence been committed, and can it be established according to law?
That is the standard we must demand. Prosecutors must proceed on evidence. Courts must determine guilt. And accused persons must enjoy the constitutional protections to which they are entitled. This is not weakness , It is strength.
A government that protects the life of the President while respecting the constitutional rights of his fiercest critics demonstrates confidence in the law.
We should therefore demand two things simultaneously: Firm action against genuine threats of violence, and strict adherence to due process in every arrest, investigation and prosecution.
By Dr (Med) Sammy Ayeh
