ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
In addition, she claimed that when she was making her way to the scene, she bumped into Baba Iddi, and then shouted that “somebody” had caused the injury and was running out so people should come and see him”.
If by her own assertion, the somebody she saw was Baba Iddi, why did she not say it there and then that the person she saw was Baba Iddi.
It seems clear to us, that the Committee was only interested in believing any narrative they found was unfavourable to the Family of Kaaka.
As such, whenever they encountered any evidence that did not conform to their made-up minds, they either discounted it or did not even bother to solicit it.
Also, whenever, they heard any account that conformed to what they wanted to hear, they did not even bother to probe it further.
We are disappointed that a committee charged with such an important national duty, so shamefully failed to uphold the most basic value of impartiality and due diligence.
We are also disappointed that a committee supposedly chaired by a Justice of the Court of Appeal failed to show the minimum level of legal awareness and a sense of judicial restraint.
Instead, the Committee completely abandoned the due process and showed zero respect for the fair trial rights of persons currently arrested in connection with the police inquiry into the death of Kaaka.
We take this as sufficient evidence of their lack of integrity and their insensitivity.
We are now unfortunately convinced that, following the porous work conducted by the Committee, the Attorney-General will on the authority of this commissioned hatchet job, discontinue the prosecution of the two members of the NPP who were arrested in connection Kaaka’s murder.
We have always known this to be the intention of the persons involved in this charade.
In fact, it is common knowledge that information circulating in some quarters in the Ejura community for the past several weeks has been that several supporters of the NPP in Ejura, have been assured by high-level officials in their party that the Attorney-General will seek to release their foot soldiers caught up in the murder inquiry.
We do not take it for granted that this Committee’s report now provides the Attorney-General with what he needs to go on and make his party people happy.
But even if persons in positions of trust in this country persist in corrupting our laws and pervading the course of justice for illegal and dishonest partisan ends, we remain resolute in the belief that the truth will always win.
As such, we would like to remind everyone of the facts in this matter.
The fact is that Kaaka in several of his videos talked constantly about the fact that his life was in danger due to the threats he was receiving in connection with his activism.
Kaaka also recorded his interactions with certain individuals affiliated with the NPP in Ejura who threatened him constantly.
These individuals told Kaaka that they thought he was making their political party look bad and that his activities will affect the electoral fortunes of the party.
They claimed on the recording that they had been paid to warn Kaaka off.
After that interaction, Kaaka recorded a video where he said that because of his online activism, the Municipal Chief Executive sent people to warn him.
He said that he had decided to shoot that video so that his audience will see that if he gets beaten or attacked, it is because of the anxiety of these political elements over his social media activism.
Two of the individuals who were recorded on video for threatening Kaaka’s life are the persons who were arrested by the Police in connection with Kaaka’s death.
After, Kaaka was attacked, we found at the crime scene, the two large sticks which were covered with blood and which were used to beat up Kaaka.
These were handed over to the Police.
Are the Police saying that, Iddi carried two clubs and alone beat up Kaaka?
We also handed over Kaaka’s mobile phone to the Police.
We know for fact that the Police handling Kaaka’s phone have been operating his Whatsapp and have even exited certain groups he was on.
We consider this conduct to be deliberately interfering with evidence; and improper.
We have also had cause to complain severally, including to the Inspector General of Police that certain officials of the Ghana Police Service went to physically assault Baba Iddi, and forced his hand to thumbprint certain documents.
He does not know the content of these documents.
This complaint and a request to meet the IGP was delivered to his officer nearly two months ago.
We are still waiting for the Inspector General of Police, who we want to believe is committed to reforming the Police Service to act accordingly and even acknowledge the complaint made to him.
We also note our disappointment that after over 90 days of crying for justice; and after they have led the entire public to believe that Baba Iddi killed Kaaka, it was only after the Report was released that the Police sent crime scene investigators to the house to investigate the crime scene.
This was just last Thursday 30 September 2021.
In essence, Police did not even taken the trouble to properly investigate the scene of the crime before leading the onslaught against our family for several months now.
All of these facts were available to the Committee, yet they chose to deliberately mislead the public, in order to cover up their porous recommendation regarding the Ejura killings.
The Next Steps by the Family At this stage, we would like to inform the Press of some of the steps the Family will be taking.
After due deliberation, the family has decided: a. To make a formal police complaint against the said Aminu Mohammed regarding the allegation of bribery and corruption he made against the mother of Kaaka and the Ejura Police.
We think that this accusation should not be taken for granted as it taints the Ejura Police in a considerable manner.
We believe that it is in the interest of the Ejura Police to get to the bottom of this allegation of corruption and dereliction of duty made against the Ghana Police Service.
This is important to ensure the faith of the public in the work of the Police Service.
b. To make a formal police complaint regarding the Sadia Fuseini and her sidekick Muniratu Alhassan for what we believe to be deliberate lies and attempts to deceive the police in the performance of their functions.
c. To request another audience with the Inspector-General of Police regarding our displeasure with the investigations into Kaaka’s murder.
The family is also considering all its legal rights in connection with the Report of the Ejura Committee; including the possibility of legal actions against the members of the Ejura Committee and some of the witnesses who appeared before them.
In this connection, are also asking for the support of the public towards the welfare needs of Kaaka’s widow and five children who have been left behind; as well as to support our fight for justice.
We would appreciate any help towards covering our legal fees, in this quest for justice.
We are also hoping that a fund will be established to honour Kaaka and to train upcoming citizen journalists, who understand the virtue of speaking truth to the establishment.
We have made an appeal to the National Chief Imam to support us in this endeavour.
We are also counting on the support of the public to protect Kaaka’s legacy, by supporting the fund when instituted.
Kaaka died as a hero!
And we are certain that his courage and conviction will defy the cowardice of those who refuse him justice.
We are confident that his memory will inspire a new generation of Ghanaians who will take up the call in our nation anthem for us to cherish fearless honesty and to boldly defend our democracy!
Thank You all for coming.
Honourable Speaker, I rise today with a profound sense of urgency and responsibility to speak on a matter that transcends partisan politics, economic growth, and short-term development agendas.
I speak to the need for legislative action against ecocide — the mass destruction of ecosystems — and for Ghana to align itself with a growing global movement to make environmental devastation a punishable crime both domestically and internationally.
Mr Speaker, Ecocide, as defined by an independent expert panel convened by Stop Ecocide International, refers to “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment” .
This is not abstract rhetoric; it is a legal concept with measurable criteria — damage that is severe, widespread, or long-term.
It goes far beyond regulatory fines or administrative sanctions — it is about criminal accountability for decisions and actions that destroy the very foundation of life and livelihood.
Speaker, the current legal framework in international law — notably the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court — lists genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.
Ecocide is not yet recognised as a standalone international crime during peacetime, even though environmental destruction today causes consequences on par with the gravest human rights abuses.
Speaker, this absence in international law creates a legal vacuum: corporations, state actors, and individuals can commit ecological destruction — deforestation, industrial pollution, oil spills, and climate-amplifying activities — with limited criminal liability.
This is not just a theoretical concern.
The Nigerian Niger Delta, for example, has suffered over 7,000 oil spills from 1970–2000, devastating water, soil, and human health, with full environmental restoration estimated to take decades.
Such destruction is paradigmatic of ecocide.
Globally, however, momentum is building to fill this void.
At least 11 countries have already incorporated ecocide into domestic law, including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Ecuador, Chile, France and Belgium.
In 2023, Belgium became the first European Union country to criminalise ecocide as part of its penal code revisions, demonstrating political will to hold those who cause severe ecological harm to account.
Across the world, Brazil, Mexico, The Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, French Polynesia, India, Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru who are advancing legislative proposals aimed at similar goals.
Speaker, this is not merely environmental law — it is justice law.
Recognising ecocide as a crime embeds a moral framework into our legal system.
As noted by legal scholars and advocates, criminalisation signals a societal consensus that destroying ecosystems is morally and legally unacceptable, similar to how criminal law treats theft or harm to persons.
In Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo publicly endorsed ecocide as an international crime at the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference, joining the calls from Pacific states like Fiji, Vanuatu, and Samoa to strengthen environmental protection through criminal law.
Why should Ghana act now?
Ecological Boundary Crossing: As a country affected by deforestation, illegal mining (galamsey), and water pollution, Ghana’s ecosystems are under severe stress.
Recent reports indicate that up to 60% of our water bodies have been polluted by illegal mining — a form of uncontrolled environmental degradation that threatens health, agriculture, and future prosperity.
Moral Responsibility: Environmental stability is foundational to food security, human health, and sustained economic development.
The consequences of ecological damage are intergenerational — they affect our children, their livelihoods, and their right to a healthy environment.
Criminalising ecocide affirms our collective duty of care towards nature and future generations.
International Leadership: By legislating ecocide as a crime, Ghana can position itself as a leader in environmental justice in Africa — much like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Belgium on their respective continents — showing that environmental protection is inseparable from human rights, climate justice, and sustainable development.
Recommendations for Legislative Action Pass a Domestic Ecocide Law: Introduce a standalone legal provision defining and criminalising ecocide with clear thresholds for severity, duration, and impact, modelled on the Stop Ecocide International definition.
Align with International Law: Advocate at the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court to include ecocide as the fifth international crime, thereby enabling prosecution of the most severe environmental harms globally.
Ghana has an opportunity to be a regional and continental leader championing ecocide law to protect not only Ghana but at the African Environment Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and at the African Union.
Strengthen Enforcement Mechanisms: Empower Ghana’s environmental protection agencies and judiciary with investigative authority, evidence standards, and prosecutorial capacity to ensure accountability.
Penal Sanctions and Remedies: Ensure penalties are proportionate and deterrent — including custodial sentences as well as financial penalties for individuals and corporations, and mandatory environmental restoration orders.
Speaker, protecting our ecosystems is not an optional policy.
It is a fundamental commitment to future generations, to human dignity, and to the harmony between economic development and environmental stewardship.
Let us give meaning to that commitment by making ecocide a crime under Ghanaian law and by supporting its recognition under international law.
I commend the government in proposing the creation of a national crime of Ecocide as part of the proposals made by the Constitutional Review Committee (Transforming Ghana: From electoral democracy to developmental democracy - Chapter 111, para 3.18) and I urge a swift progression in the creation of national ecocide legislation to protect our economy now and into the future.
Introduction Honorable Members, I address you today amid circumstances that profoundly challenge the core principles of our constitutional democracy.
At the outset, I must express my profound regret concerning the conduct displayed by the Presidency following Parliament’s successful unanimous passage of the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021.
The behaviour exhibited by the Presidency in refusing to accept the transmission of this bill not only deviates from established democratic practices but also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government.
This is a principle that forms the cornerstone of our political system.
Such actions, if left unchecked, risk setting dangerous precedents that threaten the integrity and functionality of our democratic institutions.
To situate this statement in the appropriate context, it is crucial to acknowledge a disturbing pattern emerging from the Executive branch, which points to a concerning disregard for the foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution, 1992.
This pattern has once again been made evident in the President's recent refusal to accept the transmission of the Human Sexual Values Bill.
The recent move is not isolated.
It forms part of a series of actions that undermine the legislative process.
As you may recall, I addressed this House on 22nd December 2023 in a formal statement.
The purpose of that statement was to draw your attention to the President's refusal to assent to three critical bills that had been duly passed via as a Private Members’ Bill.
During that address, I underscored the troubling nature of the President's justifications for his actions, or rather, the lack thereof, particularly highlighting that his failure to assent on grounds of alleged unconstitutionality, paradoxically stood in violation of the very constitution he invoked.
Despite the gravity of this matter, it is disheartening to note that there has been no progress in rectifying the situation concerning those significant pieces of legislation.
They remain in a state of limbo, unacted upon following the President's communication, which lacked substantial legal justification.
This ongoing scenario poses a grave threat to our legislative authority and, by extension, the democratic principles we strive to uphold.
The implications of such executive actions extend far beyond the immediate legislative items at hand.
They erode the foundational checks and balances that our forebearers painstakingly established to ensure a vibrant and functioning democracy.
When important legislative work, the product of rigorous debate and consensus-building within this House, is disregarded without just cause, it not only disrespects the legislative branch but also disenfranchises the citizens we are sworn to serve.
This blatant disregard for legislative processes and constitutional mandates risks setting a perilous precedent that could weaken the very fabric of our governance structure.
Honorable Members, on 19 March 2024, my attention was drawn to a letter issued by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, addressed to the Clerk to Parliament which letter is clearly in my opinion contemptuous of Parliament.
The letter outlined that the Clerk ought to “cease and desist” from attempting to transmit the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021 to the President for necessary action accordance with the Constitution.
In the said letter, the Executive Secretary indicated that the Office of the President was aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Clerk and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President.
It further indicated that the Hon.
Attorney General had on 18 March 2024 informed the President that he had received the two applications and had advised the President not to take any step in relation to the Bill until matters raised by the suit are determined by the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Presidency conveyed to the Clerk that it was unable to accept transmission of the Bill.
My attention has also been drawn to the 18 March 2024, letter from the Hon.
Attorney General being referred to by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo above.
In the said letter, I note that the Attorney-General used the phrase “…I will respectfully advice that a decision to assent to the Bill be made after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction…”.and not an advice to the President not to receive the Bill from Parliament.
It is therefore interesting that in view of this clear and unambiguous advice from the Attorney-General to the President, the Presidency has taken this decision.
In the face of these developments, it is important for us to reflect upon the manner in which these events have unfolded.
On the 28th of February, 2024, this august House took a decisive step in passing the Bill, a move that was the culmination of rigorous debate, thoughtful deliberation, and the collective will of the representatives of our people.
Following this, the Bill underwent the customary process of winnowing which is an important procedure designed to ensure that all amendments and changes proposed during the legislative process were accurately incorporated.
After the successful completion of the winnowing process, the Clerk to Parliament, fulfilling his duties as the procedural intermediary between the legislative and executive branches, endeavoured to send the Bill to the Presidency in accordance with section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792).
This action, steeped in established parliamentary practice and procedure, signifies the final step in the legislative process, enabling the President to review and, if in agreement, assent to the Bill, thereby enacting it into law in accordance with Article 106(7) of the Constitution.
The refusal to accept the Bill for transmission did not occur in isolation but persisted across multiple attempts, with the third attempt to transmit the Bill forming the basis of the letter I have previously alluded to.
Notably, the Presidency's refusal to accept the transmission of the Bill has not been formally communicated to this House through the established channels of official correspondence from the President to this House.
The absence of an official communication to the House regarding the Presidency's refusal is troubling, yet it does not diminish the gravity of the situation nor our responsibility to address it.
The contents of the letter, albeit not formally presented to us, have come to our attention, compelling us to confront the issues it raises.
It is a matter of great concern that the executive branch has chosen to disregard the established constitutional structures that facilitate constructive dialogue and collaboration between the branches of government.
In light of these circumstances, it is incumbent on this House to stand united in its response to this affront to the legislative authority vested in it by the Constitution and the people we serve.
We must articulate a collective voice that unequivocally condemns the disregard for our constitutional structures and reaffirms our commitment to upholding the rule of law.
This situation calls for a principled stance, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the procedures and norms that govern our democratic institutions.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AFTER A BILL HAS BEEN PASSED Article 106(7) of the Constitution provides: Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent he shall signify, within seven days after the presentation to the Speaker that he assents to the bill or that he refuses to assent to the bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under Article 90 of this Constitution.
Section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792) provides: As soon as a Bill is passed by Parliament, the text of the Bill as passed shall be sent by the Clerk of Parliament to the Government Printer, who shall print four copies of the Bill on vellum paper or on paper of enduring quality and send the copies to the Clerk.
On receiving the copies, the Clerk shall carefully compare them with the text of the Bill as passed and if the Clerk finds the copies to be correct, shall sign on each copy a statement in the form set out in the First Schedule, and shall send the copies so authenticated to the President for the assent.
Where the Bill was passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of article 108 of the Constitution, the Clerk shall, before causing the copies to be presented to the President, submit them to the Speaker who, if satisfied that the Bill was passed in accordance with the Constitution shall sign on each copy a certificate in the Form set out in the First Schedule.
After the assent, the Clerk shall enter on the copies the appropriate number of the Act.
The combined effect of these provisions read together is that after a bill is passed by Parliament, it undergoes a meticulous process designed to ensure its conformity with the nation's legal and constitutional standards before it can become law.
Initially, the passed bill is sent to the Government Printer, who is responsible for printing four copies on high-quality, durable paper.
Following this, the Clerk to Parliament conducts a thorough verification of these printed copies against the original bill to ensure their accuracy.
Upon successful verification, the Clerk authenticates each copy by signing a statement that certifies their correctness.
In Article 108 matters, an additional step is introduced.
The authenticated copies are presented to the Speaker of Parliament, who must certify that the bill was indeed passed in accordance with Article 108 by signing a certificate on each copy.
The final and perhaps most critical phase of the process involves the presentation of the bill to the President for assent.
Pursuant to Article 106(7) of the Constitution, the President has a seven-day period to either assent to the bill, signifying its enactment into law, or refuse to assent, which may involve referring the bill to the Council of State for further advice.
Upon the President's assent, the Clerk of Parliament assigns an official Act number to the bill, formally marking its transition into law.