By Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Garden City, New York
July 17, 2015
E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

It may well be one of the trickiest cases that Parliament has to face. It is akin to the proverbial wo-/man-in-the-mirror. Hitherto, the "Honorables" in our august National Assembly have played Justice Atuguba gone bonkers, indiscriminately rounding up any citizen suspected of having affronted the membership and making them eat snot and poop in the name of the vacuous recognition of the second arm of our democratic system of governance. Now the tables are being turned against the power-intoxicated bullies of our parliamentary schoolyard. The name of the plaintiff is Kofi Safo-Duodu, and he is suing to have the decision by former House Speaker Ebenezer Sakyi-Hughes to demote him from his post of Parliamentary Director of Development reversed. That was about seven or eight years ago.

While Mr. Safo-Duodu appears to have the backing of a remarkable number of other non-parliamentarian administrative associates, largely self-interested colleagues anxious to make certain that such demotions do not matastasize into an epidemic, nevertheless, it is not going to be easy for Mr. Safo-Duodu to prove his case. First, we are given no reason for why Speaker Sakyi-Hughes decided to demote the plaintiff. We also don't know why his demoted position of Acting Parliamentary Development Director remained intact for some 8 years; and also why the Parliamentary Service Board operatives, who are responsible for hiring these senior parlaimentary emplyees, did absolutely nothing to fill the vacancy of substantive Director of Development until now.

There are any number of ways to look at this obviously bizarre situation. One, Mr. Safo-Duodu may have satisfactorily performed his job in much the same manner, with the same quality level, as he had as the substantive Director of Development. Two, while he performed creditably at a lower salary level, the movers and shakers on the Parliamentary Service Board saw absolutely no reason to rock the boat. It was presumably cost-efficient to let Mr. Safo-Duodu act the part. The question now becomes: Why not only retain but also reward the cockerel that laid the diamond eggs? This is also where matters get quite treacherous.

One, during the 8 years that he acted as the demoted Parliamentary Director of Development, did Mr. Safo-Duodu at any moment appeal to the PSB to restore him to his old status as substantive Director of Development? If he did, what was the response of his PSB superiors? Does he have any written memos or verifiable documents to this effect? For instance, was Mr. Safo-Duodu at anytime over the past seven or eight years made unmistakably aware that the position would be advertised at a later date yet to be determined, and that he could then apply for the same? Or was he assured that if the reasons for which he had been demoted by Speaker Sakyi-Hughes no longer existed, that he would be allowed to resume his old title as substantive Director of Development with full-pay, and a restart/resumption on the promotion ladder from where he was prior to his demotion by the former Speaker?

And lastly, do these senior administrators of parlaimentary affairs have some sort of workers' union or professional guild to which workplace grievances could be addressed? And did the aggrieved employee make any relevant use of such avenues? I strongly suspect that these are some of the issues likely to be raised in a legitimately constituted court of law. And whatever decision gets handed down is likely to be based on how Mr. Safo-Duodu and his lawyers answer these questions and are so affirmed or debunked by his employers. And, oh, did Mr. Safo-Duodu make any representations to the present House Speaker, Mr. Edward Doe Adjaho? And what was the response?

It is also very likely that the judge assigned Mr. Safo-Duodu's case would order the parties to settle the case out of court. Of course, his employers could also vehemently argue that during the course of the last seven or eight years, the quality of Mr. Safo-Duodu's job performance has not been either remarkable or impressive, thus their decision to advertise his position in the national media for a better-qualified applicant. In the original Daily Guide story, we have friends, colleagues and associates of Mr. Safo-Duodu arguing that the latter had both better qualifications and experience than those beind wooed by the PSB's advertisements. Now that is a stretch. Very likely, the new crop/generation of prospective administrators is more tech-savvy and better equipped to handle 21st-century administrative matters.

We are also told that the position requires a graduate degree in architectural design, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or any related discipline with a minimum of 10 years' working experience. Surprisingly, those touting Mr. Safo-Duodu's purportedly superior credentials, at least per the Daily Guide report, do not tell us precisely what makes Mr. Safo-Duodu a far better fit than any of the prospective applicants for the job, whose qualifications and other job-related statistics, by the way, we do not know.

______________________________________________________________