By Otchere Darko

It is now certain and official that Morocco has declined to host next year's Africa Cup of Nations tournament that was originally scheduled to be hosted by that North African country. Before Morocco officially informed the Confederation of African Football (CAF)that it will not host the tournament because of fear of Ebola, it was being widely said in Ghana outside official circles that the Ghana government had been approached by CAF, as to whether the West African country would want to host the tournament or not, in the event of Morocco declining to host it as originally scheduled. Many Ghanaians from ordinary concerned citizens to institutions and NGOs have advised the Ghana government not to agree to host the tournament in this country. During the middle of that period before Morocco defied the ultimatum given it, when the government found itself under mounting pressure not to host the tournament, a spokesperson of the government came out to assure the Ghanaian public that a decision had not been taken yet.

Now that Morocco has made its position known to CAF that is defying "the ultimatum" given to it by that body to agree "to go ahead with hosting the event in January 2015", notwithstanding the risk posed by the deadly epidemic, GHANA GOVERNMENT MUST NOW DECIDE and tell the Ghanaian public what its decision is. This is because early next week CAF is meeting to find a replacement to host the tournament, or cancel it.

The decision facing the Ghana government is simple; and it must be this: GHANA WILL NOT HOST THE TOURNAMENT. In saying "NO" to hosting, the government does not need to give any reason. This is because Ghana has no obligation to host the tournament. Thus, Ghana, unlike Morocco, cannot be sanctioned. If the government of Morocco that can be sanctioned for refusing to host the tournament has had the 'courage' to and the 'wisdom' to say "NO" to hosting the tournament because of the high risk of importing Ebola to the North African Country that is farther away than Ghana from the epicentre of the "killer epidemic", then in my opinion, .......... IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF EITHER 'STUPIDITY' AND 'IRRESPONSIBILITY', OR 'COWARDICE', OR ALL THREE 'CONTEMPTIBLE MANNER OF CONDUCT' FOR THE GHANAIAN GOVERNMENT HEADED BY PRESIDENT MAHAMA TO SAY "YES" TO THE HOSTING OF THE SAID TOURNAMENT IN OUR COUNTRY, WHICH IS WITHIN THE 'IMMEDIATE POSSIBLE 'SPREAD-ZONE' OF THE EPIDEMIC; AND WHICH, ALSO, IS TAKING PLACE ON DATES THAT FALL WITHIN THE PROJECTED 'DANGER PERIOD', DURING WHICH PERIOD THE 'KILLER EPIDEMIC' IS NOT LIKELY TO BE BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL.

I believe President Mahama has great regard for the welfare of the people of Ghana and, therefore, he will NOT take a decision that places the interest of CAF above the interest of Ghanaians. I believe also that CAF is composed of responsible Africans who understand and accept fact that the risks posed by holding a sporting tournament that is NOT ESSENTIAL and, therefore, could be cancelled or postponed to a future date is higher than any benefits derivable from holding the tournament next year and at the original scheduled dates. I believe that members of CAF will cancel or postpone the tournament when they meet next week without pushing any West African or African country to take what looks like an irresponsible decision to host it at the time originally scheduled.

BUT, should the President and his government decide to host the tournament in Ghana, despite the strong opposition and advice from the general Ghanaian public against it, and coming from all walks of the Ghanaian life, including those who are most professionally competent and who, therefore, have the final professional authority to advise the Ghana government on such matters, then the decision of President Mahama and his government to host the tournament in Ghana should be seen to amount to one or both of the following constitutional breaches, in my opinion:-----------

(1) *BRINGING THE HIGH OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT INTO DISREPUTE, RIDICULE OR CONTEMPT; [*since people are likely to see the decision of President Mahama as 'falling short of what a reasonable President, faced with the same circumstances, would decide to do' and would, thus, see the decision as being 'irresponsible', or having a high probability of being 'tainted' by personal considerations, other than the fact that the consideration of the decision having been based solely on the best interest of the Ghanaian public, and having without disregard for the well-being of the Ghanaians generally];

(2) *CONDUCTING HIMSELF (THE PRESIDENCY) IN A MANNER THAT IS PREJUDICIAL OR INIMICAL TO THE ECONOMY OR THE SECURITY OF THE STATE; [*since the risk of 'importing' Ebola to Ghana from Guinea, Liberia or Sierra Leone, whose citizens would be free to come to Ghana to support their national teams, would be prejudicial or inimical to the economy or the security of Ghana because, irrespective of whatever stringent checks that would be made at Ghana's entry points, we can never be sure that some of those who would test "negative" would be COMPLETELY free of the Ebola virus within the entire period they would be in this country, since the incubation period of the virus is 21 days].

If the President does either, or both of (1) and (2) above, he is likely to make himself impeachable, in accordance with Article 69. Clause (1)(b) of the 1992 Constitution. *However, taking into consideration the parliamentary arithmetic of the current Parliament, the President can only be impeached IF, [and only if], NDC parliamentarians vote with the opposition NPP, which is only possible where NDC is willing to put its partisan loyalty and interests aside.

Should the President and his government decide to expose Ghana to the risk of 'importation' of Ebola virus from the affected countries, whose citizens would be attending the contests to back their national teams, and given the fact that *EBOLA KNOWS NO POLITCAL BOUNDARIES, NDC parliamentarians must put partisan politics aside and allow national well-being of Ghana as a whole to take precedence over partisan considerations, so that President Mahama can be removed from office to teach future presidents of Ghana a lesson they need to learn...... which is that:------------- NO PRESIDENT OF GHANA CAN [AND SHOULD] DECIDE TO PUT, OR ACT IN A MANNER THAT PUTS THE HEALTH OF THE ENTIRE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY AT A RISK TO SATISFY THE INTERESTS OF A FOREIGN BODY OR NATION OR THE INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN PERSON OR THOSE OF THEIR OWN PARTIES.

NDC parliamentarians have a duty under the same 1992 Constitution to act with the interest of the nation in mind, at all times and; as such, they must not fail to impeach the President if he (the President) breaches Article 69. Clause (1)(b) of the Constitution. After all, President Mahama's poll rating is so low that impeaching him now, should he allow the tournament to be held in Ghana, will be in the best interest of NDC itself, quite apart from the constitutional duty imposed on NDC parliamentarians by Article 69. Clause (1)(b). Moreover, the impeachment of President Mahama, should he fail to heed advice and, thereby, put the Economy and the Security of the State at risk, leaves the office of the presidency to his current Vice, who is an NDC member...... and not an NPP or any other non-NDC member.

I believe, though, and need to stress my belief here, that President Mahama will NOT disregard public opinion and professional advice and risk putting the entire health of the Ghanaian population in danger; and, thus, risk being seen as having brought his high office into public "disrespect, ridicule or contempt"; or as having conducted himself in a manner "prejudicial or inimical to the economy or the security of the State".