CONSTITUTION AND INDEMNITY

Indemnity clauses as in most constitutions have for a time now been opposed by many policy makers, political parties, opinion leaders with or without hidden motives and the usual out and easy going citizens of the nation.

To this effect, the basis of their arguments though may unwittingly bother on ignorant are that it:
1.Seeks to promote coup which abrogates a democratically elected government of the people to a sudden halt;
2.Protects coup makers;
3. Is not democratic a clause;
4. Is morally and ethically flawed and for that needs to be expunged from any kind constittution.

What most people fail to address is the oppositive aspect of the indemnity clause, and their inability to look at both sides of the coin in a critical, unbiased and constructive manner.

For indemnity, one is invariably right depending on the kind of angle chosen to liases with, but fails to be right when both sides of trhe angle is examined.

The fact and the logical aspect of the indemnity clause is that, indemnity in itself may be naturally flawed-- but not in logic and argument, and could be embraced by any state of moral and sound ethical ground of rule of laws and an effective judicial precepts.
Indemnity clauses are not illogical niether does it serve to pave the way for future coup makers to have the way for any kind of unjustifiable coup. However, the angles of an indemnity clause is highly volatile and has been the most talked about clause in a constitution which does serve to pave the way for future coup makers.

PLAYING LOGIC AND THE INDEMNITY OF A CONSTITUTION

Though indemnity clauses may bother on naturalistic fallacy as in, the making of coup is natural and for the fact that it is , then it is proper or good. This does not hold water though but holds when that coup could be justifiably acclaimed as the best within all alternatives and against all odds on the ground of logics.
However, I do not intend to beg the question,by attesting to the viewpoint that because coups are natural and they help to align a government in power to the right path, they are implicitly and explicitly good.

Biblical precept has it that, the status of a person should be respected though, but does not implicitly endeavour to highly acclaime it implicitly.
Children obey your parents( Ephesians 3) though does not include the reverence of elders could as well be thought to as a clause that involves both the elder in a society and the parent.

Playing logics, do we still obey our parent whose actions seem to set fire on the roof top of our building?
The logical answer which could ever come from any morally and sound persona would be the affirmative and not the opposite.

Due to basic human instinct, man is bound to deviate from moral principles when he knows that his back is invariably covered.
Indemnity clauses as stipulated and spelt in most constitution does not exist to promote coup or any kind of misdeminour or treason as a highly rated crime against the government in power.
However, does in some instances, when the rights and the liberty of the people in whom justice and freedom lie are subjected to interrupted flow of freedom and the equal access to basic right or fundamental human rights.

Historical precidents have made it clear that for the rules of the society to be widely acclaimed and respected by the people it does not require force instead persuasion.
However, history has shown it clearly that force tends to work the best whenever persuasion seems to fail to its highest point.

This article does not seem to support the view of coup makers or junta leaders who must have carried out coups one way or the other to justifiably address their concerns that could not be immediately addressed through the ballot boxes.However, seems to give some basic underlying principles that advantage the standings of indemnity clause as a provision in a democratically written constitution.

Invariably, the first act of coup makers before embarking on a coup is to suspend the constitution and its subsiquent provisions that seek to hold their views illogical and illegally incorrect.

CONSTITUTION AND THE INDEMNITY CLAUSE, THE CASE OF GHANA, 1966

In 1966, a coup led to the overthrown the then democratically elected government of the Convention People's Party spearheaded by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. The points that were given to support their argument for the coup included the economic hardship of the Ghanaian economy toppled by the high standard of living; preventive detention act; one-party system as a directive from the Convention People's Party to prolong its regime; laundering and misuse of state funds to tackle projects with a lost vision; enriching African states to achieve an codified and a unionized African continent; and the amountin g effects of inflation that overtook the nation by storm.

So you see, there we go , for the issue of indemnity can not be addressed with just a single click of a page of much filled arguments supporting only one side of the angle.

INDEMNITY CLAUSE, RECONCILIATION AND THE CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE

There is a half truth in the adage, justice delayed is justice denied. However, in the broadest perspective, there is no single logic in such statement.
If that were the case, why would the International Criminal Court be calling to investigate people who have carried out threats and brutalities ten or thirty years ago, against humanity and other unjustified acts that summount to injustice and the absconding of individual rights.
The inception of the National Patriotic Party ushered in the National Reconciliation Council that tried to settle issues amicably and to the spot of compensating many of the victims that were involved in brandishments and brutalities.
This act seeked to restore a kind of serenity in the politica atmospheres of Ghana environment, which then again insipidly restored the rule of law back to a state of jusice on one hand of the angle.

One theory passed by most of the critic of incemnity clauses is that, when these clauses are expunged from the constitution, it will help to surrender those who were involved in the making of the coup and its ploter to book and to justice.
What these people have failed to realize is that, the making of justice in this direction can be logically proven to sound to send signals of distortions into the system of the rule of law and the amassing peace surrounding the politica atmosphere of the nation on one hand.
One the other hand, the introduction of justice through this channel is as volatile as it already existed as in the indemnity clause.

Second, indemnity clauses in a constitution does not only promote coup in the right directio but also addresses to the topest level the alternative which is in existence when the government of the day is flawed and tiltered into the using of suppression to rule with the aid of the gun as a last resort.

Without much ado with this indemnity clause, I would like to state implicitly that indemnity clauses that exist in constitutions are justifiably correct and may not be understook within and without basic human instinct.However, could be understook when the grounds of logic and ethical standings are laid and allowed to bear.