Former President John Dramani Mahama has been asked by a private lawyer, Martin Kpebu, to repay money given to him as gratuity on the basis of ethics and good faith and not the law.
John Dramani Mahama has described Mr Martin Kpebu's warning to the former president as absurd.
His Excellency John Dramani Mahama announced his intention to stop receiving ex-gratia payments due to the current economic climate, which triggered the exchange between the two.
Following Mr Mahama's announcement, a private lawyer, Martin Kpebu, asked the former president to return his ex-gratia payments.
Speaking on TV3's Key Points programme, Mr Kpebu argued that the nation cannot move forward if those in positions of authority and those aspiring to such positions only obey the law and speak the law.
According to him, some decisions should be made in good faith and on principle rather than always following the law.
"Mr Mahama should reflect and return the money as a gesture of good faith to show that once I've returned the money, I'm committed. Secondly, he must put the change in writing. Mahama made money while he was president, so he should introspect and promise to return it. He should return it because hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent in this national election. The gratuity is modest because they made money. So all he has to say to the crowd is: 'I have aged, I think I have gained wisdom and I am returning the money.”
But in response, John Mahama said, "If the economy is in crisis, why should we continue to take ex gratia while the rest of the public and civil servants don't? " while addressing party supporters in the Volta Region on Saturday, 5 March 2023. I have therefore stated unequivocally that we will stop the ex gratia.”
Then someone who should know better, a lawyer, said: "Then I should refund all the ex gratia we have taken before to show Ghanaians that yes, we are serious about abolishing it. He does not even understand the principle in our constitution that says you cannot make laws that are retrospective because laws made today do not affect events that happened in the past. His statement is somewhat absurd because it is tantamount to saying that because free SHS was introduced, everything is free, which shows how absurd his claims are.”