On December 7, Ghana had its first female vice president, Prof Naana Jane Opoku Agyemang marking a historic victory in the political landscape of Ghana. Her victory was met with joy and optimism, particularly among women and the youth, who believed that her presence in leadership would amplify their voices and create better opportunities, especially in the area of employment.
However, weeks after the swearing-in of the new government, the president directed the Chief of Staff to revoke all appointments and cancel all recruitments made after December 7, 2024. This action, which is not new under various administrations, has had a significant impact, particularly on young people who had hoped for stable employment and a secure future.
The issue of unemployment has been a long-standing challenge in Ghana, and this directive only deepened the frustration of many who were looking forward to a change.
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides clear protections against discrimination. Article 17(2) and (3) state:
(2) A person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social or economic status.
(3) For this article, “discrimination” means to give a different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective description by race, place of origin, political opinions, color, gender, occupation, and so on.
Furthermore, Article 191 provides additional safeguards for public service workers:
A member of the public services shall not be:
(a) Victimized or discriminated against for having discharged his duties faithfully by this Constitution; or
(b) Dismissed or removed from office or reduced in rank or otherwise punished without just cause.
Given these constitutional provisions, the mass revocation of appointments and job recruitments raises serious concerns about potential violations of the law. If people were lawfully recruited and appointed, why should they be dismissed without just cause?
Amidst all this, one pressing question remains: Where is the mother of the land? The very person in whom many placed their trust the one they believed would champion their cause has not been seen or heard speaking for the youth and women who had high hopes in her leadership. The silence is deafening, and the people who once celebrated her nomination are now left wondering whether their expectations were misplaced.
In times of difficulty, leadership must rise to defend the vulnerable. If the mother of the land remains silent, who will speak for the youth? Who will advocate for fairness, justice, and opportunity?
