The former Deputy Director of the Public Affairs at the Ghana Police Service, DSP Freeman Tettey, has condemned the Major Mahama Trust Fund Bill describing it as discriminatory.
The Major Mahama Trust Fund bill which was approved by Parliament on November 8, seeks to give the legal backing for the establishment of a fund to cater for the wife and two kids of the Late Major, who was was killed under bizarre circumstances at Denkyira-Obuasi in the Central region whilst on duty to help clamp down down on illegal mining.
In a Facebook post, DSP Freeman Tettey stated that the bill must capture all security personnel who died protecting the country.
“Major Mahama trust fund Bill? suggest it should encompass all those who paid the ultimate price in protecting this country and not for just one person. The bill is discriminatory,” he stated.
DSP Tettey is not the only person who has slammed the bill. Some members of parliament including the Salaga North MP and Deputy Ranking Member on the Defence and Interior commitee, Alhassan Mumuni, have argued the Trust Fund Bill will set a bad precedent.
Former Attorney General Martin A.B.K Amidu has in a similar statement cautioned President Akufo-Addo not to sign the discriminatory Major Mahama Trust Fund Bill.
In an article, Mr. Amidu said Mr. Akufo-Addo must think long before appending his signature to the Major Mahama Trust Bill.
“Mr. President, the speed with which the Major Mahama Trust Fund Bill was laid on 24th October 2017 and passed by Parliament on 8th November 2017 without citizens being given the chance to make any inputs into its constitutionality and legality ought to be sufficient reason for you, who promised participatory democracy to the electorate, to make haste slowly in signing this Bill.”
Another portion of Mr Amidu’s article said:”Mr. President, the Bill that Parliament passed for your signature suffers from several constitutional, legal and policy defects that should have been conditions precedent to its enactment. Portions of the Bill passed by Parliament for your signature are inconsistent with and contravene the 1992 Constitution in several material particulars.”