For a long time, the battle between the ballot and the gun in Africa was uneven, the latter almost inevitably always winning. However, the wide sweep of democracy across the continent in recent years rendered the gun useless, anachronistic even. At least, so we thought, until the resurgence of military takeovers in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. This too we considered an aberration until the junta leader in Burkina Faso showed up during the inauguration of Ghana’s new President in Accra.
Capt Ibrahim Traore was one of 17 heads of state invited to newly elected President John Mahama’s investiture Jan. 9. The fact that he was the sole power usurper in a gathering of elected leaders was enough to raise eyebrows. Dressed in tight fitting cream fatigue, capped with a beret and a service pistol sticking out from his side, he really caused a big stir. According to BBC, “Some have described this unusual move as a breach of security protocol. Others have seen it as a lack of trust in the ability of Ghanaian officials to protect the Burkinabe junta chief.” The British broadcaster goes on, “It is not clear if Traore had permission to carry the weapon and the new Ghanaian government has not responded to a BBC request for comment. While Traore was greeted by loud cheers and applause when his name was announced at the event, some social media users expressed concerns about the weapon in the wake of the ceremony.”
Visible weapon by a [head of state] at such an important event, although seen as an assertion of power could also be a symbol of intimidation and raises concerns about… how we enforce our security laws internally,” Barnabas Nii Laryea wrote on Facebook. “This was insanely dangerous thing to do. It’s not about trust. For national security reasons, this was very reckless and shouldn’t be allowed again,” Seth Dough a lawyer wrote on X. BBC quotes security analyst Vladmir Antwi Danso as saying that it is unusual for a head of state to carry a sidearm to an inauguration ceremony as the security of the visiting leader is the responsibility of the host. He indicated that Ghanaian and Burkinabe security personnel should have discussed the issue to ensure the right protocols were being followed. “Either that wasn’t done or it was poorly done,” Dr Danso said. While another security analyst, retired Col Festus Aboagye, agrees that the host nation is typically responsible for protecting visiting presidents, he says bilateral arrangements can lead to variations. He suggested that a consensus may have been reached to allow Traore to wear his military attire and carry his sidearm, along with some of his personal security detail. “I don’t think it’s a security breach in the context of how people are saying, [as] if he had taken out the weapon to shoot. That’s a bit far-fetched,” Col Aboagye said.
More than the breach in protocol, there is a bigger concern about Traore. As observed by Emmanuel Bensah whose specialty is regional integration, the fact that a military leader was “wielding a gun demonstrating that they have that power of the gun because they’re military leaders and attending an investiture of a democracy is a bit awkward.” The “laud cheers and applause” that greeted Traore’s presence must be more than disconcerting. It connects Traore and Thomas Sankara, the late immensely popular Burkinabe military leader several years before him. This strong romanticism about military rule should be carefully watched in Ghana and Nigeria which had themselves been ruled by the military. The young military officers in both countries must not get the impression that love of the military hasn’t dimmed and try to seize power. All said, I believe Traore going to Ghana was a big mistake.
