Digesting Nana Addo’s Ethnic Sentiments At SOAS!

The twice-defeated candidate of the New Patroitic Party (NPP), Nana Akufo-Addo is back in the news again for all the wrong reasons. He has once again come up for mention after making an ethnically explosive comment at the Brunei Suite, SOAS, University of London recently. This comment would have pass without notice but judging from his previous ethnocentric outbursts, this issue has been elevated to the front pages of public discourse.  Hear him: “Our illustrious chairperson, Lord Paul Boateng of Akyem and Wembley, respected Ghanaian Foreign minister, Hannah Tetteh, Ghana’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Prof Danso-Boafo”

“To complete the protocol, let me use this occasion also to congratulate publicly (albeit belatedly) our chairperson for his membership of the famous British House of Lords. It is a fitting tribute to a distinguished career in British politics. As a fellow Akyem, I am happy to note that he is flying the flag in that august body.”

I find Nana Akufo-Addo’s referral to Lord Boateng as a fellow Akyem as the expression of ethnic sentiment.

Much as l agree that Lord Boateng should be accorded all the privileges that go with his title, I disagree vehemently with Nana Akufo-Addo’s introduction of the ethnic flag after his acknowledgment of Lord Boateng.

There is no dispute as to the request made by our compatriot to the Queen to use the title-Baron (Lord) Paul Boateng of Akyem and Wembley, when the later decided to honour him with a life peerage. However, there is everything wrong with Nana Addo sounding tribalistic with words such as “a fellow Akyem,” at the event. How about a fellow Ghanaian? I do not begrudge individual excellence of members of the British ethnic minority, so, l respect Paul Boateng’s attainment politically, albeit in moderation. With regards to Nana Addo’s tribal sentiments, it is obvious he reveres Akyem and that is to be understood. He is a native but if you are a political leader courting votes from all Ghanaians to become President, and you want to acknowledge a successful Ghanaian who happens to be an Akyem just like you, it requires tactfulness.

Couldn’t Nana Addo address Lord Boateng by his title and leave it as such? What does he mean by “my fellow Akyem?”

Nana Akufo is recognized globally as a Ghanaian political leader. Nobody in England cares about which tribe he belongs to. It was pure pettiness for him to make that connection between himself and Lord Boateng. It also smacks of ethnic bigotry and political faux paux. If you want to be a leader of an entire nation, you carry yourself in that manner.

Nana Akufo-Addo was petty. He is behaving like the 18th century Bourbons of France. He has not learnt his lesson and has forgotten the trouble his infamous “Yen Akanfuo/all-die-be-die gaffe created for him. That is the truth.

Every Ghanaian has a heritage and ancestral lineage. We all come from one tribe or the other but Ghana must come first. Ghana must come first because it is the state that gives us all passport for us to travel around the world. We don’t have an Ashanti passport; neither do we have a Ga passport, Akyem passport, Anlo passport, or Dagbani passport. Ghana comes first because it is the republic we all expect to provide us with security, education, good health care, better roads to travel on, etc, etc. There will never be a Fante water Company, An Akyem Electricity Company or an Ewe police force.

Indeed, there is no Akyem state in Ghana, no Ashanti Kingdom, no Fante Confederacy and there’s definitely no Anlo state. The new reality is that all tribes have been subsumed by the republic called Ghana and Ghana must always come first.

Ghana trumps Ashanti, Dagomba, Ga-Dangbe, Kusasi, Akyem, Nzema, Anlo and all other tribes. No tribe is better or more important than the other and we all have no choice than to put our tribal allegiances aside and join hands to build a better Ghana.

If, therefore, you think your tribe (whichever it is) comes first before the Republic, you are very sick with an identity crisis. If however, you are not ready to place Ghana above your ethnic interest, I’d suggest you take your tribe and go and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine and leave us to build a better Ghana for our children’s children.

Nana Addo will do himself a world of good if he realizes that his Akyem tribe is part of a sovereign state called Ghana. Some of us are very keen on building a prosperous nation in which our diverse, ancient tribes work together to form a beautiful, tightly-knit tapestry of a modern, progressive nation. Enough said.


Leave a comment

Posted by on 09/03/2014 in Uncategorized


University of Ghana To Sue Col. Gbevlo-Lartey over Toll Booth demolition?

I have read a purported statement from the Academic Board of the University of Ghana, on the matter of the National Security demolition of the controversial tollbooth that was being erected by the authorities of the University of Ghana, Legon, at Okponglo which is aimed at collecting road tolls from motorists traversing the university campus. Not only am I stunned by the University’s overt display of institutional ineptitude and professional anomie, I lament over the untenable rationalization of theft at the nation’s premier university.

The statement among other things claims that the Academic Board of the university has resorted to take legal action against the National Security Coordinator Rtd Colonel Larry Gbevlo-Lartey and his team for unlawfully demolishing a toll booth and security post on the university premises.

“The Academic Board has observed that the perpetrators of the above act entered University of Ghana property without permission from the University, contrary to the University of Ghana Act 2010, Act 806.

“The Academic Board considers the actions of the National Security Coordinator and his team arbitrary, unconstitutional and unlawful, and a direct attack on academic freedom and national democracy,” the statement said.

I just can’t believe what I am reading. That, the Academic Board of the university has directed the management to sue National Security citing university of Ghana Act?

Reading about the reason of suing the National Security even tells you that we have wrong people at the helm of affairs at Legon.

So the academic board seriously thinks that the University of Ghana Act overrides the national interest? Is the university questioning the powers of the National Security Council? Is the university not operating under the territorial lands of Ghana, which national security has a mandate to protect?

And since when did the academic board swap position with the governing board of the university? To the extent that they are directing management to institute legal action against the National Security Council for removing a threat aimed at disrupting public peace.

How sad it is that those who have committed an offence by mounting illegal structures on public roads and extorting money from motorists wants to sue the primary/legal enforcer of the law for carrying out its legitimate duty?

But, who told them that a purely illegal acts like unilateral decision to toll the university road without consulting other stakeholders is legal opinion and can be enforced in any civilized court of legal jurisdiction?

How serious are the administrators of the University of Ghana that they seemed hallucinated enough to be thinking that no law governs them in Ghana, and that they are a law unto themselves? And how come they have rather ironically, become non-academic enough to think that the University of Ghana Act is superior to the national constitution which gives a clear mandate to national security to intervene in any situation that could lead to breakdown of law and order or create disaffection for both government and the majority of the citizens?

Do the Legon authorities really understand the mandate of the National Security Council? Are they aware that the NSC can even close down the entire University of Ghana if they have a cause to believe that certain actions of the university has a capacity to threaten the security of the state?

National security has argued that the proximity of the toll booth to a major highway is a public nuisance, and that it was interfering with vehicular traffic going to and fro Madina and beyond. How the school authorities erect toll booth right in front of such a major busy road like the Madina-Tetteh Quashie highway that leads traffic into Accra beats my imagination.

National Security carried out the demolition action in the national interest. It is a fact that the toll booth was wrongly sited and that it was creating public nuisance. We don’t need another major disaster to confirm that the toll booth was indeed a public nuisance. In any event, who is in a position to determine what constitutes a national security threat? Is it the university authorities, or the state security?

If such horrible vehicular traffic build up in the mornings and evenings on that stretch of the road which affects thousands of students and motorist, as well as the numerous accidents that have claimed dozens of lives doesn’t constitute a threat to national security, then we have a serious problem as a people.

I think those professors on the academic board should concern themselves with writing of books, Journals, and go into research findings that can contribute to national development.

Their law suit against National Security will just be an exercise in futility.

The National Security Coordinator was purely reacting to intelligence reports of the university authorities citing a toll booth at an inappropriate location, and causing public nuisance which if not removed has a capacity to threaten public peace. Those un-informed university administrators calling for legal action to be taken against the national security capo for carrying out his constitutional mandate are just living in a fool’s paradise.

In any case, when the same National Security under its human security intervention programme swiftly responded to the water crisis on Legon campus by providing six boreholes to ameliorate the suffering of the university community, did the academic board complain of arbitrariness? Or, those boreholes were provided under court order?

Are the university authorities telling us that they are well versed in security matters more than those whose competence it is to detect threat to national security? These things just make you mad that you want to bite off your own head in exasperation.

It is sheer pity that a whole university should be run like a petty road side business where there is no constructive use of intellectual faculties by its administrators to generate funds. Or is it because the brains there cannot find any market place for the research works they claim to be undertaking? And if this is the case, is there any wonder why the university is producing substandard scholars?

Elswhere in the world where university authorities are serious enough, revenue is generated through research works. They do this by practically collaborating with industry to design and develop almost everything a human can use. They do not rely on ordinary tolling to fund their activities.

A university must academically be innovative enough to recognize the abundance of opportunities within the campuses, through industry related commercial research and inventions as a way of augmenting what the poor tax payer gives them through government subventions and not the cheap method of road tolling, and yet be shamelessly resorting to legal suits against state security, We have a huge problem on our hands in Ghana.

I would rather commend National Security for that singular action. It was timely. It has also brought home the fact that the wanton arbitrariness of the Legon authorities which is akin to that of a spoilt child can no longer be tolerated. So much for rule of law.

Leave a comment

Posted by on 24/02/2014 in Uncategorized


Legon Tolls, National Security Demolition And Matters Arising!

ImageControversy will continue to dog the issue of whether Ghana’s premier tertiary institution, the University of Ghana, Legon, should toll its roads and whether National Security has the right to demolish the toll booth that was being erected to collect money from motorists that ply the institution’s roads.

So much noise has been made over the two issues that, sound reasoning has been lost in the babel of voices that have spoken to the extent that the tangential matters are now the norm.

I have listened and watched this drama from the sidelines and as a responsible citizen, I must also let my voice be heard having listened to all the parties in the fray.

The university, as we all know, is a state institution that was established by an act of parliament many decades ago. Although, with the passage of time, it has been granted semi-autonomy which allows it to take certain actions without recourse to government; it is still accountable to the state. That is why it is important that we subject every action and inaction of the institution to public debate.

Can the university toll its roads? Are the roads in the university open to the public as a matter of right? Does the university have any right to impede access to a public thoroughfare? These are questions that are begging for answers.

Aside the legal argument, which is already in court for determination, what moral authority does the university have in tolling its roads?

How can you burden students and many who are part of the university with paying tolls to access lectures and work?

The argument that the university needs to defray the cost of a loan it contracted through tolling its road is very empty. It smacks of institutional ineptitude and professional anomie.

Couldn’t there have been an alternative for the university to secure an agreement with its numerous partners and corporate organizations to sponsor the road project in exchange for branding and street naming opportunities?

How about the university securing an agreement with urban roads to create a diversion to divert non-essential traffic away from the university? It is all about thinking outside the box.

Renowned universities with global acclaim in other countries only occupy a fraction of the land size of the University of Ghana, but their output far exceeds anything that Legon produces. We are simply intellectually lazy. We possess vast resources but have no clue how to generate useful outcomes. Our professors are stuck with 19th century ideas, and with outmoded formats on university administration and can only think of perks and petty campus politics. The ill mannerism and lack of verbal articulation on basic issues by the university authority is quite nauseating to say the least.

 Year in, year out, the university prints thousands of admission forms and sells to prospective students. Only a fraction of the applicants gain access with majority being rejected.

No refund is ever made to these students who could not gain admission which brings up the question: where does the money go? What does the university use the money for especially in these days when the application form is online and the applicant bears the cost of printing, yet still pays hundred of cedis for it?

Now, the university wants to tell Ghanaians that it is cash strapped and therefore must resort to tolling its roads because it secured a loan which it must pay back with money collected from motorists who include students, teachers, its workers and others who for one reason or the other had to use the road.

What beats my imagination is that the university still depends on the state for subvention and times without number we have heard of lecturers and workers making financial demands on government and the state has always made good these demands.

The University of Ghana is not the only state owned tertiary institution yet we hardly hear of the others making such claims as to their independence and therefore resort to do things their own way.

Talk of University of Cape Coast, KNUST, and many others. What if we wake tomorrow with the news that Korle Bu Teaching Hospital has taken a cue from this “madness,” and has also decided that every vehicle including ambulances entering its premises with patients must pay a toll?

 The belligerence of the university authorities must be tackled alongside government’s own failure in calling some of these institutions to order. Truth must be told; the state has left Legon to its devices for so long that the institution is beginning to believe it is not answerable to the state, and this can be seen in the way the current vice chancellor has handled the issue of tolling of the campus roads. He has rebuffed the vigilant and patriotic Ghanaian media which have made attempts to hear the university’s side of the issue especially in the wake of the demolition of the toll booth.

Does the state extend the same courtesies to the other universities? Are the individuals in charge of these semi-autonomous state institutions not answerable to the taxpayers anymore?

 The authorities at Legon are not above the state and therefore cannot do what they think is right by them and ignore the citizens’ wishes and demands.

I am not amused by the university’s posturing because as a center for the training of our manpower it must be more creative when it needs funds for its internal use. More or less, it is behaving like the state: if it wants more money to meet developmental goals, it resorts to raising taxes. The university should device new ways of improving on its internally generated funds. The tolling is just not on.

 The University of Ghana seems to be failing us. It must take up the challenge to lead this country in revolutionary thinking in line with modern trends not the same archaic methods that have failed. The authorities at Legon must sit up; they can do better than what we have seen so far.

Enough said!

Leave a comment

Posted by on 20/02/2014 in Uncategorized


What is Egbert Faibille’s beef with Col. Larry Gbevlo-Lartey??

Hours after operatives of National Security Council pulled down the controversial Legon toll booth being erected by the authorities of the University of Ghana, many people have started raising issues with the manner in which state security acted, and others questioning the mandate of the National Security in relation to this exercise.

Chief among the talking heads was Egbert Faibille Jr. who was also part of Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo’s legal team in the abortive move to overturn the last election results.

Speaking in an interview, Faibille questioned why national security demolished the toll booth and sought to create the impression that it was an illegality.

I couldn’t help but to shrug my shoulders in utter disbelief when I heard Egbert Faible’s spiteful piece of commentary on the issue.

Let me try and see if l understand this; ls Egbert Faible questioning the powers of the National Security Council? Is University of Ghana not an institution of state? Was it not established by an act of parliament?

Does the University of Ghana have any right to impede access to public highway? And Egbert thinks this is not a national Security matter?

Do these guys really understand the concept of human security and its national security implications?

The sheer idiocy of some of these social commentators can really be nauseating at times.

For the information of Egbert Faible and those who care to know, the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act 1996, Act 526 mandates the state security to carry out such an exercise.

The law among other things states that, the agency shall collect, analyze, retain and disseminate as appropriate information and intelligence respecting activities that may constitute threats to the security of the State and the government of Ghana;

(b) safeguard the economic well-being of the State against threats posed by the acts or omissions of persons or organizations both inside and outside the country;

(c) protect the State against threats of espionage, sabotage, terrorism, hijacking, piracy, drug trafficking and similar offences;

(d) protect the State against the activities of persons, both nationals and non-nationals, intended to overthrow the government of Ghana or undermine the constitutional order through illegal political, military, industrial or other means or through any other unconstitutional method which virtually empowered the agency to intervene in any situation that could lead to the breakdown of law and order or create disaffection for both government and the majority of the citizens.

By that law, national security had the power to pull down the toll booth but not prevent the collection of the toll charges.

The decision to remove the toll booth was based on the fact that its location was too close to the main road and was interfering with vehicular traffic going to and fro Madina and beyond.

The argument has been that the proximity of the tollbooth to a major highway is a public nuisance, and l don’t understand why any right thinking member of the public should break bones over this simple matter.  Should we wait for a major disaster to occur on that stretch of the road before we realized that it is a national security matter?

I don’t support the traffic nuisance being created on that stretch of the road in the name of tolls. I believe that every action of any institution situated on Ghana’s territorial lands must be done in the interest of public safety and must inure to the good of the general public.

National Security carried out this action in the interest of the public and road users who had to bear with the unnecessary vehicular traffic due to the erection of the booths. We must not tolerate lawlessness in our effort to build a better Ghana.


It is completely wrong and unacceptable for the University to erect the tollbooth right in front of such a major busy road like the Madina-Tetteh Quashie highway that leads traffic into Accra.
It is horrible to see vehicular traffic build up in the mornings and evenings because of the booth. Many road accidents have claimed the lives of students and pedestrians.

Instead of condemnation, we should all congratulate the National Security for such a bold action. I’ll urge Col. Rtd Gbevlo-Lartey, the National Security Co-ordinator to ignore the baseless criticisms of his actions. I do not think he owes an explanation to anybody for his actions. He has acted in the interest of Public Policy.









Leave a comment

Posted by on 18/02/2014 in Uncategorized


Is Chief Justice, Georgina Wood breaching the judicial Oath and subverting Justice?

Is Chief Justice, Georgina Wood breaching the judicial Oath and subverting Justice?

 “I, Georgina Theodora Wood having been appointed (Chief Justice/a Justice of the Supreme Court etc.) do (in the name of the Almighty God swear) (solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith-and allegiance to the Republic of Ghana as by law established; that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Ghana; and that I will truly and faithfully perform the functions of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will; and that I will at all times uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana. (So help me God.)”

The above is the judicial oath Justice, Georgina Wood sworn, when she took office as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana.

According to the judicial oath, the Chief Justice is expected at all times to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana. But can we say that the Chief Justice is upholding the laws of Ghana and the judicial oath for that matter?

A nation that does not have, or cultivate, the fortitude to challenge harmful rulings by our nation’s corrupt judges should be prepared to see injustice become an acceptable norm. In my opinion, there will be serious implications for our nation’s democracy if some judges are allowed to adjudicate on criminal matters, when they are, themselves, part of an extensive criminal network.

In the aftermath of Kennedy Agyapong’s genocidal war comment and his subsequent arrest, the police arraigned him before a district magistrate court for a committal procedure and to secure remand, while investigations continued as the law demands, and to the amusement of all, magistrate, Patricia Quansah, who was supposed to handle the case, however, declined to proceed, stating, her jurisdiction does not extend to cases of such magnitude.

The court cited a circular which emanated from the office of the Judicial Secretary in June 2008, in which crimes such as treason, hijacking, robbery and narcotics offences ought to be sent to the Office of the Chief Justice for a court to be selected.

First of all, I don’t believe the Chief Justice would give any such directives which are inconsistent with the judicial oath she swore but if indeed she did so, then justice delivery is under serious threat in Ghana.

The courts and its jurisdiction over criminal matters are creation and an act of parliament and I am not too sure if the judiciary has such legislative powers. If indeed there ought to be changes in such procedure it is only fair that the matter is referred to parliament.

There is a clear legal procedure that says that there must be a committal procedure in offences that are covered by section 96(7) of Act 30. The state went to the magistrate court to start the process and the magistrate declined to hear the committal procedure on the basis of lack of jurisdiction as a result of the CJ’s directive.
The implication of such directive is that the circuit court would not be able to hear any committal procedure on any offences covered by section 96(7) of Act 30. What it then means is that we need a legislative instrument to alter something of this nature prescribed by an act of parliament.

As far as I am concerned, the Chief Justice has no legislative powers and the so-called administrative directives emanating from her office is a clear subversion of the judicial oath that she swore to uphold.

Was the General Legal Council informed of such administrative directive?  What about the Attorney-General’s department and the Judicial Council?

The actions of the Chief Justice in the so-called administrative directives is ultra vires the powers of the judiciary.

I am challenging the Chief Justice to come clear on this so-called directive and explain to the good people of Ghana the rationale behind this obvious perversion of justice.

As a result of this singular action, the magistrate court refused the prosecution in the Kennedy Agyapong case to initiate the committal procedure, and therefore allow the accused person to be granted bail under some strange circumstances even though, there is an authority and a binding precedents when it comes to the grant of bail for offences covered by section 96(7) of Act 30.

In Ghana, the independence of the judiciary has conferred on some of the nation’s judges the status of human-gods. By building this false image in their psyche, some of the nation’s judges do not see themselves as civil servants, but as an elitist subgroup whose social standing is unmatched by society’s civil servants. While judges can punish ordinary citizens for violating the law, they enjoy undeserving immunity from criminal prosecution even when their conduct, and rulings, bear features of criminality.

While some would speak angrily of me as being overly critical of the judiciary, Ghanaians do not deserve Justice Georgina Wood. A nation that lives in the twenty-first century, must behave according to the diktats of the millennium. While we all agree that the nation has many problems, we cannot adopt an isolationist attitude, and put our destiny in the hands of the nation’s corrupt judges, and think that they can guarantee our freedom.

The judiciary is not a law unto itself and Ghanaians deserve to know the rationale behind this clear case of illegality.

I shall be back!

Leave a comment

Posted by on 29/04/2012 in Uncategorized


Digesting the decisions of Justice Patricia Quansah, Essel Mensah and Charles Quist!!

Digesting the decisions of Justice Patricia Quansah, Essel Mensah and Charles Quist!!

I have listened to the arguments of the three judges who sat on the Kennedy Agyapong case. Not only am I stunned by the oversimplification of judicial precedent; I also lament over the untenable rationalization of the ethno – centric hate pronouncements of the MP, and an attempt to make a mockery of our jurisprudence.

Kennedy Agyapong, who on Oman FM, his own radio station usurped the powers of the sitting president to unconstitutionally declare war, urged Asantes to annihilate all Ewes and Gas living in the Ashanti region by attacking them with machetes and cutlasses.

He further warned that any security personnel who would try to keep the peace in the Ashanti Region will be lynched.

“Today, I declare war in this country, Gbevlo-Lartey and his people, IGP should know this. Voltarians in the Ashanti Region will not be spared. If anyone touches you, butcher him with a cutlass”, Kennedy Agyapong said.

The police took up the challenge he threw to them and arrested him on the charges of treason felony, terrorism and attempted genocide.

He was sent to a district magistrate court for a committal of trial and to secure remand,  while investigations continued as the law demands, and the to the amusement of all, magistrate, Patricia Quansah, who was supposed to handle the case, however, declined to proceed, stating, her jurisdiction does not extend to cases of such magnitude.

The lawyers of Kennedy Agyapong in an attempt to seek bail for their client went to court on ex-parte motion, and filed a habeas corpus application.

The judge made the habeas corpus order, and adjourned the matter for the state to appear and produce the accused in 4 days. Then again, he made an order for the accused to be released on the grounds of ill health.

According to Justice Essel Mensah he granted the bail because he used his discretion of court rules and the provision of a medical report on the health condition of the MP, who is said to be diabetic.

The state then proceeded to the high court and filed fresh charges of treason felony, attempted genocide and terrorism. The court presided over by Justice Charles Quist granted him bail on a non bailable offence, and also committed him to a bond of good behaviour until the final determination of the case.

There are many questions that demand answers. First of all, the state did not go to the magistrate court for a trial, but for committal procedure, and the magistrate erred in law to have declined sitting on the matter.

Secondly, whether Mr. Kennedy Agyapong, the arraigned suspect, was a diabetic, or not, is inconsequential to the evidence before the court. He was arraigned before Justice Charles Quist’s court on specific criminal charges. From the article, the accused was “arraigned, charged with treason felony, attempted genocide and terrorism.”

Thirdly, from the little I know about criminal law, indicted suspects are brought to court not for the fun of it. They are indicted to stand trial because there is prima facie evidence against them. Why would a qualified judge, then, grant bail to Mr Kennedy Agyapong knowing very well that the offence to which he is being charged is non-bailable?

Since when did judges start granting bail on habeas corpus application?

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the state has the right to continue detaining him or her. On which grounds did Justice Georgina Wood’s appointed judge grant the bail?

These developments we see in the nation’s judiciary are a microcosm of an enduring muck that is slowly tarnishing the reputation of the nation’s finest judges.

And again, does the high court have the power to grant bail at all in non-bailable offences, on the grounds that the facts do not match the offence?  Are we going to grant bail to suspected drug barons and hardened criminals on the basis of ill health?

A judge who becomes oblivious to the values of justice, and devalues his/her position as an impartial arbiter of fact must be treated with utter contempt.

A case is brought before a judge for adjudication, and the judge does not even look at the merits and the demerits of the charges brought up against the accused person, but goes ahead and virtually declare judgment advising that the prosecution should prefer lesser charges against the accused person and grants bail on a non bailable offence. How can this happen in democracy? Isn’t the judge supposed to allow the prosecution to provide evidence in support of the charges?
How can the judge simply look at the charges and determine the outcome of the evidence? How can you do that? How can a court do that?

Doesn’t procedural law set rules on how cases must be conducted in a competent court for the sake of justice? Are these barefaced injustices in the judiciary a new alternative for a few corrupt and godless judges to deny the nation’s indigent their right to universal social justice?

For how long are we going to allow a few Judges to exploit the independence of the judiciary to forestall remedial interventions to pervert justice?

The genocidal statements and the subsequent promotion of hate for Gas and Ewes by Kennedy Agyapong is not only indefensible but criminal, and the court cannot be seen to be promoting such unguarded statements.

Have we not learnt any lesson from the Rwandan genocide? Does Ghana have the resources and the expertise to defuse the prospect of our nation becoming another Rwanda? The questions are endless, and the potential consequences for our inactions are horrific, to say the least.

In my opinion, a token justice that is delivered with the view to moderate societal revulsion against a serious criminal action is no justice at all. As a nation, we cannot allow this miscarriage of justice to become part of our nation’s jurisprudential philosophy. As history has it, the subversion of the law to appease certain backdoor-politicians is not healthy for our nation’s democratic credentials and international image.

Was this what we pay our judges for? To suborn criminality, by perverting the rule of law?

We must act now or never.

I shall be back!

Leave a comment

Posted by on 23/04/2012 in Uncategorized


Reasons Why Mills Deserves Four More Years!!!

Reasons Why Mills Deserves Four More Years!!!

Regardless of whether you like him or not he’s doing exactly what the people elected him to do, and he’s being as successful as anybody can be expected to be, given what he has to work with.

So, yes, he is a good president. He was given a mandate from the people in a democratic election and he’s following up on his campaign promises. President Mills promised to run a transparent and accountable government. Many challenges still confront us as people but he is definitely laying the solid foundation necessary to attain the objective of a transformed industrialized nation.

Under the Mills led administration, the economy which hitherto had high inflation, a high budget deficit, a depreciating cedi and depleting gross international reserves has been totally turned around for the better. The Macroeconomic indices attest to this feat with several indicators showing fantastic results never achieved in Ghana’s history.

According to the revised GDP estimate released by the Ghana Statistical Service, the economy also grew by 14.4 percent for the period, which is 0.8 percentage points more than the previous estimate, making Ghana the fastest growing economy in the world.

Prudent fiscal measures by Mills administration have resulted in a sustainable single digit inflation rate for over 15 months. Inflation rate currently stands at 8.4% being the lowest in
42 years since 1970.

The IMF/ World Bank Doing Business report adjudged Ghana as a global best performer in access to credit and also the best place to do business in West Africa. It is not surprising therefore that for the first quarter of 2011 alone, 109 new businesses with an estimated value amounting to GHC 567.66 million were established in Ghana.

Ghana investment promotion council (GIPC) figures released shows an increase in projects registered at theGIPC amounting to over $7billion in foreign direct investment.

Other social intervention programmes under the Mills presidency are free uniforms, free exercise books, 50% increase in capitation grant, elimination of schools under trees and a Mathematics, Science and Technology Scholarship Scheme (MASTESS).

President Mills is supporting Ghanaian workers by throwing a life line to them.

The country’s wage bill has more than doubled under the last three (3) years from approximately two billion Ghana Cedis to over five billion Ghana Cedis.

President Mills has therefore put more money in the pockets of Ghanaian workers who are better off today than they were.
Government has made huge payment as salaries to workers by way of migrating about 97% of government workers onto the single spine salary structure.

Life expectancy has shot up from 53 years to 64.2 years, an increase of 11 years (Latest United Nations Human Development Index). Never in the history of Ghana has a president and his
party worked so actively in the interest of people.

There is transparency in government business, and in three short years, President Mills has made giant strides in the area of investing heavily in the economic infrastructure of the country.
I find the President to be very forthright and honest. Something I never saw in John Kufuor. Love him or hate him he is a world of difference and that’s a good thing.
Yes he is because he is working hard to restore Ghana’s reputation in the world after Kufuor dragged us through the gutter.
In general, Mills has been a good leader. He has been able to bring governance to the door steps of the ordinary Ghanain. He was left with Kufuor’s huge mess and you can’t expect him to be like a magician and change everything at will. A President, who has been reviled, lied about, called names and faced more obstruction and hate than anyone. He alone is trying to
restore hope in Ghanaians.
Against him and Ghana is the entire New Patriotic Party (NPP) who seek the failure of Ghana to
gain their own political power.
There is no better man to lead Ghana, anywhere, ever.

I shall be back

Leave a comment

Posted by on 23/04/2012 in Uncategorized