TWUM-BOAFO GOOFED

The Chief Executive Officer of the Freezones Board Kojo Twum-Boafo goofed last weekend when he claimed that DAYBREAK is owned by Ken Kuranchie, Editor of The Searchlight, now languishing in an unknown prison, after he fell foul of the law of contempt and had the Supreme Court of Ghana gavel fall on his head. 

Phone calls to DAYBREAK after the claim was made by the CEO on Alhaji and Alhaji, a popular current affairs programme on Radio Gold, compelled the owners of the paper to come out to deny the story.

Whilst the Editor of DAYBREAK may have worked with Ken Kuranchie before, the two fell out and separated purely on matters of principle. 

DAYBREAK is published by Prah Investment and was registered with the National Media Commission (NMC) on September 30, 2010. It is registered a sole proprietor business under the Registration of Businesses Act, 1962, (No.151)

Twum-Boafo therefore goofed. Any other person holding an opinion similar to Twum-Boafo may also have goofed, but this is intended to set the records straight. 

Even when the host attempted correcting him by trying to elicit from him whether he had checked the fact, he persisted. He may have said it without malice, but the harm may also have been done. Someone in a capacity that requires of him to be neutral and independent certainly decided on that score to be political and mischievous – which is not good for Democracy and impartiality from sources like Freezones Board CEO.

We are also told he said DAYBREAK is financed by a certain Colonel Damoah. That is also a strange conjecture. Nobody on this paper has ever met Damoah or his agent. DAYBREAK strives to come out only once a week and that is evident of a business struggling to survive – without bending the knee to any political entity or individual whim.

If the FZB CEO has cash to support DAYBREAK for a month only, we welcome it in the name of Democracy and not influence. And for the harm he caused us on Radio Gold, it will be nice if he retracts. We all get it wrong, sometimes.

Source: DAYBREAK

Papa Jerry and June 4

Former President Jerry John Rawlings and the June 4 revolution are synonymous. June 4 was the vehicle through which he made history in the country’s political discourse.

One cannot discuss former President Rawlings without the June 4 Uprising as it was the event which facilitated his entry into the uncharted terrain of the country’s politics and enabled him to consolidate his place in Ghana’s history as the longest serving head of state.

Although there are events like the May15 Uprising and the December 31 Revolution which metamorphosed into the establishment of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and the formation of the National Democratic Congress (NDC)—that are dear to former President Rawlings, June 4 remains uppermost in the scheme of activities to him.

The question is: Why did former President Rawlings become more popular with the June 4 than other political events that he was associated with between 1979 and 2000?

Another question is why June 4 evokes considerable passions, emotions and sentiments in former President Jerry Rawlings who can be described as a political enigma.

He is a political enigma in the sense that he pursues a cause to the point of unbending fanaticism and would also harass, condemn and castigate a personality he disagrees with in no uncertain terms.

One would recollect the celebrations of the June 4 event at the Swedru Sports Stadium on June 6, 1998 during which former President Rawlings endorsed the late President John Evans Atta Mills as the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2000 election.

Although his endorsement of former President Mills created a furore in the circles of the party, leading to the creation of the National Reform Party (NRP) led by Mr. Goosie Tandoh, former President Rawlings stuck to his guns.

 

In another period during the presidency of his protégé, former President Mills, the same former President Rawlings did not give him breathing space after his election victory in 2008, descending heavily on him for reasons beyond one’s imagination.

He shifted his allegiance from former President Mills and threw his full weight behind his wife in the NDC congress which retained former President Mills as the candidate for the party for the 2012 poll but which death prevented him from doing so.

Not even attempts by certain party members to strip him of his position of founding father of the party as well as the raining of unprintable words on his personal being stopped him from supporting his wife’s ambition to the high heavens.

Former President Rawlings considers June 4 as a watershed in the country’s political processes since it was the only period during which a group of revolutionary minded officers of the Ghana Armed Forces took over the reins of government and undertook far reaching measures to cleanse the army of what he termed incorrigible elements.

He described the event as a House Cleaning Exercise since it was the primary responsibility of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) to check the corruptible excesses by the officers who had transformed themselves into politicians and were draining the country of its finances.

The Supreme Military Council (SMC) II under the late General F.W.K. Akuffo replaced General Ignatius Kutu Acheampong who overthrew the Progress Party (PP) on January 13, 1972 and established the National Redemption Council (NRC), which late became the Supreme Military Council 1.

Former President Rawlings, then a Flight Lieutenant of the Ghana Air Force, had strongly criticized General Acheampong and other officers of the junta for engaging in the same corrupt practices for which they overthrew the Busia Regime.

Hear General Acheampong: “The Busia Regime took away from us the facilities and amenities which we in the Army and the Police even enjoyed under the Nkrumah regime.”

He added: “And the Busia regime was engaged in economic mismanagement, nepotism, cronyism and public embezzlement of funds to the detriment of the country’s development.”

However, a few years into their management of the economy, the military junta who described themselves as redeemers of the country engaged in the most despicable corrupt acts which incensed the masses of the people who embarked on endless strikes which nearly paralyzed the country.

The country’s roads were indescribable since it took vehicles more than six hours to travel from Agona Swedru to Cape Coast while one had to connect from London before he could get in touch with his or her relations residing in Abidjan via telephone.

Basic necessities like milk, sugar and soap were labeled as essential commodities and it was hell for the people to procure a few of these items since they had to obtain chits from authorities of the defunct Ghana National Trading Corporation (GNTC) for that purpose.

A lot of projects were sited across the country for the sake of political expediency while the cream of the military establishment was dishing out vehicles, particularly Golf, to young women in exchange for sexual favors.

The country’s Balance of Payment was in the red and her trading partners were not ready to grant fresh loans to enable the country purchase spare parts for the rehabilitation of its ailing industries.

These were some of the objective conditions which precipitated the June 4 Uprising and the rise of former President Rawlings to the commanding heights of the country’s politics.

Former President is endowed with charm and charisma and these features enabled him to completely win over the majority of the people when he burst onto the political scene.

On platforms during that period he could make people cry or laugh through gesticulations with his head, hands and feet. 

Former President Rawlings could pace the dais, looking to the heavens or the dais, wiping his face with his fingers and talking on issues which touched on the emotions of the people for hours on end.

His success with words was overpowering. He could cry to evoke the same feelings in the crowd who would be wearing long faces or crack jokes to elicit cacophonous outburst of laughter from the same crowd.

Former President Rawlings would always want to celebrate June 4 to remember the gallant soldiers who put their lives on the line to stop the rot in the economy between 1972 and 1979.

But did corruption stop under the subsequent regimes and how does former President Rawlings feel about the canker of unbridled corruption in the various facets of Ghanaian life today?

Credit: Kweku Tsen

What Is Human Security And National Security?

In order to understand human security, it is essential to first look at the orthodox approach to security. The orthodox approach or westphalian concept of security, has its roots in the rise of the modern nation state in seventeenth century Europe. The first and perhaps the most significant factor shaping the behaviour of states was the idea that the international system was fundamentally anarchic with no overall governing authority to enforce rules, norms, laws, or more widely, some conception of international justice.

In such a self-help system, no state could be sure that its security would be guaranteed by any other body no matter how firm an alliance might appear at any given time. The supposed universal rationality of state actors meant that they would, by and large, converge around similar international policies and aspire to similar goals in order to render themselves as secure as possible in what was a perpetually insecure system. Most important to this assumption was a military framework that served to act as a minimum deterrent to external aggressors who could threaten the sovereignty of the state, embodied in its territory, boundaries, political institutions, and the general population’s right to self-determination.

What was therefore important for orthodox security on the basis of these assumptions was that in the international realm states pursued policies that were above the demands of any single group in society. The state society relationship, therefore, was separated from international relations, and this separation was necessary for security in the domestic realm. The interest of national security were said to be above and beyond those of any single group in domestic politics simply because if a state was not externally secure, there could be little hope of the goals of domestic politics (the good life for example) ever being realised. Thus, the state was the neutral arena within which the complexities of domestic political and social life could be played out.

However, dissatisfaction started growing with the orthodox or westphalian concept of security, one which reified the state and sanctioned the use of military power in defence against threats to territorial autonomy and domestic political order. This tradition was blind to the polymorphous nature of social power-gender, class, ethnicity, religion and age-and its development within and across territorial boundaries. The inter-sections between the various power bases created complex matrices of human rights abuse within the domestic jurisdiction of many nation-states. These abuses either remained invisible or were purposely concealed in the name of national security and social and/or cultural order. In addition, new non-military security issues with human rights implications emerged and acquired trans-national characteristics in conjunction with the intensification of global economic integration.

The dissatisfaction thus witnessed a fundamental departure from the traditional or orthodox realists thinking of security, which views the state as the exclusive primary referent object. Instead, human beings and their complex social and economic relations have now been given primacy with or over states, in line with the neoliberalist view of security.

Therefore, in today’s world ‘when we think about security we need to think beyond battalions and borders. We need to think about human security, about winning a different war, the fight against poverty.’ The UNDP notes that ‘For too long, the concept of security has been shaped by the potential for conflict between states. For too long, security has been equated with threats to a country’s borders. For too long, nations have sought arms to protect their security. For most people today, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Job security, health security, environmental security, security from crime, these are the emerging concerns of human security all over the world’.

Thus, human security, sometimes defined as 'Freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want' has now become the catch phrase of an approach to security in the post cold war era. Often referred to as 'people-centred security' or 'security with a human face', human security emphasizes the complex relationships and often-ignored linkages between human dignity, human rights, human poverty and development. Today all security discussions demand incorporation of the human dimension.

But for some scholars, human security is both about ‘the ability to protect people as well as to safeguard states’, whilst in some human security formulations such as that of former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, human needs rather than states needs are paramount. Axworthy believes this to be so in the aftermath of the cold war as intrastate conflicts have become more prevalent than interstate conflicts.
Human security is in essence an effort to construct a society where the safety of the individual is at the centre of the priorities..,; where human rights standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a coherent web protecting the individual...’’. The United Nations Commission on Human Security, defines human security as ‘the protection of the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment, which stresses the importance of opportunities and choices to all human life”.

It is also important to note that all proponents of ‘human security’ agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. But consensus breaks down over what threats individuals should be protected from. Proponents of a narrow concept of human security, focus on violent threats to individuals, while proponents of a wider concept of human security argue that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.

In this light, National Security is not just about the security of the state. It is about the security of the state and also the security of the individuals within the state. It is basically about the protection of the individuals within the state whiles upholding the state. It is about protecting the individuals against violence as well as from hunger, disease, disaster etc. If lots of people are unemployed, then they are hungry and therefore it is a national security issue. If farmers’ crops are being destroyed by Fulani herdsmen and they go hungry, then it is a national security threat. In brief, National Security is both about the ability to protect individuals within a state as well as safeguard the state.

Credit: Justin Bayor


NB: Is the boy (Larry Gbevlo-Lartey) in mind and at heart though he is advanced in age aware of this?

“Let me congratulate you…. You’ve been asked to RETURN BACK to your job” - Tony Lithur goofs

The saying is “show me your friend and I will tell you your character”. It is also said that “birds of the same feathers congregate together”. When we were in school, anytime a teacher makes a grammatical error, one of the students will shout, “bullet” and another will respond “take cover” and everyone will pretend to run away from the unseen enemy.

On Tuesday, 23^rd April, 2013, the President’s lawyer, Tony Lithur took us back to the days of D.C.Kwakye when in congratulating Dr. Bawumia on his new appointment with the African Development Bank (ADB), he made this unpardonable grammatical slip, “You have been asked to RETURN BACK to your job”. 

On sober reflection, I asked myself what legacy the NDC wants to leave for our children. You will recall that a few months ago, the Women’s Organizer of the Nefarious Destructive Cancer, Anita de Souza had made the same grammatical slip. I wrote a piece on that and received hefty blows left and right from core members of the NDC.  Yesterday, it was Anita de Souza; today it is Tony Lithur. Tomorrow, it might even be the …….

Is “return back” the legacy the NDC wants to leave for the youth of this country? Knowing the way the NDC operates, it will not be a surprise to see “RETURN BACK” creep into our dictionary, albeit through the back door. After all, one of the Deputy Ministers is on record of having said that if you see a goat, say you have seen a cow and if you hear the sound of a mosquito, say you have heard the sound of a helicopter.

Yes, this reminds me of another thing. It is the consistency with which Counsels for both the Ist Respondent and the Second attribute the “defects” in the Pink Sheets to either “administrative” or “clerical” errors. Is return back an administrative error?

Afari Djan should be committed to prison: The Supreme Court made an order to all parties in the on-going petition to make their presentation in the form of sworn affidavit. The petitioners have responded but the EC and the First Respondent have not attached any document to the petitioners.

Readers should recall that the EC had filed a writ before the start of hearing to allow it to provide the documents after the NPP has closed its case. That was rejected by the Court. Is this another way of achieving this nefarious plan which it couldn’t get in the open through the back door?

Comments by Asiedu Nketiah and “Sir John: I see everything wrong with attempts to gag the General Secretaries of the two litigating parties from commenting on proceedings of the Supreme Court at the end of sittings. The people love those comments and any attempt by whatever power will not do the public any good.  The repetition of questions and answers make the proceedings very boring and the people need some form of fun to let out their pent up feelings. In fact the two characters usually cut a comical picture of themselves when they are interviewed. They sort of serve as comic relief. Yes, they do for the duo present different dimensions to an otherwise boring session. They view the proceedings from their own fast diminishing prospective. So whatever they say is not based on the reality on the ground but what they want to hear and see. They are entertainers and they have been living up to their assigned roles. I give kudos to the duo of Asiedu Nketiah and Sir John to continue doing what they know best.

Failure of Presiding Officers to sign Pink Sheets: Yes, a Presiding Officer can determine the outcome of an election if he/she does not sign the declaration paper. The fact that an agent signs or doesn’t sign the Pink Sheet will not invalidate the result of the election. But if a Presiding Officer goes on that tandem, the results will be annulled. 

What gives legitimacy to an election is to have it gazetted by the Returning Officer. The Law makes it mandatory for the Presiding/Returning Officer to write his name and then sign/append his/her signature in the appropriate columns. If they are not important, why are the columns provided?

Can you write an application without your name and signature?  How can they identify the applicant? Again, can a Presidential Directive announcing the reshuffle of his Cabinet be enforced if there is no signature of the President or the person mandated to issue the directive? Can an appointment of a person be validated if it does not have the signature of the employer or the officer designated to sign the appointed letter?

Is it possible to withdraw a colossal sum of money from the State Coffers without the signature of the Accountant General? How can a Judgment be enforced if it does not have the signature of the Justice who gave the verdict? If a contract does not have the signatures of the various parties entering into the agreement, it is unenforceable.

So if a Presiding/Returning Officer does not sign the blue sheet or declaration sheet, it renders the results invalid. This is as simple as ABC.

At Polling Florensa Hotel A and B Polling Stations near Alhaji, the Polling Station Officers and the Police on duty drove away the Polling Agents of the various political parties while they filled in particulars which had to be entered into the respective columns before the start of polls. They were only allowed to go to their observers’ posts just before election started. Under such circumstances, how do you expect the agents to know what was written on the pink sheets?  

We should also not overlook the fact that in some of the polling stations, counting and recounting took much time to complete. Some of the stations finished the counting and recounting after 10pm. The agents of various political parties were very tired and just signed the declaration forms without bothering to find out if the writings in the various columns conform to statutory regulations.

Will a transcript sent from an Institution to another be accepted if it does not bear the signature of the Registrar or the person designated to do so? Again, how will you categorize a Certificate, Diploma or Degree which does not have the signature of the awarding institution? If such Degree/Diploma were to be presented to the office of the President, would it be accepted?

Appointment of Dr. Bawumia : Mischief was the prevalent motif on the mind of the Editorial Board of the “Ghanaian Times” when it came out with its lead story that the Running Mate of the Presidential Candidate of the NPP in the December, 2013 Presidential Election has been offered appointment by the ADB. There couldn’t have been any other reason apart for the one enumerated above.

 In the first place the timing was wrong. Since when did the Ghanaian Times get the information of Dr. Bawumia’s appointment? Why did the paper announce the appointment when Dr Bawumia was giving his testimony at the Supreme Court? By that publication, the paper sought to create the impression that Dr Bawumia has realised the hopelessness of the NPP’s petition before the Supreme Court and wants to jump ship midstream. 

True to type, papers in the NDC’s stable took up the cue and gave their own connotation to the appointment. For example, Kwadwo Adu Asare, the “deposed” MP for Adenta was on air to allude to the fact that it was Dr Bawumia himself who applied for the position. This is a blatant lie, and I dare Kwadwo Adu Asare and members of the Ghanaian Times Editorial Board to come out with concrete evidence if they are men and women of conscience.

What these hatchet men and women deliberately refused to state was the fact that Dr. Bawumia, being a golden fish has no hiding place. The meritorious service rendered by the Running Mate to the NPP Candidate in the December 2012 Presidential Election is verifiable and indelible. That could not have been overlooked. The good work done by this whiz kid to revitalize the economy of Zimbabwe was what has opened a new chapter of opportunity for him. He is being sent to achieve similar feat in Uganda whose economy is in the doldrums as a result of a civil war in the country.

I t must be made abundantly clear to the Nefarious Destructive Cancer and its hired press that Dr. Bawumia did not apply for the position which has been offered him by the ADB. “If a child washes his hands well, he eats with kings”. It is also said that it is the way a child stretches his hands that meat is given to him/her. Dr Bawumia has dined with angels and the latter are appreciating him with this appointment. He is yet to make his position on the appointment known.  The PHD syndrome must stop so that sanity prevails.

Orchestrated attempts to manipulate the December 2012 Elections: The so-called “administrative” and “clerical” errors” in the 2012 Presidential Election are nothing but calculated and well-rehearsed collusion between the NDC and the Electoral Commission to manipulate the results in favour of the former.

The first attempts aimed at cheating occurred when the EC, supported by some misguided officials at the Ghana Education Service decided to do away with the service of teachers during the Registration Exercise. All members of the NDC who spoke on the issue supported the stance.

I had earlier on warned our party, the NPP of the NDC’s attempt to cheat in the election by recruiting and training some people to be used to manipulate the 2012 Elections.  That move was co-ordinated by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and a man I initially referred to as “wofa” but whom I later came to know as Yaw Boateng Gyan, National Organizer of the Nefarious Destructive Cancer. I had verbal exchanges with some members of the NPP who did not believe me. But the facts are there and cannot be hidden.

I shudder to think of how the same “administrative” and clerical mistakes could be committed by EC’s officials especially Presiding Officers at different polling stations in the country. In an examination if a group of students make the same mistakes, it gives room for the examiner to suspect foul play. The officials were purposely trained to leave those columns blank so that they would have room to manipulate the results. If they were caught they would attribute it to “administrative lapses” as are being alluded to by Counsels for both the President and the Electoral Commission.

How can the EC talk of genuine mistakes when it did away with the services of teachers who have since the beginning of the Fourth Republic been used for both the Registration and voting exercise in the country? That argument is not tenable and could only be made by a leader of the blind. And I wonder if Afari Djan is physically blind. He could have been at first but now he is not. He does not wear his glasses in court nowadays. I thank God that the scales have fallen off his eyes and he has seen the light. But he has to do penance by telling the truth the way it is.

What was on the EC’S mind when it did away with the services of experienced teachers and replaced them with novices? Does the EC have any reason to talk about inefficient and untrained staff at this time? I do not think so.

Let me ask Afari Djan and Quarshie Idun this simple question. If they are able to answer it satisfactorily, I will be satisfied. In the respondent filing and submission of the affidavit, did it include the signature of the respondent or his accredited representative? 

In announcing John Dramani Mahama as President-Elect, did the declaration sheet have the signature of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Djan? If it did not have the signature, on what basis will the EC fault the evidence presented by the petitioners?

But before I end this piece, will somebody tell me whose error is administrative and whose own is clerical? From the available evidence adduce before the court of public opinion, Tony Lithur, President Mahama’s lead Counsel and husband of President Mahama’s Minister of Discrimination made the “Administrative” errors whilst Anita de Souza’s own can be described as “clerical”.  You want to contradict me?

I shall be back. Stay tuned.

Credit: Knocking Them Cold with Uncle Dan (DAYBREAK newspaper)