INNOCENCE OF WOYOME BEFORE LAW BUT CRIMINAL IN EYES OF POLITICAL ACTORS

       In any country where reasonable laws are enacted and made to function and prevail, no one is ever guilty of an alleged crime unless and until duly prosecuted and convicted.  In particular, Article 19(2)[c] of 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) do not hide this fundamental legal principle of ‘presumed innocence’.

Background

     In 2010, Alfred Agbesi Woyome was paid by Finance Ministry of Ghana a consent judgment amount totaling up to GhȻ51, 283480.58.  The consent and terms of settlement was that which was duly reached in a court of Ghana.  Upon audit report, public outcry and political maneuverings on revelations thereof, then President John Evans Atta Mills (Prof) ordered for an investigation which     Economic and Organized Crimes Office (EOCO) took up, investigated and produced a report.

     Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome is a businessman who used to be engaged in variety of business activities including what was noted to be ‘financial engineering’. He was said to have paid monies to NPP at one point and to NDC at another. He is, however, controversially labeled in some mischievous quarters of the media as ‘NDC financier or bankroller’.

Damning EOCO report

      EOCO report was damning on four main grounds: Presidential authority appeared to have been undermined since Professor Mills was said to have instructed finance ministry and attorney general to stop payment but to no avail. The second ground is that attorney general at least lackadaisically tried to stop the payment through the Court but the Court appeared to have denied the request thereof. Thirdly, the Court had asked for part payment of the money to Woyome pending other settlements. But apparently flagrant instructions from attorney general made Finance Ministry to have incautiously paid all the GhȻ51.283million.  

     The fourth ground is that, the former administration under President John Agyekum Kufuor  of NPP may have had unnecessarily introduced Woyome to CAN 2008 financial engineering processes who may have leveraged governmental prefecture to gain more recognition and favor with Waterville/Vamed. In this connection, procurement processes appeared to have been recklessly terminated at the expense of Vamed/Waterville. The subsequent memorandum of understanding reached with Vamed/Waterville and authorization thereof to go to site which was complied with may have formed the basis for Woyome to dare into the political maneuvering space of the succeeding government led by Prof Mills of NDC.

    While others discredited EOCO’s report and labeled it as face-saving measure, without any alternative matching report of such caliber, majority of people (especially those who had the opportunity to read it) regarded the report as credible enough to draw a reasonable conclusion on what had transpired. I was one of those who gave the report benefit of the doubt and was anxious to see how any court processes will unveil the reasonable truth.

     To my agitated mind, it appeared that there was an uncharitable collusion between the Court where the consent judgment was reached on one hand and Attorney General Ministry, Finance Ministry and Woyome on the other. As the report intimated, I was far from convinced that the issue was about one ‘criminal Woyome’ (as peddled around) outsmarting all actors in three government institutions in order to dupe the State of huge sums. I cautiously saw Woyome trying to fight for his legitimate business rights but unduly took advantage of a weak and malleable system for his private gain ever more than deserved.

Attorney general in court

    The attorney general was back in court praying the court to order Woyome to refund the GhȻ51.2million which, they deemed, had been ‘mistakenly’ doled out to him. On the other hand, the attorney general was also seeking the court to have Woyome imprisoned for having ‘defrauded the State by false pretence and caused financial loss to the State’. Under the contentiously convoluted circumstance, neither ‘mistake payment’ nor ‘defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state’ was ever expected to be an easy- walk-through for the attorney general in court, even with a best legal foot forward.  

     In a bizarre discretion of attorney general, however, Woyome was the only one strongly put forward for trial - the two or so other people that were put on trial were not really the people at the centre of the controversy. The attorney general, of course, has had its basis for ignoring the so-called central people. Perhaps, the attorney general did not have enough evidence on people like Mrs. Betty Mould Iddrisu, Mr. Paul Asimenu and Mr. Nerquaye-Tetteh. Or that their legal conviction was that Woyome deceived all of them.  We are yet to be told exactly why all of that happened. Sadly, it appears the prosecutors owe the public no such explanation.

     I reemphasize here my ambivalence about Woyome’s ability to have outwitted all the technical men – just like that.  It was therefore no wonder that attorney general could sustain only the trial of Woyome, at least for a while.

Court judgements

      The civil court case to retrieve the money from Woyome appeared to have been swallowed by 29/07/2014 judgement of Supreme Court of Ghana in favour of a review suit (citizen action under articles 2 and 3, 1992 constitution) by Mr. Martin Amidu.  The court agreed with Martin that the said contract which Woyome associated himself with (i.e. Vamed/Waterville) was invalid and unconstitutional because under article 181(5), international agreements such as that must have been approved by the Parliament of Ghana, which was not done. The court made consequential order that Woyome should refund the GhȻ51.2million to the State.

     It nonetheless would have been very interestingly instructive to see what outcome the earlier action by attorney general in the Commercial Court to retrieve the money would have yielded if the Supreme Court had not intervened through Martin. That perhaps would have been more decisive and fairer under the circumstances.

      However, on March 12th 2015, the High Court found Woyome not guilty of the criminal charge of ‘defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state’ and thus went on to acquit and discharge him. One of the shocking reasons advanced by presiding judge Justice John Adjet Nassam was that not only the prosecutors could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt to convince him but also the prosecution was ‘shoddy’, particularly citing unavailability of crucial witnesses or perceived conspirators. Apparently, ‘shoddy’ reason adduced could simply imply that the judge was overreaching  his remit perhaps merely to appease the rage of the public  or that he may have been angered by what he may have seen as unacceptable manner in which the prosecutors handled the case.

      Vehemently disagreeing and visibly angered by the release of Woyome and description of poor prosecutor conduct, the attorney general quickly filed appeal against Adjet Nassam’s ruling. On 10th March 2016 however, the appeal court upheld the decision of Adjet Nassam and thus acquitted and discharged Woyome on the crime of ‘defrauding the State by false pretence and causing financial loss to the State’. Woyome appeared to have become a free man albeit with Supreme Court’s Constitutional interpretation order to refund the GhȻ51.2million still hanging on his neck.

Innocent before the law

         Save the Supreme Court order  which did not even touch on innocence or otherwise of Woyome or those who did not get Woyome’s  contract (if it ever existed)  approved by Parliament, Woyome, in the case of GhȻ51.2million paid to him for financial engineering, was not a criminal and is still not a criminal in the eyes of the law.

       This is regardless of how some people including myself would have wished the prosecutors should have gone about the prosecution. It does not also matter how people may suspect the integrity of the judicial process including conduct of officers of court and judges.

      The fact is that if Woyome had been convicted as would have wished by some people, such people may not have raised any eyebrows even if Woyome had been unfairly convicted. The need to respect the verdict of the law no matter the dissatisfaction of either party is, therefore, instructively sacrosanct.

Criminal in eyes of political actors

     It is understandable that political actors wanting to score political points almost succeeded in convicting Woyome in court of public opinion as ‘a criminal’. This is because even though there were other alleged infractions in the same audit report where Woyome was initially raised, it was Woyome’s case which could be conveniently used to tag NDC as corrupt.

      However, although political capital was hardly fetched with it and consequent verdict of the court that Woyome was not a criminal after all, some political actors like former President J J Rawlings ‘of NDC’ and Nana Akomea of NPP were recently reported in the media as continuing to taint Woyome with a criminal brush in a vulnerable posture suggesting that the government did not do a good job.

      But that the prosecution did not do a good job in the eyes of some people cannot, by any means, make someone vindicated by a court still regarded as a criminal. If we were to take this stance, then I dare say that there would not be any prosecution that would be accepted as good enough by any losing party. If this posture were to be elevated, it would dangerously undermine people’s confidence not just in prosecution but also in adjudication. After all, no matter the shoddiness that shrouded the prosecution and verdict in Adjet Nassam’s Court, all the appeal court judges could not have unanimously upheld the release of Woyome by the lower court if they found something terribly wrong.

Bottom-line

      I personally have had a hard time trying to unpack issues that point to Woyome being a criminal or not. I am not convinced that Woyome’s Saga is not one of daily politically tainted projects which some politicians use to enrich themselves.  These cases are well planned and shrouded in secrecy more often beyond the grasp of the law.

      To my mind, some of the politicians that have been parading themselves as latter day saints and making Woyome’s case any different than their blemished selves not forgetting the over GhȻ 200,000,000 wasted in 2014 auditor’s report may have no integrity and moral right, to start with. They must admit the universal culpability of political and civil classes from both NDC and NPP and from many MMDA’s across the country.

      That said, Woyome must refund the GhȻ51.2million as promised the Supreme Court as long as the order stands. His right to proceed to international court to challenge the consequential order of Supreme Court is particularly protected by article 2 of ICCPR and article 40 of 1992 constitution of Ghana. But this is likely to further drag his name into the mud even if he emerges winner thereof.  At the moment, regardless of my misgivings, Woyome is not a criminal before the law and he is a free man.

    He must be minded to advise his caliber and pretentious political actors who are currently despising him but are daily sneaking and lurking around corridors of power to milk the State that it is high time they took ordinary Ghanaians very seriously, even before the law. 

Legally Sustainable Remedy to Cattle Menace of Fulani Herdsmen in Ghana

         The legal adage which posits that law has the capacity to positively regulate the conduct of people anywhere anytime has never ceased to fascinate me.  One reason behind this attraction is how ambitious that proposition looks - sometimes almost daring the intrigues of people in a dreamland. Another reason for this fascination is the fact that law, in action, has proven to do a lot of positive things about human behavior that otherwise would have gone so awry and injurious to public interest. 

        Through exploitation of the potency of law, the old age menace caused by the activities of Fulani herdsmen in Ghana can be sustainably addressed. That course of action is, indeed, within the realm of reasonable possibilities.

How the menace evolved

        Before nomadic Fulani herdsmen found their way into the shores of Ghana, many years ago, some Ghanaians reared cattle primarily as a source of livelihood.  Cattle rearing amongst the indigenes were particularly predominant in the northern belt of the country.  At this point in time, the cattle used to sparingly destroy crops. This occasionally generated conflicts between farmers and indigenous cattle owners.

          There was always a way of amicably resolving such conflicts whenever they occurred.  At this juncture, even though conflicts still occasionally arose between farmers and Fulani cattle herdsmen (particularly the nomadic), there still existed harmony amongst the people. This was because there was a more disciplined way of avoiding confrontation and addressing problems when they occurred. This was often done through the forthrightness of traditional authority and commitment by cattle owners not to allow their cattle to invade farms that had been earlier invaded.

         However, as human population grew, more nomadic Fulani herdsmen increased, cattle numbers increased and land became scarce or competitive (which was fostered by weather variability’s negative effects on grazing lands), the structures that had ensured  harmony amongst competing economic forces were found wanting. Increasingly, it became clearer that time-tested legal and socioeconomic structures were urgently needed to effectively counteract the situation.

       Apparently, the authority of chiefs and other elders was heavily undermined, to this extent. Various District Assemblies where the activities of the Fulani herdsmen took place came out with by-laws to regulate such activities. But these were also flagrantly submerged by combined forces of institutional weaknesses of assemblies and sheer overwhelming nature of the menace at hand. This was evidenced by frequent clashes that kept occurring between farmers/indigenes and Fulani herdsmen/settlers.   

              The situation could not have been more described as a menace. It became worst to the extent that the narrative was generally in favor of ‘them’ against ‘us’. Thus, instead of recalcitrant and errant Fulani herdsmen against farmers/communities, it was rather widely deemed as Fulanis against Ghanaians/indigene residents. Almost a near xenophobia situation creeping into Ghanaian society, it was as if some Fulanis were not Ghanaians or that the destructive activities perpetuated by some Fulani herdsmen were done and shared by all Fulanis in Ghana, unfortunately.

           In recent times and even more recently in the first quarter of 2016, the menace has become more particularly awry and nauseating.  In  Agogo area of Ashanti region, in particular and other areas of the country in general, some of the Fulani herdsmen have allowed their cattle to be on unprecedented rampage destroying crops here and there and adversely affecting livelihoods thereof.

           The worst part of it is that because the systems put in place, including ‘operation cow Leg’ and local legal instruments, did not live up to expectation, the disgruntled innocent farmers got killed anyhow by criminal elements of the Fulani herdsmen whenever the farmers complained and reacted to the destruction brought onto their farmlands. This also came along with reprisal attacks where some innocent Fulanis may have been killed.

Ranching legislation

         To this day, hundreds have lost their lives to this menace, as the unfortunate situation persists and worsens. If left unchecked or continued to be checked lackadaisically with lack of thoroughness, coherence and decisiveness, many more innocent Ghanaians and foreign herdsmen are bound to lose their lives to the menace.

        In a democratic and peaceful country, it is very unacceptable to continue to leave indigenous Ghanaians and Fulani herdsmen to their own fate - as has largely been so far decorated with window-dressing and kneejerk reactions by authorities concerned. That is why there is more than needed a legally sustainable remedy championed by commitment and action to the course of lasting order and justice.

        It first brings into broader focus why there is the urgent need to reconsider the free-range manner in which livestock including cattle, sheep and goat are reared by most people in the country including both Fulanis and Indigenes.  To this, I propose the following - that a national legislation on rearing of cattle in particular and other ruminants should be fashioned out, enacted and promulgated with immediate effect. Core principles that should guide this legislation will include:

(i)                 Anyone owning, rearing or intending to rear cattle or such ruminants in Ghana must have ranch (es) or very restricted area(s) within which the animals can be kept and fed, much so that no such animals under the possession of any person or group of people can have the freedom to move freely outside the restricted borders to invade, tamper with and or destroy property of others.

This is mindful of the fact, to some extent, that the right to freedom of movement by these animals may be necessarily violated. Under the circumstance, this is the best especially so when the ranching legal framework should provide the most legally appropriate way the animals will be handled in the restricted space.

(ii)               Foreign migrants with cattle or such other ruminants while entering Ghana must under no circumstance be allowed into the country without absolute proof that they have the capacity to acquire space to rear and keep their animals in a restricted space. Without this proof and permit thereof, any such foreign animals and their possessors found illegally wandering in Ghana must have the owners immediately repatriated and have their animals seized for use by hospitals, prisons or such other empathic public establishments.  

With respect to foreign animals that have gained legal entry into the country, if they violate the articles of the legislation, the owners should be heavily fined and given a strong warning that three of such violations will result in heavy fines each with their outright repatriation and seizure of their animals on the last count.  

In the case of the indigenes or Ghanaians for that matter, first violation will result in heavy fine while three subsequent violations thereafter will result in heavy fines each with the last one attracting outright seizure of the animals.

This proposition is mindful of ECOWAS protocols on free movement of ‘persons, establishment and residence’ (Ch.IV). It also gives recognition to the 1992 constitution which protects the migration rights of foreigners under its own principles and the international laws it binds Ghana to respect and enforce.

The protocols or any international legal instruments by no means deposit any meaning which suggests that the right to free movement of goods, people and services should be recklessly achieved. If that were the case, then the protocols and such international legal instruments may have unreasonably outlived its purpose and far behind the reality of the times.  

(iii)             Strict licensing and monitoring mechanisms will be activated to ensure compliance with the tenets and components of the legislation. 

(iv)              The ministry of food and agriculture, in collaboration with district assemblies under local government ministry, ministry of justice and attorney general, ministry of interior, ministry of defence, Members of Parliament, Chiefs and opinion leaders, should be the implementing agency under the auspices of a commission.

(v)                By-laws of district assemblies on ranching should be developed and or strengthened to detail, protect and enhance the implementation of any legislation on ranching

Bottom-line

        Formulation, Passage and implementation of ranching law in Ghana are long overdue. The discussions on ranching legislation which started in 2012 have been in the pipeline for too long. The plight and voices of ordinary communities and farmers, particularly the Peasant Farmers Association, on expediting ranching law in Ghana must be respectively alleviated and heard forthwith.

       Burkina Faso, Cameroon and other countries in the sub-region have significantly curbed the menace of herdsmen through ranching. There is no excuse why Ghana must not act decisively now - If for nothing at all but at least to ensure harmony, peace and tranquility between farmers/local communities and cattle/animal owners or caretakers. It is important that the foregoing principles and guidelines are incorporated in the ranching law in order to secure a sustainable remedy to the menace of herdsmen in Ghana.

       In the meantime, the police and military should constantly have their boots and ears on the ground and take lawfully drastic actions against anyone who is found to disturb the peace of local communities with their cattle or such other livestock.

DIALOGUE WITH COMMONSENSE AND REALITY URGENTLY NEEDED IN SYRIA

It is widely acknowledged that even in the jungle where common sense is not common to common creatures, there is always a way of getting order maintained. There can thus  be no reason or excuse  whatsoever why for more than four years of devastating chaotic situations in Syria, international community is still struggling to find anything close to order in that country which used to be one of the prospering nations in the middle east. 

    Before the outbreak of the ‘non-peaceful’ protest which metamorphosed into a full-blown ‘armed rebellion’ against the existing establishment and President Assad’s regime in 2011, a major challenge facing Syria was some kind of entrenched dictatorship and lack of deep democratic governance. It was, therefore, in the right direction of those Syrians who were calling for democratic reforms much so in order that they would consolidate the socio-economic and political gains the country had made over the years.

   In light of socioeconomic development which President Bashar al-Assad was advancing and political reforms he was engineering as against his predecessors, this particular challenge of low level democratic credentials could have been described as a less severe challenge. This may not have required such a drastic response portrayed by the riotous demonstrators who appeared to have been emboldened by solidarity messages and postures from far and near, some of whom were even more undemocratic and autocratic. Most of the countries in the Arab league/middle east not an exception.  

    The principal reason behind international solidarity for the protesters against the Assad’s regime was the urge to allow the people of Syria to freely exercise their democratic right of free expression and association as protected by international law and over two thirds of all municipal constitutions and legislations.   For many of international power players who normally form the international community, however, this principal reason was just meretricious. It was simply a camouflage and an escape route to galvanize efforts to get their national and parochial interests protected and or advanced.  

    Apparently but ironically, Syria soon became a playground for interest maneuvering at the huge expense of Syrian lives that were pretentiously being defended. Arms were surprisingly delivered to a group of people that called themselves Free Syrian Army (FSA) and such other opposition elements but whose leadership and range of association was unpredictable, opaque and suspicious. In the process, Syrian Army and other security forces were overwhelmed by FSA and other splinter, dispersed opposition groups who seized towns, villages and cities while severely terrorizing thousands of civilians with weapons they had seized and those they got from their so-called friends who may not have had their interest deep at heart.

     Assad and his Army were now made to look for cover under desperation and thus moved tanks and heavy weaponry to city centers, shelled town, cities and villages and murdered thousands of civilians. That was all too wrong. Both government and opposition elements committed serious atrocities against humanity in the process of pandering to their selfish desires and that of their international masters.

    Central authority became a miniature controlling only few areas of the country while leaving strategic cities and towns especially close to the borders of its neighbors in the hands of array of amateur and professional fighters who grouped themselves into different independent sectarian associations fighting for all kinds of purposes including religious, political/power and economic. The coincidence of failure to effectively handle the Syrian lawlessness and Iraqi’s instability created a free zone between Iraq and Syria which resulted in the lawless groups fighting for religious, economic and political reasons to converge their common interest in forming the Islamic State group (ISIS).

   The way some elements of the international community were able to dramatically identify some of the groups as ‘legitimate and moderate’ while labeling others as hardliners and terrorists would definitely amaze any bystander that struggles to gain a refugee status in any of the countries sharing borders with Syria or even those beyond. Whatever method and processes they used to identify these groups as ‘moderate and legitimate’ are, to my mind, a suspect. It is not cast and stone. It is not about the labels but more to do with what atrocities all of these groups commit, although the disastrous operations of ISIS is all too outstanding. Delivering weapons and fighting aids to such people who hardly have a clear line of authority was and still is a miscalculation amongst those who may have really meant well for the stability and peace of Syria, other than their own parochial ends.  

     The fact is that some of these opposition elements sometimes fight themselves instead of uniting to oust Assad. But apart from the pro-government or pro-Assad fighters who also emerged to support sustainability of the regime, there is hardly a borderline between these opposition elements.  For instance, Free Syrian Army member today could easily become an ISIS member tomorrow or even later today. Al-Nusra front member today could easily become an FSA member anytime. Weapons and loyalties may well be freely crossing over from one opposition group to the other.

      The crisscrossing of weapons and membership or loyalty amongst these opposition elements send clear signal to how wrong international community has been handling the crisis in Syria. The staunch stance taken by some western leaders and their allies led by USA government asking Assad to completely step aside and allow the disorganized opposition elements to take over the governing affairs of Syria may have added salt to injury.

      Here was a man in Assad who knew the disaster that would befall him if he dared resigned and placed his personal fortunes in a lawless situation that had been created. To his mind, I suspect, Assad would have preferred fighting to death instead of resigning as would have easily been done in a free democratic society in the developed world where rule of law is allowed to prevail.  The threat to intervene or use force against Assad if he did not step aside, under the circumstance especially when he knew he still had some lingering support from world powers like Russia and perhaps China, was therefore ill-conceived.

      In fact, everyone knew and still knows the outstanding havoc that has been brought onto Libyans after North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other international powers, in cahoots with reckless domestic elements, helped to murder Muammar Gaddafi and destroying the whole central governance apparatus of the Libyan State which is now a failed State, never thought of even under the autocratic and maybe brutal regime of Gaddafi.

    Therefore, because of this wrong approach and disposition in the midst of increasing complications, an attempt by United States of America (USA), Arab league, Russia and other international interest groups to sponsor peace in Syria failed without waiting. Not even United Nations (UN) special visitations, resolutions and envoys could help return peace to Syria, conscious of the huge pretense that shrouded the sponsors of these resolutions, envoys and peace talks.

      The great Mr. Kofi Annan’s failure, resignation and damning departing statement as joint UN and Arab League special envoy in this regard could sum it better. Annan particularly goes as frustratingly saying; "[as] an envoy, I can't want peace more than the protagonists, more than the Security Council or the international community, for that matter”. Thus, none of the parties was interested in his six-point peace plan other than fostering their parochial interests. His successor, renowned Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, followed suit because the status quo which hampered efforts of Kofi Annan was persistent and perhaps even became more established.  

      When appeared to get out of control as some of the opposition elements under ISIS was said to pose a threat to USA national and global interests, USA government and her allies then launched air attacks on ISIS in September 2014 and over a year on, ISIS was still kidnapping and beheading innocent people, expanding membership and territories, and posing a threat to global peace and security.  At the same time, Assad’s regime appeared to be crumbling at one point and stabilizing at another point. Assad was probably just happy maintaining the small relevant territory he had under his control other than losing it all.

    While Russia was seriously battling with Ukraine/Crimea situation and western sanctions that came along, she may have been quite curiously and attentively watching events unfold in Syria. The daring reality was that the weapons Russia was supplying to Assad hardly changed the game because they were carefully and reluctantly supplied and or that there was inadequate manpower and infrastructure in Assad’s Syria to utilize the weapons supplied or intended to be supplied. Assad’s regime was apparently bleeding to the end while USA and her allies were apparently protecting and advancing their interest therein, of course, to the clear detriment of the existence of centrally established and recognized system.  Admittedly and admirably, the USA intervention helped to rescue the Yazidis in Iraq and of course slowed down ISIS expansion into Iraq with thousands of militants killed, according to USA - but not towards Assad.

     With idling weapons and military airpower searching for grounds to demonstrate, test and activate, President Vladimir Putin of Russia at a point felt that he could not continue to sit by with all of his power while allowing his ally, Assad, to be surreptitiously and openly ousted by international actors under the cover of international diplomacy and fighting against ISIS. Mr. Putin then mobilized his forces and entered the fray with vigor in September 2015, regardless of the consequences. As usual, Putin also pretended like USA and its allies that his airstrikes were only to disable ISIS and other terrorist groups.

    However, even though Putin stepped in to help Assad to regain stability and recapture lost territories, his forces after few months of operations have been said to significantly incur a serious blow on ISIS in Syria as they run more for safe haven than before. At the same time, Assad’s forces have been able to recapture strategic towns including Aleppo due to Russia’s airstrikes against some of the forces regarded by USA as legitimate and moderate opposition groups – which apparently are not recognized as such by Russia. Russia’s presence in Syria is a game changer and has indeed changed the game of recapturing territories, of course for Assad.

       Realizing the increasing gains and stability of Assad’s regime and the collision course USA was likely heading with Russia, which would be severely disastrous, the peace processes that had been somewhat dormant after the exit of Annan and Brahimi were enigmatically but naturally ignited resulting in the ongoing peace talks at Munich in Germany. 

       Quite clearly, US State Secretary, John Kerry and his counterparts have been able to pull strings and sober moves to galvanize mutual understanding which have led to the agreement by participating groups including Russia and warring factions in Syria to the cessation of hostilities in a week from 12^th February 2016. This move is certainly good news to anyone that has care and sympathy for thousands (at least 250, 0000) human lives that have been wasted and millions of suffering refugees, internally displaced or locked up civilians in Syria. However, to all intent and purposes, every independent observer would appreciate that the fact that even cease fire could not be used in the Munich agreement means a lot about how long Syria may be to stability.  It is also good news that BBC reported on Sunday 14^th February 2016 that Mr. Putin and President Barack Obama of USA have had a useful and encouraging telephone conversation in order to work together for peace in Syria.

    The fact is that despite diplomatic chess played between USA and Russia in the midst of these complex dynamics, Russia would not want to see anything that would make it impossible for her to complete its business of eliminating all threats to the existence of Assad’s regime. Russia also says she is defending her national interest because some of the fighters are Russians and would return to Russia to inflict terror on her citizens.  On the other hand, USA and her allies would want Assad to step down even though they may now feel it is a distant reality. However, it would be difficult to ask USA and her allies to stop supporting the course of the so-called ‘moderate and legitimate’ opposition elements such as FSA.

    Meanwhile both Assad’s regime and all opposition elements have committed horrendous acts, which would have been unpardonable. USA and her allies as well as Russia have equally caused the lost of many civilian lives during their air campaigns. The situation presents a nauseating competition between ideal situation, illegalities and disorderliness.  There has to be a middle line under the interwoven circumstances.

      That is the more reason why common sense approach along international legal perimeters must be made to prevail, henceforth.  I am not sure of what really has been put forward by parties at the peace talks in Munich. I would however want to posit that one clear pathway to common understanding is the resolve to ensure that Russia and USA together with her allies get the following done concurrently, without fail:

      Russia should immediately cease her airstrikes and prevail over Assad and his government to also end the hostilities as agreed in Munich. Any of pro-government forces that refuse to comply or to be prevailed upon by Assad or Russia should be regarded as enemies, targeted collectively and eliminated. At the same time, Russia and Assad should be made to recognize the ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition groups as viable partners to a peaceful and stable Syria while leaving no stone unturned to eliminate the visibly violent opposition groups as mutually identified by all legitimate partners in the game.

     In the same vein, USA and her allies should immediately stop its airstrikes and operations to weaken Assad’s regime while prevailing over the ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition groups to end all hostilities against Assad regime and its allies as well as making these groups recognize Assad as the only democratically elected and legitimate President of Syria. Any of such groups that cannot be prevailed upon by USA through peaceful means has to be destroyed by collective forces of both USA and Russia.

     If these feats are achieved, the opposition groups should be disbanded, the leaders of which made to play key roles in a new government that would be led by Assad until his 7 year tenure ends. The opposition elements may have the fear of being witch hunted, arbitrarily imprisoned or ostracized. These fears are legitimate and must be made to be part of the assurances Assad will give in a peace pact.

     Assad may also harbor the fear that these ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition elements may make his government ungovernable as they may not agree on governance processes. Although it is all about consensus building, these concerns should also be upon which assurances the opposition elements must give in the peace pact. Assad may also harbor the fundamental fear that if he steps aside after his legitimate tenure ends, he may be witch hunted by any opposition element that may succeed him. Guarantees should be given on this too so that Assad would feel safer and willing to exit the governance scene after his legitimate tenure expires.

      These are democratic sacrifices that ought to be made regardless of the inconveniences and moral issues that could be raised. Crucifying some democratic tenets or principles for a greater good is far better than maintaining or protecting such principles for a worse consequence when there may be none or only few left to bear any testimony, I dare say.

      All the warring factions must be made to understand quite clearly that anyone who breaches the tenets of the peace pact that would be signed shall be vehemently attacked by the combined forces of Russia, USA and her allies as well as concerned global forces. United Nations should see to the fullest implementation of the peace pact and processes.  Look, Assad and other warring factions excluding those outside the ‘somewhat in control’ of USA and her allies will respond swiftly if they see that USA and Russia are really committed to implementing decisions reached by all of them.  However, if these warring factions feel that Russia and USA and other Western powers are using Syria as a staging post for another cold war or a possible world war, they definitely would not take them very seriously.

       A clear message to Russia and the Western countries and their allies led by USA is that, it is neither in their interest nor in the interest of Syrians and the rest of the world to create any possibility that rehearses its way towards a cold war or a third world war.  Immediately however, the humanitarian and refugee crises caused by the Syrian conflict are terrible eyesores urgently seeking for urgent remedies.  While working assiduously to end the conflict through genuine overtures, the world leaders should please work around the clock to protect the fundamental human rights of  millions of refugees presented rightly by NATO’s Secretary General  on BBC radio of 13^th February 2016 as  the ‘biggest crises of refugees in Europe since the second world war’.

     Ultimately, the concern should not be about who is right or otherwise. What is most important under the prevailing circumstances must have everything to do with right things to do, going forward. Mutual and collective sacrifices, commitments, genuineness and open-mindedness must form the fortress on which the forward march efforts will be harnessed.  Otherwise, the Munich Peace talks may eventually end up to be a talk-shop that wasted every body’s precious time.

Is Lordina John Mahama that powerful and influential?

Before 2013, if there was any first lady in the history of Ghana who could have been said to have wielded so much power and influence in governance of Ghana, that person should arguably be Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings.  A wife of charismatic but dreaded President Jerry John Rawlings, even with her husband’s autocratic posture, Nana Konadu’s power and influence were hardly undermined. Especially riding on the back of Rawling’s popularity and 31^st December Movement, Nana Konadu became a common name of many households and establishments of State.

One may not be able to specifically determine the full extent to which Konadu Rawlings must have influenced government appointments, contracts and policies. But it definitely is the case that she lived a fulfilled life in the power to control and influence political decisions of her husband during the period Rawlings was sitting President of the republic between 1981 and 2001. However, during this period when she was overwhelmingly exposed to the largesse of the State, little would she have recognized that unmeasured use of too much power gets you addicted. And that when you allow yourself to get addicted to such power, you would eventually get to lose yourself anytime you no longer have the grips of it.

The reason for which Mrs. Rawlings, instead of enjoying her retirement in the comfort of her husband, rather looks frustrated is primarily because she had apparently abused the enjoyment of political power to the extent that she almost may have thought she would have had in her bosom the political power forever. So when the tenure of her husband finally ended in 2001, she amazingly saw a mirage in the image of apparition chasing her in her day dreams as if the lack of power reality that had dawned on her was fictitious. Neither her political party (NDC), a party founded by her husband, could contain her nor could any institutional structure. Without she and her husband in grips of political authority, nothing ever appear to be working well in Ghana again, to her flattered mind.

To this day, I suspect, Mrs. Rawlings would have wished she had treaded cautiously when she and her husband  ruled the country for more than one and half decades. The manner in which two succeeding first ladies postured themselves with political power was largely perceived to be clothed with humility. Thus, Mrs. Theresa Kufuor (President Kufuor’s Wife) and Mrs. Ernestina Naadu Mills (President Evans Atta Mills’ Wife) respectively succeeded Mrs. Rawlings as First Ladies of the republic in 2001 and 2009 but theirs is a story of fulfilment and let-go. Because they may have handled political power and influence with measured steps and expectations when their husbands were Presidents, they simply have been able to live quiet and uninterrupted lives after the departure of their husbands from the Presidency. The crowing of the cock is said to be a harbinger to the dawn.

The interesting precedence that has been set by previous First Ladies should therefore be a license to the more reason why Mrs. Lordina Dramani Mahama, current First Lady of Ghana, must wake up to the call of treading very cautiously with political power while her husband H.E President John Dramani Mahama  is still president of Ghana until 2016 or 2021. If the news making rounds in respect of Mrs. Lordina’s use of political power and influence were to be thought of, a few triggers other than worries would emerge in the reasoning processes.

Can the seemingly ludicrous insinuations, for example, by Nana Akuffo Addo that Mrs. Lordina lords over government’s contracts be borne out of factual grounds? Is Lordina Mahama in charge of ministerial and deputy ministerial appointments? Is Lordina Mahama in charge of appointment of board members and chief executives of state institutions? Is Mrs. Lordina in charge of distribution of projects, resources and opportunities to individuals, groups, regions and communities? Is Lordina Mahama managing the country from behind the scenes other than President John Mahama? How powerful really is Mrs. Lordina in influencing political decisions in Ghana? Is she using the name of the President to amass wealth?

Is the perception that Mrs. Lordina is the real President ill-perceived or overhyped or intentionally distorted or calculated attempts to get at President Mahama through his wife? Is Mrs. Mahama’s prominence in international scene and her support for the needy with the help of OAFLA and Lordina Foundation as well as her husband’s travels and popularity a fundamental reason behind the perception of how much governmental power she actually wields?

Undoubtedly, a good wife should be a strong pillar behind every successful home. It is hard to therefore think, for a minute, that any righteous President including President Mahama would not allow his wife including Nana Lordina to have a say in his government. At least, opinion or advice of the wife would always be sought by the husband on decisions that affect lives.  Also, in order to support the husband well in his political endeavor, the wife may have been given a political clout so that she would have some command to be respected in her dealings with the public.  It, however, gets awry when it tends to appear that the role of the president is usurped by the wife who should only be adviser and supporter.

To my mind, even though it is difficult to see smoke without a trace of spark of fire, the allegations being raised against Her Excellency Lordina Mahama may just be far too fetched. She may simply be playing her supportive role as wife of President of a republic where expectations and demands are too overwhelming on anyone that holds public office especially those deemed to be closer to the President or Presidency. 

Whatever the situation may be, Mrs. Lordina Mahama must be reminded that political power comes and goes. She must handle the opportunities she has now with utmost care, humility and prudence, knowing that she would be better placed to become a fulfilled former first lady in future only if she does not overplay the power and influence her husband has been given by the good people of Ghana. 

Haruna Iddrisu May Just Be A Victim Of Circumstances

Public Sector Management

       One of the major challenges facing public financial management in Ghana is unreliable, irregular and insufficient flow of funds from finance ministry to other ministries and their agencies and departments. The other challenge is expenditure on irrelevant and non-prioritized items induced either by the public management system or by indiscretion or indeed incompetence and rent-seeking.         In the case of Hon. Haruna Iddrisu (MP for Tamale South and Employment & Labour Relations’ Minister), the nature of the public financial management system of Ghana may have bugged him down in respect of the over a million Ghana cedis paid for membership dues and trip of 16 people or so to ILO Conference out of the coffers of Youth and Employment Agency (YEA) of Ghana.

Dilemma

         Apparently, the ministry of employment and labour relations was starved of cash and, so as a solace, Haruna Iddrisu succeeded to use the 'law' and ‘inappropriate best practice in the public sector' to, at all cost, find funds in order to meet Ghana's international legal obligations - the result of which was to unfortunately take funds from an agency not only in its formative stages and targeting the despondent and frustrated youth but also that which had been tainted with corruption scandals. Hon Haruna Iddrisu should have known better and acted differently even under desperation.

         But then, where was he to get the money to meet Ghana's obligations? Could he have denied Ghana's participation in ILO conference and also deferred payment of dues? Yes, he could have done that but what would have been the ramifications, especially so when President Mahama was scheduled to be a guest speaker or so of the conference? 

           But was it a must for President John Mahama to agree to be a guest speaker in the conference if he was told that the ministry of labour had no funds to sponsor the trip except to borrow from the YEA  which was struggling to survive?  In the past, how many people used to attend such a conference for Ghana?  Was spending over a million Ghana Cedis on  the dues and conference a continuation of what used to happen in the past or was this prudent and improvement or worst scenario thereof?

Final remarks

          All of these bring us back to a self-inflicted constrained finance ministry that appears to be out of touch with best practices of at least getting funds released on time to meet budgetary expectations of ministries, departments and agencies. It also tells us a weird spectacle of poor public financial management architecture in the country.  It also reminds us of the huge amount of monies developing countries including Ghana pay as membership dues to international organizations such as ILO, the overall comparative benefits thereof can generally be said to be questionable.  What Haruna did may have been lawful and authorized but it could not have been a prudent decision to take any pesewa from YEA to attend a conference, under normal circumstances and in the dire situation of YEA.

            Honestly, I don't think a whole government ministry (all other ministries included) should use funds of an agency to buy vehicles for supervisory purposes. The ministry itself should budget for such vehicles and allow the agency to budget for its own vehicles. They each should use their released allocations to purchase what they budgeted for.  Is this too much to ask for? Or is supervision of the agency not part of the mandate of the ministry? What is the basis for the law allowing funds to be taken from the agency by its ministry in discharge of the ministry’s mandate? I simply don’t seem to get it!

What if PNF Doesn’t Petition the President Against Charlotte Osei of EC!

              It is often said that ‘a stitch in time saves nine’ and that ‘it is only unitiated sheep who does not remember that the lion which had sprung a deadly surprise on goats could easily redirect its devouring spree to anyone it finds on its way, especially when the lion is seen lingering around the neighbourhood appearing to be hungrier’. The case of PNF and Mrs. Charlotte is that of intriguing narrative.

Record of PNF

              Progressive Nationalist Forum (PNF), a Pro-NPP youth group and great advocate for respect of 1992 Constitution of Ghana, began to earn my congenial respect when it successfully fought a constitutional battle to have Madam Lauretta Vivian Lamptey removed as CHRAJ Boss under article 146 and co of 1992 republican constitution. She was said to have flagrantly abused her office as Chairperson of CHRAJ by having unwisely spent tax payers’ money on hotel bills.  Hitherto, PNF through Mr. Richard Nyama also got a favourable Supreme Court Judgement directing government to comply with the GETFund Law of transferring statutory funds to GETFund on time.

PNF and EC Chair in tangle

         On the particular case of  Madam Lauretta which has some semblance with that of Mrs. Charlotte Osei’s, the spirit of the constitution watched on while public outcry struggled to come to terms with why she could be that profligate. When PNF started the case against Madam Lauretta, she was recalcitrant and called the bluff of PNF to have her impeached. At least, if she had acted timely and yielded to the key demand of her to resign, she would have saved some face.  She had waited until the situation got worst – beyond repairs.

           So when the same PNF frontally came out recently to allege that Mrs. Charlotte Osei may have been in breach of the constitution, Article 44(4) in particular, I was one of those whose interest was quickly drawn to it. One because of PNF’s past spirited defence of the constitution, and two because of the deep respect I had cautiously developed for the EC Chairperson, Madam Charlotte. Frankly, part of my respect for her was based on her good professional background and much the way she carefully, intelligently and attractively articulated the views of EC during the EC dialoguing conference on whether or not to compile a new electoral register for 2016 general elections.

            However, the next time I heard Madam Charlotte spoke, I was partly impressed and partly disappointed. She spoke to Samson Lardy Anyenini on ‘Joyfm Newsfile’ on 9^th day of January 2016. I was so impressed about the way she responded to all the questions on the electoral register and the processes that would lead to November 7, 2016 elections. She was dazzling as usual and caught the admiration of many listeners who appeared to be convinced like me that she is really best fit for EC Chairperson in critical times like election year.  

               I was nonetheless saddened that instead of to have used the opportunity to clear the air that she was not in breach of the constitutional provision in question as had been alleged by PNF, she rather chose to be evasive. She was of the view that the air will be cleared on the matter should PNF carries out its threat of  petitioning the President or sending her to Supreme Court or whichever place to seek for constitutional interpretation and  her removal.

              Question is: what if PNF does not file a petition against Mrs. Charlotte, how do we get the air cleared on whether or not she is in breach of the constitution? Wouldn't some sort of misperception linger on in people’s minds which may affect her integrity and that of EC?

            Before Charlotte intimated  that the air would be cleared when petition is filed, she kept saying to Samson, “you are a lawyer” and then – Samson read out from the constitution what the term means, which goes as, public office “includes [but may not be limited to] an office the emoluments attached to which are paid directly from the consolidated Fund or directly out of moneys provided by Parliament and an office in a public corporation established entirely out of public funds or moneys provided by Parliament” (Article 295:1, 1992 Constitution of Ghana).

        She was apparently persuading Samson and his listeners to infer therefrom that Ghana Reinsurance Company Ltd (Ghana Re) is not a public office and thus she could not have been in breach of article 44(4) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana which says that, ‘the Chairperson and the two Deputy Chairpersons of electoral commission shall not, while they hold office on the Commission, hold any other public office’. I have mixed feelings and understanding primarily because I don’t have the full information on what kind of company Ghana Re exactly is – save reading from website of Ghana RE that it is a government company!

Expectation on integrity

            In matters of integrity, even though you have the right to be measured in your response to legal issues so as not to be taken out of context or used against you in court, as long as you believe in merits and conviction of your actions, you don’t have to give the slightest chance for anyone to impugn culpability thereof. You have to, without wasting time, be bold to respond directly to allegations levelled against you in the best bravado of stamina you can marshal. This is especially more applicable to a deeply politicized society where the opposition NPP has already tried hard to raise integrity issues against Madam Charlotte, especially in respect of her unfortunately alleged soft-spot posture towards NDC.  Swift response is also particularly needed in light of the very sensitive and centripetal nature of EC.

             If you know you don’t have cobwebs in your cupboard, you don’t need to be found wanting when asked by a stranger to open it. It just did not sit down well with me as to why Mrs. Charlotte could not boldly state her position on the fact that, despite being EC Chairperson since July 2015 she was, as at December 2015, still a board member of Ghana Re, a 100% government owned company – according to www.ghanare.com (retrieved 9/Jan/2016: 12:30 pm).

               As a lawyer herself, after her appointment as EC Chairperson, she may have had addressed or averted her mind to conflicts of interest situations she could find herself in based on constitutional provisions. Did she do self introspection vis-à-vis integrity protection relative to relevant constitutional provisions before or after she accepted the job as EC boss? What did she find? Didn't she think that doubling as a board member of company with government of Ghana having 100% shares could draw her into some sort of controversies – rightly or wrongly?  

Final remarks

           In the scheme of things and the exigencies of the times, Madam Charlotte should do the honourable thing if she thinks or have gotten to recognize that Ghana Re is a public company and that she may have flouted the constitution of the republic. My candid and very considerate advice, in this regard, is that having already said to have resigned as board member of Ghana Re, she should quickly go ahead and refund to the State all the emoluments she took from July 2015 when she was made EC Chairperson - as demanded by PNF.  Further on, Madam Charlotte should publicly apologize to Ghanaians for any error of judgement on her part or for likely defilement of public interest.

             This may, at least, redress any perceived dent on Charlotte’s integrity and persuade PNF to seize the long haul battle it intends to have with her as it successfully had against Madam Lauretta. But for the meagreness of any alleged breach of the constitution and the closeness Ghana is to very crucial elections, my very principled position would have been, if proven culpable,  to just ask Madam Charlotte to immediately resign and give way to someone who has no such associated blemishes.

               On the other hand, if Madam Charlotte is convinced and persuaded to believe that she was or is not in conflict of interest situation being with EC and Ghana Re, then she should quickly issue a press statement denying that she is or was in conflict of interest situation and therefore shall not resign as EC Chairperson. She must respond and act decisively NOW.

                   We can’t afford to be debating her personality and extra-activities at the time when our focus should rather be on the best processes towards transparent, credible, free, fair and peaceful general elections in November 2016. In fact, we don’t have the luxury of such a time to waste. 

NEUTRAL PEOPLE MUST NOT BE NEUTRALLY IMPOSSIBLE ON EC

Neutrality

        I sometimes see neutrality as a meretricious subterfuge being brandished as a stance unassociated with the biases of either side of view or divide - almost far from being real.  I still, nonetheless, must be persuaded by the conviction that people who, by their own volition, have been captured into the family web of neutrality ought to be reminded to comply with the ideals and standards of being neutral. 

            For me, abstaining from commenting on, vouching for or doing any such thing that would have otherwise painted an objective picture of a given situation cannot be said to be a neutral act. Rather, neutrality largely concerns the extent to which people carefully and critically acquaint themselves with the facts of all sides and reaching a reasonable, logical and unbiased conclusion on what is appropriate or inappropriate. A neutral person or entity may have to be careful not to be directly specific on who or which is right or wrong. The unblemished facts often speak out the mind of a neutral arbiter.

              Neutral persons or entities necessarily ought to first give out a rendition on the standards and then allow credible factual narratives determine what is appropriate or otherwise. In this piece, attention would be drawn to entities or people who by their objectives, stature, stance, definitions, prescriptions, frameworks, constitutions or actions do portray themselves to the general public as neutral with independent and unbiased views on other people or entities who act in the interest of the general public.  In the eyes of the general public, for instance, unrented, un-idiotic and non-ideological Media stations, Pastors, Churches, Christian Associations, Imams, Mosques, Muslim Associations, and Civil Society Organizations including Think Tanks and their leaders are deemed neutral. Also,   the Electoral Commission of Ghana (EC) and the Courts are particularly seen and must be seen as unbiased arbiters – they are crucial democratic pillars and peace bastions of any nation.

Labelling of EC

            It therefore gets pathetically dangerous when some political interest groups and their surrogates in the otherwise neutral entities, have labelled or tried hard to label EC as a biased arbiter without any shred of credible basis to do so. In the history of electoral governance and management in Ghana, it is almost addictive of political parties and their surrogates in the media and civil society to praise EC when results of elections are declared in their favor.  In the same vein, the losing Parties have always found a way of chastising and denting the image and integrity of EC. Both National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP) have been in this kind of game unashamedly.

Election petition and electoral register

                This came to a head in 2012 general elections, when after all parties fairly and transparently participated in the elections upon which the losing NPP nearly held the whole country to a ransom for about a year. This they apparently did by trying to hide under legalese and technicalities not only to reverse the universal mandate of the people but to dent the image of EC while projecting their image to their unsuspecting supporters. The live proceedings of the case in court evinced that in spite of few lapses, the results as declared at 26000 + polling stations, in the full glare of all political reps, media, political observers and members of the public with additional strong room crosschecking by Party reps, had not been in any way tampered with by Dr Afari Gyan and EC – therefore should remain as such – the verdict concluded.  This, indeed, should have been the credit to EC that another neutral body, the Supreme Court, affirmed a neutral job done by the EC. The least neutrally expected rendition was to say EC image was battered by the court proceedings and verdict thereof.

Neutral people’s stance on register

               Ironically, the media that particularly got the results before Dr Afari Gyan got his in the ‘strong room’ of EC, intentionally and consistently allowed NPP and its surrogates to vociferously trumpet the erroneous understanding that the integrity of EC has been dented and almost thrown to the dogs. This is farther from the truth.  The project of making the EC look bad because one candidate fairly lost, even when his lyrical MPs who were supervised by the same system, continued unabated; That the register with which they claimed to have won 2012 elections was now under serious vibrating attack from NPP and its surrogates. A clear demand was therefore made on the EC to get Ghana a new register as they labeled the current register as ‘incurably flawed and not credible’. Minors and foreigners on the electoral register and, more seriously, stapled pictures compromising the whole biometric register were key amongst the reasons adduced.  

              Being an independent neutral body, EC instructively brought all stakeholders to a dialoguing conference where eminent panel of experts carefully listened to and questioned presenters on their position on the register. Clearly, the recurrent theme in the presentations was that despite some few challenges with the current register, a new register could not mitigate the situation. Rather, until what motivate the lapses on the register is dealt with, the traditional methods of cleaning up the register during exhibitions and so on could be the only plausible, cost effective, reasonable and legal option immediately available given the limited time to the 2016 general elections.

            The eminent panel then submitted their report to EC in December 2015 or so. EC saw wisdom and persuasion in the position of the report and decided to adopt the report which said that the current register should be maintained – new register was unnecessary. EC also responded to each of the allegations which NPP used to advocate for a new register.  The allegations were either dismissed or deemed unmeritorious. The net effect was that NPP did not have a very strong convincing case that could merit neither a new register nor the negative tagging given to EC.

              In all these, any neutral person or entity would have been very careful enough not to chastise EC for not yielding to the demands of NPP. At least, such a neutral person or persons should have been aware that NDC was cautiously against NPP’s position and waiting to see whether or not EC would go by the recommendations of the non-partisan eminent Ghanaians who constituted the panel. It would have been further noticed that any other position aside what EC took would have presented an unworthy precedence which could have been a recipe for disaster. For all you may know, if treated unjustly, NDC could equally be capable of unleashing the terror feared of NPP by the neutral people that are seen chastising EC for no just cause. In any sphere of arbitration, decisions reached by the arbitrators ought to be respected by all who care and have integrity.

Final remarks

           That said, what then would have been the basis for some supposed neutral people to pontificate to EC to have yielded to the demands of NPP or NDC – even if such demands were unmeritorious? What would have been the basis for saying, for example, that ‘EC should not take Ghanaians for granted’?  Which Ghanaian has EC taken for granted and where? A stance that obviously inhibits glister of neutrality of EC is a defeatist posture and an impossible neutral demand on EC.   The supposed unrented media should at least do Ghanaians a great favor to be very informed and critical on the so-called neutral people and insidious support they give to either NDC or NPP. This would expose any party planning mayhem to be quickly identified and dealt with by the largely peaceful Ghanaians.

             Everybody or at least most Ghanaians by now know that despite its inadequacies, EC in Ghana cannot or hardly can rig elections for any political party, with the current biometric electoral register and electoral system. It is only political parties especially NDC and NPP who, without vigilance from other political actors, may succeed in rigging elections in their strongholds where they may be able to hijack or coerce electoral officers to do the unthinkable. Let’s keep a Godlier eye on NDC and NPP so they do not slip by.

            The hysterical hypocrisy permeating the overtures of political corridors in the election year 2016 is dangerous – indeed very dangerous. Although it is difficult to stand the test of neutrality, neutral people in Ghana, must at least strive hard to merit being called neutral when it comes to electoral governance and management. People of integrity and of courage must not sit by aloof and let things get out of hands before they act.

                Have a splendid time!