REACTIONS TO the news that former first lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang-Rawlings, who turns 62 on November 17 and is preparing to contest for the flag-bearership of the ruling NDC in 2012, have been extreme. Majority of the vociferous voices say it would be a disaster. But, how true is this?
She is arguably the most politically exposed and politically experienced Ghanaian female around. She was an active First Lady for 19 years, whose mobilisation prowess is legendary.
This is a woman who runs a women's movement (31st December Women's Movement), which at one time boasted of a two-million membership nationwide.
She has described it as a “broad based development oriented Non-Governmental Organisation that aspires to achieve [its] objectives through the effective mobilisation of women.”
In her, the NDC has a woman who has a solid three-decade record of mass mobilization; A woman who has the confidence to mix with the shakers and movers of the world; A woman who will die for the party; A woman with a handbag filled with iron balls and who is not afraid to swing it.
So if Ghana is ready for a female presidential candidate, then Mrs. Rawlings is a credible candidate. She more than qualifies.
But, would it be wise for her to stand against a sitting president, in a presidential primary? The fact that it didn't happen to Messrs Rawlings and Kufuor does not mean the prospect of her candidacy should be dismissed outright.
President Rawlings faced no opposition in 1996 because it was his ‘personal’ party and his popularity was never in doubt.
After all, he single-handedly decided for the party who his successor should be. President Kufuor did not face any challenge in 2004 because he had run the country credibly, and his popularity was not in doubt.
Can the same be said of President Mills today? Certainly not. Don't forget Mills is in a position quite similar to what the Democrats faced in the 1960s.
Nixon had earlier lost to JFK by a margin of 0.2%. Nixon sought for re-nomination as the Republican presidential candidate and won.
With his nationwide popularity assured, he came back and won the presidency. It is not cast in stone that incumbent presidents should not be challenged by their party members.
That decision is a calculated one based on prevailing pros and cons - chances of the party being re-elected or defeated by sticking to the incumbent leader. The NDC cannot leave anything to chance.
They should allow those positioning themselves to challenge Mills to do so, or risk being stuck with a losing candidate in 2012. The prospect of a challenge may even challenge President Mills to make a more serious attempt towards delivering a better Ghana than he is so far managing to do.
Also, in spite of all his threats of seeking a second term, it is far from certain that Mills will be in contention in 2012. That decision may not be entirely his to make.
But, with some 2,000 delegates to decide who leads the NDC in 2012 (in the event of a contest), any serious challenge against Mills will call for a significant expansion of the party's electoral college.
The NDC has next year's annual national conference to effect any such constitutional reforms. It should not be seen as an anti-Mills expansion, but rather an expansion for the sake of the party.
In 2007, it was the small size of the electoral college of the NPP that encouraged 17 people with some loose change (money to spare) to throw their hat into the NPP ring.
In the end, that orgy of ego trip cost the party dearly, in portraying it as corrupt, and in dividing the front. It prevented the eventual winner from going into the 2008 election with a clear mandate from his own party. A bigger electoral college will be a better test of the popularity of whoever emerges as the 2012 NDC candidate.
If Mills believes he is popular within his party, then let him sponsor such an exercise and take away probable allegations of vote-buying.
Ghanaians should not find it politically profane the fact that the wife of a former president may be thinking of contesting to be president. Exactly two years ago, Americans were preparing themselves for a possible President Hillary Clinton.
The world's longest serving female leader, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, was born into the politically influential Nehru family. Her grandfather, Motilal Nehru, was a prominent Indian nationalist leader. Her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was the first Prime Minister of Independent India.
The late Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan, was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state. She was the eldest child of former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and was the wife of current Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari.
In Mongolia, Suhbaataryn Yanjmaa, who became Head of State between 1953 and 1954, was the widow of national hero Sühbaatar, and arguably the absolute first woman political ruler in contemporary history.
Between 1968-1972, Song Qingling, the widow of doctor Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Chinese Republic, and the sister-in-law of Marshall Chiang Kai-shek, his successor as president of the Republic of China (then Taiwan), was co-president of the People's Republic of China.
Indeed, from 31 Oct 1968, to 24 Feb 1972, no Head of State was mentioned in the communist state, but Dong Biwu and Song Qingling were Vice Presidents by then (she was elected to the post in 1954, after being deputy premier since 1949), so, de facto (and in theory), both leaders shared the presidential duties in 1968-1972.
Furthermore, when in 1976, Zhu De, who was then the head of state and chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (the presidency of the Republic was officially abolished the previous year), passed away, a vacancy period was inaugurated and not filled until 1978, with the appointment of Ye Jianying.
In these months were the 21 vice-chairmen, among them four women: Song Qingling, Cai Chang, Li Suwen, and (from 2 Dec 1976) Deng Yingchao, the widow of just deceased premier Zhou Enlai. Shortly before Song's death, she was elected “Honorary President” of the People's Republic of China.
In Argentina, Maria Estela ‘Isabel’ Martinez de Peron, served as president from 1 Jul 1974 to 24 Mar 1976.
She replaced her husband Juan Domingo Perón as president, immediately after his death, since she held the Vice-Presidency of the Republic and the presidency of the Senate since the 1973 electoral victory of the 'Perón-Perón' formula. In fact, Perón's incapacitation forced her to act as president since Jun 29.
She was the first woman who became president, both in America and in the world. And also was the first one ousted in a military coup.
Cory Aquino of the Philippines is another example of a widow who succeeded her husband as president. After Benigno Aquino's assassination in 1983, she became Asia's first woman president.
The widow of Pedro Joaquín Chamorro, assassinated in 1978, also became the president of Nicaragua from 1990 to 1997.
Chandrika Kumaratunga, the daughter of the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times prime minister of Sri Lanka, served both as prime minister and president, and both through democratic elections.
Upon her election as president in 1994, the daughter appointed her mother as prime minister.
Chandrika's father and Sirimavo's husband, Solomon, was assassinated while being prime minister in 1959. The same thing happened to Chandrika's husband, Vijaya Kumaratunga, who also assassinated in 1988.
Until 2009, Janet Jagan was the President of Guyana. She was also prime minister in 1997. She succeeded her husband, Cheddi Jagan, in the presidency, some months after his passing.
The sixth woman occupying the presidential office in America, and the second one with an additional premiership experience in the world (the first one was Sri Lanka's Chandrika Kumaratunga), Mireya Elisa Moscoso de Arias, the first woman president of Panama, also took advantage of her status as widow of former president Arnulfo Arias Madrid.
Maria Arroyo, the current president of the Philipines, is the daughter of late president Diosdado Macapagal, and the country's second woman president.
Certainly, Mrs. Rawlings has plenty of international precedent to support her bid. Her challenge is finding enough party support to finally make good this two-decade long ambition of hers.
For people like Nii Lamptey Vanderpuye, the presidential aide who dismisses her bid with contempt, they should be reminded that she was even more responsible for the formation of the party they belong to today than even her husband.
In 1992, Kojo Tsikata and co, the CPP elements within the PNDC, were happy to piggy back an Nkrumaist vehicle, like Kweku Boateng's NCCP.
It was Konadu Agyemang-Rawlings, who managed to convince Obed Asamoah to support the project of going alone to set up a new party.
The others were very sceptical, but she was not. I guess the same forces are today sceptical about her chances as presidential candidate. They should know by now that the lady is not for writing-off.
qanawu.blog.spot.com
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Goodbye Brown, hello Cameron, welcome Clegg
Britain goes to the polls today. The main candidates are Gordon Brown of Labour, David Cameron of the main opposition Conservatives and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats. Labour supporters and members of parliament are bracing themselves for a humiliating defeat today.
Thirteen years of Labour Party rule in Britain has taken its toll. The wind of change that blew across the Atlantic from America to Ghana has made a vertical shoot via the Greenwich Meridian to the UK. The campaign slogan of the main opposition party in the UK is “Vote for Change”.
Yet the outcome of the UK general election on May 6 is by no means certain. To use the cover story of the Focus on Africa Magazine in 2008 on the Ghanaian elections, it is ‘Too Close To Call’. About a year ago, today was supposed to be a done deal for the younger Cameron. That the Conservative leader should be going into today's poll with the result far too close to call is a surely a testament to the humiliating deficiencies of his campaign, according to one commentary.
David Cameron, the 43 year-old leader of the Conservative Party, a contemporary of mine in the Young Conservatives (the Tory youth win) during university years, would have had an easier go at getting the needed majority to form the next government, but he has not been able to deal decisively with serious doubts about his experience, capability and substance as a formidable politician.
Until today, out of a total of 646 seats, Labour controlled 345 seats, the Conservative Party 193, Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) 63. Dr Brown led with a working majority of 56, less 289 of all other parties - excluding Speaker & Deputies and the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who refused to take their seats at Westminster).
Yesterday, YouGov opinion poll left the Conservatives on 35%, the Lib Dems on 24% (down 4) and Labour on 30% (+2). The last two days saw the three candidates doing night shifts all in a bid to win over the floating voters. Of the 116 marginal/swing constituencies, the Conservatives need to win to form an overall majority, 26 are held by Lib Dem and 90 are Labour. Nine of them could go to any of the three parties and 81 are LAB-CON marginals.
It is for this reason that in the last few days, Labour has been calling for tactical voting in favour of Lib Dem in areas that they know Labour can by no means unseat the Tories. They are also calling on Lib Dem sympathisers to give their votes to Labour to keep out the Tories. If this anti-Tory pact works, Labour would end up holding on to 81 seats, while the Lib Dems would hold on to 26 and gain nine.
Tactical voting is defined as a conscious decision by a voter to back a party other than the one they support, in a pragmatic bid to secure a more desirable result in their constituency.
But, Qanawu does not expect a large shift in support from Lib Dem to Labour. Labour has gone stale. Nobody doubts Mr Brown’s handling of the recession-hit UK economy. Yet, Britons have seen their living standards suffered in the last couple of years and there can be no scapegoat as convenient as the incumbent government.
As the Daily Express believes only David Cameron can save Britain, telling readers “David Cameron has decisively won the case for change. But he needs a clear mandate. So the Daily Express urges readers to vote Conservative tomorrow. The future of our nation is at stake.”
In fact, out of the 15 most influential newspapers in the UK, two (Guardian and Observer) have shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, only one, the Mirror, is for Labour while advocating tactical voting for Lib Dem. The rest are all for the Conservative Party, including the Financial Times, Times and the Observer, which had not supported the Tories for at least 18 years.
As if it is an European conspiracy, just yesterday, the European Commission warned that the British budget deficit will swell this year to become the biggest in the European Union, overtaking even Greece. The EC’s spring economic forecasts put the UK deficit for this calendar year at 12% of GDP, the highest of all 27 EU nations and worse than the Treasury's own forecasts. It is also likely to help the Conservatives because there are doubts that a hung parliament will have the clout to rapidly reduce the deficit. A hung parliament is when no single party has enough seats to form a majority government on its own.
The Conservatives are likely to win their fight to oust the ruling Labour Party, but it is clear that no one party is likely to have an overall majority. The last time Britain had a hung parliament was in 1974 and that was short-lived because the cabinet could not even agree on how refuse should be collected. What seems obvious, despite all the scare tactics of the last few days is that the old voting system which produced a two-and-a-half party system in British politics will change from today. The smaller Lib Dem has finally arrived, a fate that our own Nkrumaist parties have not been able to achieve since 1992.
The inexperienced, Eton-educated Cameron has managed to give the Tories a new, soft image from the old haughty right-wing image. But, bringing the Tories to the centre has only made it more difficult for the voters to differentiate between the two main parties. In 1997 when Britons voted for change after 18 years under the Tories, there was a clear delineation between left and right, between Conservative and Labour. Now the lines are blurred.
This has forced the Liberals to be more left wing than the social democrats of Labour. The Lib Dems know that their only hope of having a piece of the governing cake is through a coalition.
Paul Stone, the public law expert at DLA Piper argues that a coalition government can lead to laws that are “often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of review and compromise”. Ironically, the wife of Nick Clegg (the apostle of coalition) works for DLA Piper.
Nick Clegg said in Durham called out to Britons to come out and vote in their numbers. “It might be a small cross [on the ballot paper] but it will be a big step towards a better, fairer Britain,” he says.
Like Dr Kwesi Nduom in 2008, Nick Clegg’s star shone the brightest in the first debate, with his purported disdain for the “old politics”, and taking easy pot shots at the other two. But, unlike Nduom, Clegg has managed to stay significant in the polls after the debates. Cleggmania had sustainability.
Desperate Brown is did a lot of walking, talking and even smiling with more confidence, shaking more greasy factory hands and carrying more pampers-wearing babies than he thought necessary some weeks ago. This is very different to the earlier campaign, which was all about getting the PM to meet his supporters in controlled environments.
“I know there are people who say, or hope, that the election is already over. But I tell you that tomorrow is the time for the thousands of people to speak for themselves. Tomorrow doesn't belong to the press, to the commentators, to the insiders, to the vested interests or even to the political parties. Tomorrow your voice shall be heard and your vote will determine the direction of this country.” That was Brown yesterday.
But my prediction is that he would be forced to resign on May 7 and with Labour having a new leader, and the conservatives just falling short of a working majority there is every chance for Clegg to be a kingmaker, forming a coalition government with Labour under a new leader. I certainly hope David triumphs and deliver a brighter Britain.
The Daily Telegraph, in backing David Cameron reminds readers that the Conservative is still “Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time...”
The Sunday Telegraph editorial still believes that there is a marked difference between the two main parties: “Despite the parties' attempts to capture the all-important middle ground, the differences between them are clear. Labour believes that only the state can solve the country's economic and social problems. The Conservatives, by contrast, believe that the growth of the central state is the cause of the problem, not its solution, and want to call upon the invigorating power of citizens and communities.”
qanawu.blogspot.com
Thirteen years of Labour Party rule in Britain has taken its toll. The wind of change that blew across the Atlantic from America to Ghana has made a vertical shoot via the Greenwich Meridian to the UK. The campaign slogan of the main opposition party in the UK is “Vote for Change”.
Yet the outcome of the UK general election on May 6 is by no means certain. To use the cover story of the Focus on Africa Magazine in 2008 on the Ghanaian elections, it is ‘Too Close To Call’. About a year ago, today was supposed to be a done deal for the younger Cameron. That the Conservative leader should be going into today's poll with the result far too close to call is a surely a testament to the humiliating deficiencies of his campaign, according to one commentary.
David Cameron, the 43 year-old leader of the Conservative Party, a contemporary of mine in the Young Conservatives (the Tory youth win) during university years, would have had an easier go at getting the needed majority to form the next government, but he has not been able to deal decisively with serious doubts about his experience, capability and substance as a formidable politician.
Until today, out of a total of 646 seats, Labour controlled 345 seats, the Conservative Party 193, Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) 63. Dr Brown led with a working majority of 56, less 289 of all other parties - excluding Speaker & Deputies and the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who refused to take their seats at Westminster).
Yesterday, YouGov opinion poll left the Conservatives on 35%, the Lib Dems on 24% (down 4) and Labour on 30% (+2). The last two days saw the three candidates doing night shifts all in a bid to win over the floating voters. Of the 116 marginal/swing constituencies, the Conservatives need to win to form an overall majority, 26 are held by Lib Dem and 90 are Labour. Nine of them could go to any of the three parties and 81 are LAB-CON marginals.
It is for this reason that in the last few days, Labour has been calling for tactical voting in favour of Lib Dem in areas that they know Labour can by no means unseat the Tories. They are also calling on Lib Dem sympathisers to give their votes to Labour to keep out the Tories. If this anti-Tory pact works, Labour would end up holding on to 81 seats, while the Lib Dems would hold on to 26 and gain nine.
Tactical voting is defined as a conscious decision by a voter to back a party other than the one they support, in a pragmatic bid to secure a more desirable result in their constituency.
But, Qanawu does not expect a large shift in support from Lib Dem to Labour. Labour has gone stale. Nobody doubts Mr Brown’s handling of the recession-hit UK economy. Yet, Britons have seen their living standards suffered in the last couple of years and there can be no scapegoat as convenient as the incumbent government.
As the Daily Express believes only David Cameron can save Britain, telling readers “David Cameron has decisively won the case for change. But he needs a clear mandate. So the Daily Express urges readers to vote Conservative tomorrow. The future of our nation is at stake.”
In fact, out of the 15 most influential newspapers in the UK, two (Guardian and Observer) have shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, only one, the Mirror, is for Labour while advocating tactical voting for Lib Dem. The rest are all for the Conservative Party, including the Financial Times, Times and the Observer, which had not supported the Tories for at least 18 years.
As if it is an European conspiracy, just yesterday, the European Commission warned that the British budget deficit will swell this year to become the biggest in the European Union, overtaking even Greece. The EC’s spring economic forecasts put the UK deficit for this calendar year at 12% of GDP, the highest of all 27 EU nations and worse than the Treasury's own forecasts. It is also likely to help the Conservatives because there are doubts that a hung parliament will have the clout to rapidly reduce the deficit. A hung parliament is when no single party has enough seats to form a majority government on its own.
The Conservatives are likely to win their fight to oust the ruling Labour Party, but it is clear that no one party is likely to have an overall majority. The last time Britain had a hung parliament was in 1974 and that was short-lived because the cabinet could not even agree on how refuse should be collected. What seems obvious, despite all the scare tactics of the last few days is that the old voting system which produced a two-and-a-half party system in British politics will change from today. The smaller Lib Dem has finally arrived, a fate that our own Nkrumaist parties have not been able to achieve since 1992.
The inexperienced, Eton-educated Cameron has managed to give the Tories a new, soft image from the old haughty right-wing image. But, bringing the Tories to the centre has only made it more difficult for the voters to differentiate between the two main parties. In 1997 when Britons voted for change after 18 years under the Tories, there was a clear delineation between left and right, between Conservative and Labour. Now the lines are blurred.
This has forced the Liberals to be more left wing than the social democrats of Labour. The Lib Dems know that their only hope of having a piece of the governing cake is through a coalition.
Paul Stone, the public law expert at DLA Piper argues that a coalition government can lead to laws that are “often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of review and compromise”. Ironically, the wife of Nick Clegg (the apostle of coalition) works for DLA Piper.
Nick Clegg said in Durham called out to Britons to come out and vote in their numbers. “It might be a small cross [on the ballot paper] but it will be a big step towards a better, fairer Britain,” he says.
Like Dr Kwesi Nduom in 2008, Nick Clegg’s star shone the brightest in the first debate, with his purported disdain for the “old politics”, and taking easy pot shots at the other two. But, unlike Nduom, Clegg has managed to stay significant in the polls after the debates. Cleggmania had sustainability.
Desperate Brown is did a lot of walking, talking and even smiling with more confidence, shaking more greasy factory hands and carrying more pampers-wearing babies than he thought necessary some weeks ago. This is very different to the earlier campaign, which was all about getting the PM to meet his supporters in controlled environments.
“I know there are people who say, or hope, that the election is already over. But I tell you that tomorrow is the time for the thousands of people to speak for themselves. Tomorrow doesn't belong to the press, to the commentators, to the insiders, to the vested interests or even to the political parties. Tomorrow your voice shall be heard and your vote will determine the direction of this country.” That was Brown yesterday.
But my prediction is that he would be forced to resign on May 7 and with Labour having a new leader, and the conservatives just falling short of a working majority there is every chance for Clegg to be a kingmaker, forming a coalition government with Labour under a new leader. I certainly hope David triumphs and deliver a brighter Britain.
The Daily Telegraph, in backing David Cameron reminds readers that the Conservative is still “Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time...”
The Sunday Telegraph editorial still believes that there is a marked difference between the two main parties: “Despite the parties' attempts to capture the all-important middle ground, the differences between them are clear. Labour believes that only the state can solve the country's economic and social problems. The Conservatives, by contrast, believe that the growth of the central state is the cause of the problem, not its solution, and want to call upon the invigorating power of citizens and communities.”
qanawu.blogspot.com
Goodbye Brown, hello Cameron, welcome Clegg
Britain goes to the polls today. The main candidates are Gordon Brown of Labour, David Cameron of the main opposition Conservatives and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats. Labour supporters and members of parliament are bracing themselves for a humiliating defeat today.
Thirteen years of Labour Party rule in Britain has taken its toll. The wind of change that blew across the Atlantic from America to Ghana has made a vertical shoot via the Greenwich Meridian to the UK. The campaign slogan of the main opposition party in the UK is “Vote for Change”.
Yet the outcome of the UK general election on May 6 is by no means certain. To use the cover story of the Focus on Africa Magazine in 2008 on the Ghanaian elections, it is ‘Too Close To Call’. About a year ago, today was supposed to be a done deal for the younger Cameron. That the Conservative leader should be going into today's poll with the result far too close to call is a surely a testament to the humiliating deficiencies of his campaign, according to one commentary.
David Cameron, the 43 year-old leader of the Conservative Party, a contemporary of mine in the Young Conservatives (the Tory youth win) during university years, would have had an easier go at getting the needed majority to form the next government, but he has not been able to deal decisively with serious doubts about his experience, capability and substance as a formidable politician.
Until today, out of a total of 646 seats, Labour controlled 345 seats, the Conservative Party 193, Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) 63. Dr Brown led with a working majority of 56, less 289 of all other parties - excluding Speaker & Deputies and the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who refused to take their seats at Westminster).
Yesterday, YouGov opinion poll left the Conservatives on 35%, the Lib Dems on 24% (down 4) and Labour on 30% (+2). The last two days saw the three candidates doing night shifts all in a bid to win over the floating voters. Of the 116 marginal/swing constituencies, the Conservatives need to win to form an overall majority, 26 are held by Lib Dem and 90 are Labour. Nine of them could go to any of the three parties and 81 are LAB-CON marginals.
It is for this reason that in the last few days, Labour has been calling for tactical voting in favour of Lib Dem in areas that they know Labour can by no means unseat the Tories. They are also calling on Lib Dem sympathisers to give their votes to Labour to keep out the Tories. If this anti-Tory pact works, Labour would end up holding on to 81 seats, while the Lib Dems would hold on to 26 and gain nine.
Tactical voting is defined as a conscious decision by a voter to back a party other than the one they support, in a pragmatic bid to secure a more desirable result in their constituency.
But, Qanawu does not expect a large shift in support from Lib Dem to Labour. Labour has gone stale. Nobody doubts Mr Brown’s handling of the recession-hit UK economy. Yet, Britons have seen their living standards suffered in the last couple of years and there can be no scapegoat as convenient as the incumbent government.
As the Daily Express believes only David Cameron can save Britain, telling readers “David Cameron has decisively won the case for change. But he needs a clear mandate. So the Daily Express urges readers to vote Conservative tomorrow. The future of our nation is at stake.”
In fact, out of the 15 most influential newspapers in the UK, two (Guardian and Observer) have shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, only one, the Mirror, is for Labour while advocating tactical voting for Lib Dem. The rest are all for the Conservative Party, including the Financial Times, Times and the Observer, which had not supported the Tories for at least 18 years.
As if it is an European conspiracy, just yesterday, the European Commission warned that the British budget deficit will swell this year to become the biggest in the European Union, overtaking even Greece. The EC’s spring economic forecasts put the UK deficit for this calendar year at 12% of GDP, the highest of all 27 EU nations and worse than the Treasury's own forecasts. It is also likely to help the Conservatives because there are doubts that a hung parliament will have the clout to rapidly reduce the deficit. A hung parliament is when no single party has enough seats to form a majority government on its own.
The Conservatives are likely to win their fight to oust the ruling Labour Party, but it is clear that no one party is likely to have an overall majority. The last time Britain had a hung parliament was in 1974 and that was short-lived because the cabinet could not even agree on how refuse should be collected. What seems obvious, despite all the scare tactics of the last few days is that the old voting system which produced a two-and-a-half party system in British politics will change from today. The smaller Lib Dem has finally arrived, a fate that our own Nkrumaist parties have not been able to achieve since 1992.
The inexperienced, Eton-educated Cameron has managed to give the Tories a new, soft image from the old haughty right-wing image. But, bringing the Tories to the centre has only made it more difficult for the voters to differentiate between the two main parties. In 1997 when Britons voted for change after 18 years under the Tories, there was a clear delineation between left and right, between Conservative and Labour. Now the lines are blurred.
This has forced the Liberals to be more left wing than the social democrats of Labour. The Lib Dems know that their only hope of having a piece of the governing cake is through a coalition.
Paul Stone, the public law expert at DLA Piper argues that a coalition government can lead to laws that are “often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of review and compromise”. Ironically, the wife of Nick Clegg (the apostle of coalition) works for DLA Piper.
Nick Clegg said in Durham called out to Britons to come out and vote in their numbers. “It might be a small cross [on the ballot paper] but it will be a big step towards a better, fairer Britain,” he says.
Like Dr Kwesi Nduom in 2008, Nick Clegg’s star shone the brightest in the first debate, with his purported disdain for the “old politics”, and taking easy pot shots at the other two. But, unlike Nduom, Clegg has managed to stay significant in the polls after the debates. Cleggmania had sustainability.
Desperate Brown is did a lot of walking, talking and even smiling with more confidence, shaking more greasy factory hands and carrying more pampers-wearing babies than he thought necessary some weeks ago. This is very different to the earlier campaign, which was all about getting the PM to meet his supporters in controlled environments.
“I know there are people who say, or hope, that the election is already over. But I tell you that tomorrow is the time for the thousands of people to speak for themselves. Tomorrow doesn't belong to the press, to the commentators, to the insiders, to the vested interests or even to the political parties. Tomorrow your voice shall be heard and your vote will determine the direction of this country.” That was Brown yesterday.
But my prediction is that he would be forced to resign on May 7 and with Labour having a new leader, and the conservatives just falling short of a working majority there is every chance for Clegg to be a kingmaker, forming a coalition government with Labour under a new leader. I certainly hope David triumphs and deliver a brighter Britain.
The Daily Telegraph, in backing David Cameron reminds readers that the Conservative is still “Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time...”
The Sunday Telegraph editorial still believes that there is a marked difference between the two main parties: “Despite the parties' attempts to capture the all-important middle ground, the differences between them are clear. Labour believes that only the state can solve the country's economic and social problems. The Conservatives, by contrast, believe that the growth of the central state is the cause of the problem, not its solution, and want to call upon the invigorating power of citizens and communities.”
qanawu.blogspot.com
Thirteen years of Labour Party rule in Britain has taken its toll. The wind of change that blew across the Atlantic from America to Ghana has made a vertical shoot via the Greenwich Meridian to the UK. The campaign slogan of the main opposition party in the UK is “Vote for Change”.
Yet the outcome of the UK general election on May 6 is by no means certain. To use the cover story of the Focus on Africa Magazine in 2008 on the Ghanaian elections, it is ‘Too Close To Call’. About a year ago, today was supposed to be a done deal for the younger Cameron. That the Conservative leader should be going into today's poll with the result far too close to call is a surely a testament to the humiliating deficiencies of his campaign, according to one commentary.
David Cameron, the 43 year-old leader of the Conservative Party, a contemporary of mine in the Young Conservatives (the Tory youth win) during university years, would have had an easier go at getting the needed majority to form the next government, but he has not been able to deal decisively with serious doubts about his experience, capability and substance as a formidable politician.
Until today, out of a total of 646 seats, Labour controlled 345 seats, the Conservative Party 193, Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) 63. Dr Brown led with a working majority of 56, less 289 of all other parties - excluding Speaker & Deputies and the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who refused to take their seats at Westminster).
Yesterday, YouGov opinion poll left the Conservatives on 35%, the Lib Dems on 24% (down 4) and Labour on 30% (+2). The last two days saw the three candidates doing night shifts all in a bid to win over the floating voters. Of the 116 marginal/swing constituencies, the Conservatives need to win to form an overall majority, 26 are held by Lib Dem and 90 are Labour. Nine of them could go to any of the three parties and 81 are LAB-CON marginals.
It is for this reason that in the last few days, Labour has been calling for tactical voting in favour of Lib Dem in areas that they know Labour can by no means unseat the Tories. They are also calling on Lib Dem sympathisers to give their votes to Labour to keep out the Tories. If this anti-Tory pact works, Labour would end up holding on to 81 seats, while the Lib Dems would hold on to 26 and gain nine.
Tactical voting is defined as a conscious decision by a voter to back a party other than the one they support, in a pragmatic bid to secure a more desirable result in their constituency.
But, Qanawu does not expect a large shift in support from Lib Dem to Labour. Labour has gone stale. Nobody doubts Mr Brown’s handling of the recession-hit UK economy. Yet, Britons have seen their living standards suffered in the last couple of years and there can be no scapegoat as convenient as the incumbent government.
As the Daily Express believes only David Cameron can save Britain, telling readers “David Cameron has decisively won the case for change. But he needs a clear mandate. So the Daily Express urges readers to vote Conservative tomorrow. The future of our nation is at stake.”
In fact, out of the 15 most influential newspapers in the UK, two (Guardian and Observer) have shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, only one, the Mirror, is for Labour while advocating tactical voting for Lib Dem. The rest are all for the Conservative Party, including the Financial Times, Times and the Observer, which had not supported the Tories for at least 18 years.
As if it is an European conspiracy, just yesterday, the European Commission warned that the British budget deficit will swell this year to become the biggest in the European Union, overtaking even Greece. The EC’s spring economic forecasts put the UK deficit for this calendar year at 12% of GDP, the highest of all 27 EU nations and worse than the Treasury's own forecasts. It is also likely to help the Conservatives because there are doubts that a hung parliament will have the clout to rapidly reduce the deficit. A hung parliament is when no single party has enough seats to form a majority government on its own.
The Conservatives are likely to win their fight to oust the ruling Labour Party, but it is clear that no one party is likely to have an overall majority. The last time Britain had a hung parliament was in 1974 and that was short-lived because the cabinet could not even agree on how refuse should be collected. What seems obvious, despite all the scare tactics of the last few days is that the old voting system which produced a two-and-a-half party system in British politics will change from today. The smaller Lib Dem has finally arrived, a fate that our own Nkrumaist parties have not been able to achieve since 1992.
The inexperienced, Eton-educated Cameron has managed to give the Tories a new, soft image from the old haughty right-wing image. But, bringing the Tories to the centre has only made it more difficult for the voters to differentiate between the two main parties. In 1997 when Britons voted for change after 18 years under the Tories, there was a clear delineation between left and right, between Conservative and Labour. Now the lines are blurred.
This has forced the Liberals to be more left wing than the social democrats of Labour. The Lib Dems know that their only hope of having a piece of the governing cake is through a coalition.
Paul Stone, the public law expert at DLA Piper argues that a coalition government can lead to laws that are “often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of review and compromise”. Ironically, the wife of Nick Clegg (the apostle of coalition) works for DLA Piper.
Nick Clegg said in Durham called out to Britons to come out and vote in their numbers. “It might be a small cross [on the ballot paper] but it will be a big step towards a better, fairer Britain,” he says.
Like Dr Kwesi Nduom in 2008, Nick Clegg’s star shone the brightest in the first debate, with his purported disdain for the “old politics”, and taking easy pot shots at the other two. But, unlike Nduom, Clegg has managed to stay significant in the polls after the debates. Cleggmania had sustainability.
Desperate Brown is did a lot of walking, talking and even smiling with more confidence, shaking more greasy factory hands and carrying more pampers-wearing babies than he thought necessary some weeks ago. This is very different to the earlier campaign, which was all about getting the PM to meet his supporters in controlled environments.
“I know there are people who say, or hope, that the election is already over. But I tell you that tomorrow is the time for the thousands of people to speak for themselves. Tomorrow doesn't belong to the press, to the commentators, to the insiders, to the vested interests or even to the political parties. Tomorrow your voice shall be heard and your vote will determine the direction of this country.” That was Brown yesterday.
But my prediction is that he would be forced to resign on May 7 and with Labour having a new leader, and the conservatives just falling short of a working majority there is every chance for Clegg to be a kingmaker, forming a coalition government with Labour under a new leader. I certainly hope David triumphs and deliver a brighter Britain.
The Daily Telegraph, in backing David Cameron reminds readers that the Conservative is still “Built on the concept that the state should do less, better, and that decisions are best taken as closely as possible to where they impact, it addresses the straitened circumstances of the time...”
The Sunday Telegraph editorial still believes that there is a marked difference between the two main parties: “Despite the parties' attempts to capture the all-important middle ground, the differences between them are clear. Labour believes that only the state can solve the country's economic and social problems. The Conservatives, by contrast, believe that the growth of the central state is the cause of the problem, not its solution, and want to call upon the invigorating power of citizens and communities.”
qanawu.blogspot.com
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
NPP ASPIRANTS, LEAVE KUFUOR ALONE AND DEFEAT THE BLAME GAME
'Just take a deep breath and exhale slowly,' said a veteran politician in the wake of a presidential defeat. 'Forget about the finger-pointing, and start figuring out the way to a future that makes us relevant not just to our traditional constituency but to independents and independent-thinking NPP and NDC sympathisers.'
This was the opening remarks of an article I wrote on January 10, 2009 with the title ‘NPP MUST DEFEAT THE BLAME GAME’.
But, in the last week alone, there are reports of a New Patriotic Party constituency chairman blaming former President Kufuor for the 2008 electoral defeat and a Regional Organiser redirecting blame towards the 2008 flagbearer. The regional officer effectively blamed Nana Akufo-Addo for ‘engineering’ the prosecution of Kwadwo Mpiani and co over GIA!
This is not healthy for Ghana’s democracy and certainly not for the opposition party. Ghanaians are eager to see the NPP directing its attention on the ruling party and offering alternatives to what the government has to offer.
I have a personal experience on how damaging the blame game can be to a family. Four years ago today, April 6, my cousin and best friend, Ferdinand Ayim died in a road accident. It was a most painful loss! The family was almost torn apart as the blame game started. Witches were blamed; family members were blamed; politicians were blamed; some of us were blamed for discouraging him, through a political calculation, from running for the NPP General Secretary position in 2005. Being the General Secretary, it was simplistically argued, would not have occasioned him travelling on an official government duty about paragliding!
Instructively, the blame game was by and large fed by people who were not members of our family, including pastors and jujumen. They succeeded in knocking our heads together. This blame game almost marred the funeral of a commonly loved one.
But, blamers and accusers alike could understand the pain that was driving the blame game. We were all pained and looking for an escape. However, we chose to manufacture answers in the blame game and risked tearing the family apart. The family of course recovered, but it cost us dearly. Rest in peace my brother!
For the next three months the NPP risks being consumed by the blame game and in a manner that could eat away the unifying anatomy of the Elephant Family. But, there are a lot of positive things happening in the party. There is a revived commitment to work harder and better at the grassroots level. The party’s challenge now is how to get through the next 3 months unscathed.
On Sunday, I witnessed an NPP constituency chairman addressing some party supporters, specifically, in Jerusalem, Kpong Kantamanso. He said, as Vice Chairman in 2008, not once did he come to that area to campaign and that this was not an isolated incident. But, that they are determined to correct the shortcomings of the past and work harder for 2012. The polling station chairman of the area also spelt out plans to create a welfare system and build a closed and caring family of NPP sympathisers in his area.
There are others who are determined to focus on the past to make a case for the future, however. This is not unusual. But, it should be checked. Focusing on whether Alan Kyerematen resigned or not in 2008 is unhelpful and divisive. Let him sell his message and leave it to the over 114,000 delegates to decide. Also, aspirants and their supporters should leave former President Kufuor out of this flagbearership contest. This contest is not about Kufuor. Kufuor played the biggest role in the party’s success and would play a significant role for the party’s future. Just leave him out of anything that seeks to divide the party. Even if he is not neutral the party should resist temptations to drag him into the centre of this campaign. Let those campaigning cry their own proverbial cry.
There are those who use their personal grievances against the former President to throw their weight behind a particular candidate and use that vehicle to settle personal scores. There are others, who believe they can only advance their intra-political cause by seeking factional refuge under Kufuor. They would, with uncontrolled passion, jump into the defence of the former President but in a manner that is divisive only to score a political goal by portraying an internal competitor as anti-Kufuor. There should be greater discipline from all sides.
There is always a legitimate reason in any competition to show why you are better than your competitor, which may invariably call for some comparisons. Yet, the dynamics of internal politics call for some sensitivity in using this tactic, and the reasons are too obvious to articulate but can be summed up as the need to protect and promote post-intra-contest cohesion, trust and unity.
For example, I have heard it said that the NPP did not sell its 8 years achievements well. Well, who can forget what compelled John Mahama to say comparing records was mediocre! Indeed, any scientific analysis of NPP campaign adverts and other message formats will confirm that the ruling party in 2008 spent more campaign time and money telling Ghanaians about Kufuor’s achievements (NHIS, Capitation Grants, School Feeding Programme, Roads, etc) than telling Ghanaians what to expert in the future. Nana Akufo-Addo’s IEA debate also showed how the party had the unique three-prong task of incumbency of promoting achievements, defending government decisions and projecting hope and promise for the future.
As I write, communication strategists are, for example, busily passing on ‘information’ to newspaper editors about their points-scoring interpretation of how the 2008 campaign was badly ran. They are of course free to do so. Some are bent on making this flagbearership campaign a retrospective one of apportioning blame, rather than what the party should do to win back power.
I believe the article I wrote in January 2009 is still relevant today. I reproduce it below with some portions deleted for space or emphasised for effect:
'Just take a deep breath and exhale slowly,' said a veteran politician in the wake of a presidential defeat. 'Forget about the finger-pointing, and start figuring out the way to a future that makes us relevant not just to our traditional constituency but to independents and independent-thinking NPP and NDC sympathisers.'
Nonetheless, the blame game is in full swing. In the wake of the declaration of Prof John Evans Atta Mills as the President of the Republic, Kukrudites are engaging in the 'losing' party's ritualistic exercise of recrimination, re-examination and very little rebuilding. Bang in the middle of this licking and healing of wounds process is The Blame Game. The President, the Presidential Candidate, Campaign Director, National Officers, Regional and Constituency Officers, former presidential aspirants and close aides to Akufo-Addo are all being fingered in what was arguably the most innovative campaign in our political history.
While it may help deal with a 'defeat' that was shocking and was more than avoidable, it risks creating new cracks for a party that can certainly look forward to a Happier 2012 than this New Year.
My bottom-line message for hyperventilating Kukrudites sorting through the wreckage of their declared defeat at the polls is this: the New Patriotic Party should quickly move away from group or individual blame game and focus its attention on re-examining, and causing to reform, systems and structures that paved the way for the sword of office to be snatched away from the Elephant's jaws of victory and fumbled over to the National Democratic Congress.
Regardless of what might have gone on in the past, especially during the presidential primaries, no leading member of the NPP, from President Kufuor through ambitious ones like Alan Kyerematen and Dan Botwe, to constituency chairmen like Nhyiaeso's Jokad, would have wished defeat on the party they love. After all, there is even better protection and comfort in being perceived 'opposition' within a ruling party than being in opposition with your party.
However, when full direct, effective communications are compromised, rumours and presumptions have their own peculiar way of manufacturing their own realities from facts conjured from the fertile but destructive imaginations from characters afflicted with the classic Pull Him Down syndrome of the Ghanaian cultural environment. This is the danger that the NPP faces as it continues to lick its wounds by using scapegoats as a soothing balm.
Within some very serious circles of the party, John Agyekum Kufuor has been accused of doing Nana Addo in. An abominable thought about a man, who sacrificed over 30 years of his political life to the Danquah-Dombo-Busia tradition before being duly elected President of the Republic. Mr Kufuor is a very pained man. Pained by the fact that he could not hand over power to a deserving successor from his own party, Akufo-Addo. Pained by the fact that his personal decision to exercise his choice to back Mr Kyerematen in the 2007 primaries, has allowed his contribution to the 2008 campaign to be reviewed (after the facts) with some suspicion.
On the other hand, some are saying that the campaign team was made up of 'JAK's enemies' and thus no one wanted him to be involved. They have conveniently ignored the intimate and strategic roles played by some notable Kufuor loyalists. JAK, like Nana, you and I, may have people who don't like him but are they to be seen as his enemies?
Instead, names such as Yaw Osafo-Maafo, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, Kofi Apraku and Dan Botwe are cited, men who were deemed good enough to be in Kufuor’s cabinet. First of all, the four men were part of the campaign because they had shown their value in previous campaigns and they were among the 17 aspirants, in a campaign that operated on the philosophy of inclusiveness and unity.
For those who say the President was left out of the campaign, they should cross-check the regular weekly meetings Dr Apraku and, almost daily meetings others in the campaign had with Kwadwo Mpiani, President Kufuor's Chief of Staff.
After 8 years in office, facing the electorate in a year that global food and oil prices reached unprecedented heights, this was a year certainly for opposition politics: just refer to high cost of living. Especially, facing an opposition that was ruthlessly sharp in connecting with the vulnerabilities of the poor masses and was not afraid to climb on the ladder of tribalism to occupy a new presidential palace the investment on which it convinced Ghanaians it would rather have seen gone into a poultry farm, the incumbent NPP had its work cut out.
It is always easier after a defeat to say the NPP was not attacking hard enough, not responding to attacks, nuanced responses to difficult questions, etc. Now, people are wondering why the NPP did not make Prof Mills' health an issue or whip up Akan sentiments. Some are even angry that the President did not use the coercive powers of the state to call a state of emergency in the Volta Region or Tain.
I believe posterity would judge the NPP, Akufo-Addo and Kufuor favourably for not allowing the threat of defeat to compromise long-held principles. It was rather the NDC (then an opposition party) which issued threats of 'victory or violence'. The NPP has every reason to be proud of its record of performance both in office and in the polls. And, Kufuor must be praised for handling over power, peacefully.
In rounding-up terms, Nana Akufo-Addo won the endorsement of fifty percent of Ghanaian voters. The NPP is very strong in the legislature, with an exciting leadership that include the experience of Kyei-Mensah and the energy of Ambrose Derry.
For those stuck in the low gear of the blame game, the cheers from the thousands of party rank and file that greeted the arrivals and speeches of Chairman Peter Mac Manu, Nana Akufo-Addo and J A Kufuor, at Saturday's Thanksgiving Service at the Trade Fair Centre, said it all: the grassroots want the blame game to stop and campaign 2012 to begin now.
The party effectively had less than six months to campaign in 2008. The party took a decision to keep the flagbearer out of NPP-held constituencies until parliamentary candidates were chosen in April, May, and June. Nana was campaigning against a man who had been on every NDC presidential ticket since 1996. The first Akufo-Addo billboard came up in June 2008.
Indeed, it was Kwabena Agyepong who came out with the slogan ‘The Best Man for Ghana’, a direct counter to NDC’s ‘Better Man for Ghana.’ The billboard blitz was a claculated strategy to short circuit Nana’s popularity against the much marketed Mills.
The NPP 2008 campaign actually started in earnest in July, after the Kasoa rally. Before that, Akufo-Addo had to form a team that could combine the twin requisites of reconciliation and campaign efficacy.
The campaign had a committee in charge of Security. Its job was to liaise with the necessary organs of state to ensure that what happened in some nine constituencies in the Volta Region - the alleged assault, intimidation and multiple voting - would be under control.
An Identifiable Group Committee was set up, to among other things, listen to the concerns of groups such as fishermen, commercial drivers, teachers, etc., and see how government or the campaign message could address them, without needing to go for a run-off to apologise.
An Electoral Affairs Committee was set up to not only recruit and train polling agents, but also to prevent the use of an anticipated Ways & Means strategy from the other side and to ensure that the integrity of electoral officers was not compromised.
In all, two gospel concerts and four Believe in Ghana concerts were staged in the night, after campaigning hours, as part of the strategy of attracting some significant constituencies to the party. The total number of four BIG concerts took place in Cape Coast, Tamale, Accra and Kumasi, which critics now say dominated the campaign.
I believe some of the fundamental answers to what went wrong in 2008 may be found by taking a reconstructive look at the party's constitution. The focus must be on how party officers and candidates are nominated.
How to ensure logistics and money deployed to party branches do in fact get there. How the party branches can be revitalised to serve more than mere election machines. How the party can begin mapping out plans for a new grassroots movement that will give them a path back to power.
Signs are that the next two years would be economically difficult. Akufo-Addo sounded the alarm bells when he held a press conference on the effects of the global financial crisis on Ghana, which his opponents thought was too pompous (too known). The party must begin putting the Mills government on its toes. No sleep for the populists. Now is their chance to care for the populace.
The December 2008 debacle should not be seen as a repudiation of the NPP. We should rather see it as a period of deep reflection for the average Ghanaian. The country now has four years to assess the gap between populism and performance; between propaganda and delivering an agenda; between NPP and NDC and between Akufo-Addo and Mills.
We shall all be pro-active witnesses on how the Mills government focuses on the concerns of average Ghanaians, many of whom we now know as floating voters. The NDC, after making all the cheap but effective noises in opposition must now show they have compelling answers for the problems they identified as uppermost in the lives of the Ghanaian people.
Winning or losing election is not so much about individuals but by building efficient and reliable structures and systems. For example, a monitoring system that would guarantee that money allocated from the centre gets to the intended recipient. The philosophy behind the monitoring team was good but it had implementation problems. The idea was to bring on board people like Regional Ministers, DCEs and former executives who were seen as having something to contribute to the campaign at that level.
For example, the Ashanti Regional campaign monitoring team included, Albert Kan-Dapaah, (Defence Minister), Yaw Amankwa, Regional Chairman, Emmanuel Owusu Ansah, Regional Minister, Patricia Appiagyei, Kumasi MCE and FF Antoh, former former Regional Chairman.
The NPP has not the luxury to engage in infighting. Their first responsibility is not to advance the egos of any inner group or individual, it is to the people whose interest politicians seek to advance - the people.
In the words of an Australian opposition leader, 'and that really means we have an obligation to, in the, you know, gladiatorial nature of politics in this country to do what we can to ensure that we are in government as soon as possible, given that we are in opposition everywhere. And that in government, we are actually able to produce the best possible role, results, for the people that we are seeking to serve. Calm down -- and start building a bigger tent.'
gabby@danquahinstitute.org
This was the opening remarks of an article I wrote on January 10, 2009 with the title ‘NPP MUST DEFEAT THE BLAME GAME’.
But, in the last week alone, there are reports of a New Patriotic Party constituency chairman blaming former President Kufuor for the 2008 electoral defeat and a Regional Organiser redirecting blame towards the 2008 flagbearer. The regional officer effectively blamed Nana Akufo-Addo for ‘engineering’ the prosecution of Kwadwo Mpiani and co over GIA!
This is not healthy for Ghana’s democracy and certainly not for the opposition party. Ghanaians are eager to see the NPP directing its attention on the ruling party and offering alternatives to what the government has to offer.
I have a personal experience on how damaging the blame game can be to a family. Four years ago today, April 6, my cousin and best friend, Ferdinand Ayim died in a road accident. It was a most painful loss! The family was almost torn apart as the blame game started. Witches were blamed; family members were blamed; politicians were blamed; some of us were blamed for discouraging him, through a political calculation, from running for the NPP General Secretary position in 2005. Being the General Secretary, it was simplistically argued, would not have occasioned him travelling on an official government duty about paragliding!
Instructively, the blame game was by and large fed by people who were not members of our family, including pastors and jujumen. They succeeded in knocking our heads together. This blame game almost marred the funeral of a commonly loved one.
But, blamers and accusers alike could understand the pain that was driving the blame game. We were all pained and looking for an escape. However, we chose to manufacture answers in the blame game and risked tearing the family apart. The family of course recovered, but it cost us dearly. Rest in peace my brother!
For the next three months the NPP risks being consumed by the blame game and in a manner that could eat away the unifying anatomy of the Elephant Family. But, there are a lot of positive things happening in the party. There is a revived commitment to work harder and better at the grassroots level. The party’s challenge now is how to get through the next 3 months unscathed.
On Sunday, I witnessed an NPP constituency chairman addressing some party supporters, specifically, in Jerusalem, Kpong Kantamanso. He said, as Vice Chairman in 2008, not once did he come to that area to campaign and that this was not an isolated incident. But, that they are determined to correct the shortcomings of the past and work harder for 2012. The polling station chairman of the area also spelt out plans to create a welfare system and build a closed and caring family of NPP sympathisers in his area.
There are others who are determined to focus on the past to make a case for the future, however. This is not unusual. But, it should be checked. Focusing on whether Alan Kyerematen resigned or not in 2008 is unhelpful and divisive. Let him sell his message and leave it to the over 114,000 delegates to decide. Also, aspirants and their supporters should leave former President Kufuor out of this flagbearership contest. This contest is not about Kufuor. Kufuor played the biggest role in the party’s success and would play a significant role for the party’s future. Just leave him out of anything that seeks to divide the party. Even if he is not neutral the party should resist temptations to drag him into the centre of this campaign. Let those campaigning cry their own proverbial cry.
There are those who use their personal grievances against the former President to throw their weight behind a particular candidate and use that vehicle to settle personal scores. There are others, who believe they can only advance their intra-political cause by seeking factional refuge under Kufuor. They would, with uncontrolled passion, jump into the defence of the former President but in a manner that is divisive only to score a political goal by portraying an internal competitor as anti-Kufuor. There should be greater discipline from all sides.
There is always a legitimate reason in any competition to show why you are better than your competitor, which may invariably call for some comparisons. Yet, the dynamics of internal politics call for some sensitivity in using this tactic, and the reasons are too obvious to articulate but can be summed up as the need to protect and promote post-intra-contest cohesion, trust and unity.
For example, I have heard it said that the NPP did not sell its 8 years achievements well. Well, who can forget what compelled John Mahama to say comparing records was mediocre! Indeed, any scientific analysis of NPP campaign adverts and other message formats will confirm that the ruling party in 2008 spent more campaign time and money telling Ghanaians about Kufuor’s achievements (NHIS, Capitation Grants, School Feeding Programme, Roads, etc) than telling Ghanaians what to expert in the future. Nana Akufo-Addo’s IEA debate also showed how the party had the unique three-prong task of incumbency of promoting achievements, defending government decisions and projecting hope and promise for the future.
As I write, communication strategists are, for example, busily passing on ‘information’ to newspaper editors about their points-scoring interpretation of how the 2008 campaign was badly ran. They are of course free to do so. Some are bent on making this flagbearership campaign a retrospective one of apportioning blame, rather than what the party should do to win back power.
I believe the article I wrote in January 2009 is still relevant today. I reproduce it below with some portions deleted for space or emphasised for effect:
'Just take a deep breath and exhale slowly,' said a veteran politician in the wake of a presidential defeat. 'Forget about the finger-pointing, and start figuring out the way to a future that makes us relevant not just to our traditional constituency but to independents and independent-thinking NPP and NDC sympathisers.'
Nonetheless, the blame game is in full swing. In the wake of the declaration of Prof John Evans Atta Mills as the President of the Republic, Kukrudites are engaging in the 'losing' party's ritualistic exercise of recrimination, re-examination and very little rebuilding. Bang in the middle of this licking and healing of wounds process is The Blame Game. The President, the Presidential Candidate, Campaign Director, National Officers, Regional and Constituency Officers, former presidential aspirants and close aides to Akufo-Addo are all being fingered in what was arguably the most innovative campaign in our political history.
While it may help deal with a 'defeat' that was shocking and was more than avoidable, it risks creating new cracks for a party that can certainly look forward to a Happier 2012 than this New Year.
My bottom-line message for hyperventilating Kukrudites sorting through the wreckage of their declared defeat at the polls is this: the New Patriotic Party should quickly move away from group or individual blame game and focus its attention on re-examining, and causing to reform, systems and structures that paved the way for the sword of office to be snatched away from the Elephant's jaws of victory and fumbled over to the National Democratic Congress.
Regardless of what might have gone on in the past, especially during the presidential primaries, no leading member of the NPP, from President Kufuor through ambitious ones like Alan Kyerematen and Dan Botwe, to constituency chairmen like Nhyiaeso's Jokad, would have wished defeat on the party they love. After all, there is even better protection and comfort in being perceived 'opposition' within a ruling party than being in opposition with your party.
However, when full direct, effective communications are compromised, rumours and presumptions have their own peculiar way of manufacturing their own realities from facts conjured from the fertile but destructive imaginations from characters afflicted with the classic Pull Him Down syndrome of the Ghanaian cultural environment. This is the danger that the NPP faces as it continues to lick its wounds by using scapegoats as a soothing balm.
Within some very serious circles of the party, John Agyekum Kufuor has been accused of doing Nana Addo in. An abominable thought about a man, who sacrificed over 30 years of his political life to the Danquah-Dombo-Busia tradition before being duly elected President of the Republic. Mr Kufuor is a very pained man. Pained by the fact that he could not hand over power to a deserving successor from his own party, Akufo-Addo. Pained by the fact that his personal decision to exercise his choice to back Mr Kyerematen in the 2007 primaries, has allowed his contribution to the 2008 campaign to be reviewed (after the facts) with some suspicion.
On the other hand, some are saying that the campaign team was made up of 'JAK's enemies' and thus no one wanted him to be involved. They have conveniently ignored the intimate and strategic roles played by some notable Kufuor loyalists. JAK, like Nana, you and I, may have people who don't like him but are they to be seen as his enemies?
Instead, names such as Yaw Osafo-Maafo, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, Kofi Apraku and Dan Botwe are cited, men who were deemed good enough to be in Kufuor’s cabinet. First of all, the four men were part of the campaign because they had shown their value in previous campaigns and they were among the 17 aspirants, in a campaign that operated on the philosophy of inclusiveness and unity.
For those who say the President was left out of the campaign, they should cross-check the regular weekly meetings Dr Apraku and, almost daily meetings others in the campaign had with Kwadwo Mpiani, President Kufuor's Chief of Staff.
After 8 years in office, facing the electorate in a year that global food and oil prices reached unprecedented heights, this was a year certainly for opposition politics: just refer to high cost of living. Especially, facing an opposition that was ruthlessly sharp in connecting with the vulnerabilities of the poor masses and was not afraid to climb on the ladder of tribalism to occupy a new presidential palace the investment on which it convinced Ghanaians it would rather have seen gone into a poultry farm, the incumbent NPP had its work cut out.
It is always easier after a defeat to say the NPP was not attacking hard enough, not responding to attacks, nuanced responses to difficult questions, etc. Now, people are wondering why the NPP did not make Prof Mills' health an issue or whip up Akan sentiments. Some are even angry that the President did not use the coercive powers of the state to call a state of emergency in the Volta Region or Tain.
I believe posterity would judge the NPP, Akufo-Addo and Kufuor favourably for not allowing the threat of defeat to compromise long-held principles. It was rather the NDC (then an opposition party) which issued threats of 'victory or violence'. The NPP has every reason to be proud of its record of performance both in office and in the polls. And, Kufuor must be praised for handling over power, peacefully.
In rounding-up terms, Nana Akufo-Addo won the endorsement of fifty percent of Ghanaian voters. The NPP is very strong in the legislature, with an exciting leadership that include the experience of Kyei-Mensah and the energy of Ambrose Derry.
For those stuck in the low gear of the blame game, the cheers from the thousands of party rank and file that greeted the arrivals and speeches of Chairman Peter Mac Manu, Nana Akufo-Addo and J A Kufuor, at Saturday's Thanksgiving Service at the Trade Fair Centre, said it all: the grassroots want the blame game to stop and campaign 2012 to begin now.
The party effectively had less than six months to campaign in 2008. The party took a decision to keep the flagbearer out of NPP-held constituencies until parliamentary candidates were chosen in April, May, and June. Nana was campaigning against a man who had been on every NDC presidential ticket since 1996. The first Akufo-Addo billboard came up in June 2008.
Indeed, it was Kwabena Agyepong who came out with the slogan ‘The Best Man for Ghana’, a direct counter to NDC’s ‘Better Man for Ghana.’ The billboard blitz was a claculated strategy to short circuit Nana’s popularity against the much marketed Mills.
The NPP 2008 campaign actually started in earnest in July, after the Kasoa rally. Before that, Akufo-Addo had to form a team that could combine the twin requisites of reconciliation and campaign efficacy.
The campaign had a committee in charge of Security. Its job was to liaise with the necessary organs of state to ensure that what happened in some nine constituencies in the Volta Region - the alleged assault, intimidation and multiple voting - would be under control.
An Identifiable Group Committee was set up, to among other things, listen to the concerns of groups such as fishermen, commercial drivers, teachers, etc., and see how government or the campaign message could address them, without needing to go for a run-off to apologise.
An Electoral Affairs Committee was set up to not only recruit and train polling agents, but also to prevent the use of an anticipated Ways & Means strategy from the other side and to ensure that the integrity of electoral officers was not compromised.
In all, two gospel concerts and four Believe in Ghana concerts were staged in the night, after campaigning hours, as part of the strategy of attracting some significant constituencies to the party. The total number of four BIG concerts took place in Cape Coast, Tamale, Accra and Kumasi, which critics now say dominated the campaign.
I believe some of the fundamental answers to what went wrong in 2008 may be found by taking a reconstructive look at the party's constitution. The focus must be on how party officers and candidates are nominated.
How to ensure logistics and money deployed to party branches do in fact get there. How the party branches can be revitalised to serve more than mere election machines. How the party can begin mapping out plans for a new grassroots movement that will give them a path back to power.
Signs are that the next two years would be economically difficult. Akufo-Addo sounded the alarm bells when he held a press conference on the effects of the global financial crisis on Ghana, which his opponents thought was too pompous (too known). The party must begin putting the Mills government on its toes. No sleep for the populists. Now is their chance to care for the populace.
The December 2008 debacle should not be seen as a repudiation of the NPP. We should rather see it as a period of deep reflection for the average Ghanaian. The country now has four years to assess the gap between populism and performance; between propaganda and delivering an agenda; between NPP and NDC and between Akufo-Addo and Mills.
We shall all be pro-active witnesses on how the Mills government focuses on the concerns of average Ghanaians, many of whom we now know as floating voters. The NDC, after making all the cheap but effective noises in opposition must now show they have compelling answers for the problems they identified as uppermost in the lives of the Ghanaian people.
Winning or losing election is not so much about individuals but by building efficient and reliable structures and systems. For example, a monitoring system that would guarantee that money allocated from the centre gets to the intended recipient. The philosophy behind the monitoring team was good but it had implementation problems. The idea was to bring on board people like Regional Ministers, DCEs and former executives who were seen as having something to contribute to the campaign at that level.
For example, the Ashanti Regional campaign monitoring team included, Albert Kan-Dapaah, (Defence Minister), Yaw Amankwa, Regional Chairman, Emmanuel Owusu Ansah, Regional Minister, Patricia Appiagyei, Kumasi MCE and FF Antoh, former former Regional Chairman.
The NPP has not the luxury to engage in infighting. Their first responsibility is not to advance the egos of any inner group or individual, it is to the people whose interest politicians seek to advance - the people.
In the words of an Australian opposition leader, 'and that really means we have an obligation to, in the, you know, gladiatorial nature of politics in this country to do what we can to ensure that we are in government as soon as possible, given that we are in opposition everywhere. And that in government, we are actually able to produce the best possible role, results, for the people that we are seeking to serve. Calm down -- and start building a bigger tent.'
gabby@danquahinstitute.org
Saturday, April 3, 2010
A MONTHLY CHRONOLOGY OF MOBOCRACY UNDER PROF MILLS
Qanawu Gabby
In May 2009, Nana Akufo-Addo made a statement that was twisted by his detractors in the ruling party to portray him as rather a bellicose character on the outs and his party belligerent:
“Fellow Ghanaians, Instead of uniting us and fostering peace, the last four months have been spent intimidating innocent citizens and political opponents. We have seen physical attacks on NPP members in several parts of the country, including Agbobloshie, Kumasi, and Tamale.
“In the Tamale incidents of February 17th, violence erupted after discussions on Radio Justice following the seizure of my vehicle by agents of National Security. According to the report of the NPP Committee sent to investigate, which was confirmed by the press, there were arson attacks in Nyihini, Lameshegu, Worizehi, Choggu and Gumbihini.
“All the 27 properties that were attacked belonged to NPP members. Not a single one belonged to an NDC member. In the most outrageous case, Madame Sadia Seidu, a thirty-five year-old Nursing Officer and wife of Mr. Bawa Baako Alhassan, was brutally assaulted after a mob burnt and razed down the family’s 18-room house.
“She was chased by a mob of about a hundred, firing gun shots behind her. She ran 400 yards down the street to the house of an NDC member, where the gang attacked her and inflicted multiple cutlass wounds on her.
“No one has been arrested and charged for the attempted murder of Sadia, even though she identified those who led the mob attack. No attempt has been made by the state to assist the innocent victims, numbering about 800, who had their homes and belongings destroyed.”
After laying this foundation, Nana Akufo-Addo went on to forewarn: “The NPP’s leadership has worked very hard to restrain our supporters from reacting to these acts of intimidation and provocation. I am very concerned that sooner or later, militants on our side convinced that the state cannot or will not protect them, may take measures to protect their interests, themselves and their loved ones. Events will then be out of control, driving all of us towards a point of no return.
All of us, the President, the ruling party, the parties in opposition and civil society must, together, act to make our country peaceful and safe, and thus preserve our democracy for posterity.”
Unknown to Ghanaians, this was the beginnings of a mobocracy that would end up devouring the extended family of the mob, including MCEs, DCEs, Regional Ministers.
The splenetic reaction of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II to the apparent inaction of the Techiman police to the alleged kidnapping and battery of the Tuobodom Omanhene underlined the emerging culture of mobocracy under Mills.
In 2008, Ghanaians were told the contest was between an ‘Asomdwehene’ (King of Peace) and a firebrand cocaine addict. The false and dirty defamatory propaganda obviously had an impression on some voters and the King of Peace won by the slimmest margin in our history (0.4%). But, the violence and lawlessness started even before the swearing in. In fact, it started when the votes were being counted and collated, with calls to arms to troop to the headquarters of the Electoral Commission.
Since then, on average, there have been six reports a month of major cases of mob action allegedly caused either by NDC activists or by people who, because of their political connections, believed impunity is synonymous to immunity under the umbrella. I have selected just a few monthly examples to illustrate the point:
1. NPP Still Living In Fear (6th January 2009, The Chronicle)
• Supporters of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) have been living with fear over the last couple of days, since the declaration of election results in favour of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) by Dr. Kwadwo Afari Djan’s Electoral Commission, on Saturday. Whilst some have suffered brutalities at the hands of NDC supporters, others have been evicted from their homes by their landlords, for having supported the NPP during the election period. Reports coming in from the regions also confirm similar incidents in which NPP supporters have been subjected to severe beatings, with their properties being vandalized.
2. NDC youth destroy shrine (GNA, 21st Jan. 09)
• Some supporters of the National Democratic Congress Party (NDC) destroy the gods of a fetish priest at Mehame in Asutifi District for allegedly prophesying that Nana Akufo-Addo would win the 2008 presidential election.
3. Actions of NDC Transition Team come under fire (GNA, 28th Jan. 09)
• The Minority in Parliament described the summoning of the Auditor General by NDC transition team as amounting to "utter and contemptuous disregard of the law, intimidation and violation of independent constitutional bodies."
4. Ashaiman NDC supporters besiege assembly, assault Director (GNA, 10th Feb. 09)
• About 30 supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in Ashaiman besiege the Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AMA) and attack the Coordinating Director over management of public toilets. The Director, Mr Kwamina Akwa, was assaulted, had his spectacles destroyed and mobile phone snatched. The NDC supporters were returning from the court that heard the case involving the forcible takeover of toilets filed by operators who were managing them during the NPP administration. The Ashaiman police were informed but failed to bring the situation under control.
5. Ga-Dangbe Youth threaten to eject Kufuor (12th March 2009, Myjoyonline)
• The Ga-Dangme Youth Association threatened to demonstrate against the acquisition of an Office at Ridge in Accra by former President J.A. Kufuor.
6. NDC Youth Strike Again (23rd March 2009, Ghanaweb)
• The Nkwanta National Democratic Congress (NDC) youth joined their colleagues in Accra and other parts of the country in the vehicle snatching spree, with the Nkwanta District Coordinator of the Non-formal Education Division (NFED) and other supervisors being their first victims. The youth, numbering about 40 and allegedly led by the NDC Constituency Youth Organizer, Alidu Musah aka Suraj, rushed on the NFED Coordinator during one of her official supervision duties and seized her car, telling her that “you are an NPP activist and now that we are in power, you must handover all government properties in your care”.
7. NDC youth vandalise Party's office (7th April 2009, GNA)
• Youth supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the Akwatia Constituency vandalize the Party's offices at Akwatia to protest the nomination of Mr George Agyeman-Duah as Kwaebibirem District Chief Executive (DCE). Singing war songs, the protesters smashed louvre windows and furniture, and burnt files and other stationery.
8. NDC Chairman beats up MP (16th May 2009, Daily Guide)
• The Chairman of the Ashaiman branch of the NDC, Alhaji Issifu Braimahm assaulted the MP for the area, Hon. Alfred Agbesi, for refusing to support their call to seize control over public toilets and lorry parks in the municipality. The Party Chairman delivered a heavy punch to the forehead of the Hon. MP making the Ashaiman legislator bang his head against a wall behind him. The incident took place at an executive meeting of the party at Ashaiman around 4:00 pm on the 14th of May 2009.
9. NDC supporters vandalise radio station (31st May 2009, GNA)
• An irate group of NDC youth, allegedly organized by the Member of Parliament for Techiman South in the Brong Ahafo region, Addai Simon, and led by the Constituency Organizer, Mumuni Saaka, invaded a local radio station, Classic FM, on Thursday May 28, 2009 with cutlasses, knives and sharp implements, stabbing two workers in the process and vandalized the station, leaving behind tales of woes, as the workers ran helter-skelter for dear life. The ‘Kanawu’ programme comes off every Thursday to discuss topical issues in the Techiman Municipality and had picked on a story about Hon. Addai, MP for the area who had allegedly threatened to sack National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) officials in the municipality.
10. NDC thugs seize Tamale NHIS, NYEP office (2nd June 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Thugs suspected to be sympathizers of the ruling National Democratic Congress on Tuesday raided the offices of the National Health Insurance Authority and the National Youth Employment Programme in Tamale, assaulted the workers of the two offices, threw them out and locked the office premises. The Metropolitan health scheme manager at the office, Fuseini Aminu who narrated the ordeal to Joy News said the attackers were supposed to be acting on the orders of their leaders. "We were in the office working, doing our normal work when some group of people came to tell us to leave the office immediately. I asked them what the reason was and from where did they get the authority. They told us they have been asked to come and sack us and that we should do that without complain," he narrated.
11. NDC Thugs Attack NPP Serial Callers (12th June 2009, The Chronicle)
• The Western regional Command of the Ghana Police Service (GPS) has taken over investigations into circumstances that led to a brutal assault on three Serial Callers who have allegiance to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Takoradi, by suspected National Democratic Congress (NDC) thugs. The thugs, who assaulted the serial callers, were reported to have been led by one Muhammad Anaba, an NDC activist and Chairman of the Takoradi Butchers Association. The regional Crime Officer, Mr. Vincent C. Agbenyato confirmed in a telephone interview that the said Muhammed Anaba had been arrested and granted bail. Muhammed Anaba reportedly engaged one of the NPP Serial Callers by name Kofi Adu, in a fierce argument which ended on a bitter note, with the latter ordering scores of NDC thugs to assault him.
12. NDC thugs attack NHIS office (18th June 2009, GNA)
• Some youth, believed to be sympathisers of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are reported to have matched to the NHIS Secretariat in Goaso to push for the removal of the District Scheme Manager. The two were picked up early Thursday after police investigations revealed they led the youth to perpetrate the illegal act. Goaso District Police Commander, Chief Superintendent Kwabena Bediako said the other perpetrators would be pursued and arrested. This is one of several such attacks that supporters of the ruling party have been accused of engaging in since the new administration assumed power.
13. Choice FM under attack (19th June 2009, Daily Guide)
• Choice FM, an Accra based private radio station, has been ordered not to broadcast a political current affairs programme it intends to start airing from this Saturday. The threatening order, which was first sent in the form of a telephone call and a sms text message from a telephone number 0244371682, was reinforced by three men who stormed the station yesterday and introduced themselves to the General Manager, Raymond Afaga-Chie, as National Security agents. The agents, said they had ‘orders from above’ to order the station not to broadcast the program because the promotional advert was injurious to the government in power and the host, Martin Adjei-Mensah, is a known student leader of the opposition NPP.
14. NDC supporters on rampage in Kumasi (26th June 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Disgruntled supporters of the ruling National Democratic Congress, Friday vandalized properties in Kumasi, in protest against the resignation of the Sports Minister, Alhaji Mohammed Muntaka Mubarak. The angry supporters reportedly assaulted a woman and valdalised her urvan bus, accusing her of making derogatory remarks about the former minister who is also MP of Asawase in Kumasi. They argued they did not understand why Alhaji Mubarak has been “forced to resign” after he had been exonerated of all charges of financial malfeasance made against him. The Asawase Constituency Secretary of the NDC, one Salifu, who led the demonstration, told Luv FM’s Elton John Brobbey the demonstrators were outraged by the development.
15. NDC supporters threaten to seize toilets in Cape Coast (19th July 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Supporters of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), are continuing to demand the right to control toilet facilities in the country. According to Joy FM’s Central Regional Correspondent, Richard Kojo Nyarko, the angry supporters have given a three-day ultimatum after which if nothing is done they will seize all toilet facilities in the Cape Coast Metropolis. The supporters say although a selection interview was conducted to pick people from amongst them to man the toilet facilities, some machinations were being done to torpedo the process. They warned their patience is thinning.
16. Minority calls for speedy investigations into Agbogboshie killings (27th August 2009, GNA)
• The Minority in Parliament appealed to the Minister of Interior to investigate, arrest and prosecute those who masterminded the killings at Agbogbloshie, Accra. The aggressive assailants reportedly used machetes, axes, iron rods, stones and other crude or lethal weapons to hack two of the victims to death and consequently inflicted degrees of life threatening multiple wounds on others. Hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu wondered why some of the people, who allegedly masterminded the killings, were still walking about freely in the streets of Accra and other places with impunity. Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu said the victims at the hospital have allegedly named names such as Sule, Mohammed Ayatu, Sahana, Awal Voulina Naa, Sule Nabiya, Abdallah Rasta and Abdallah whom they said were responsible for the act.
To be continued
qanawu@gmail.com
In May 2009, Nana Akufo-Addo made a statement that was twisted by his detractors in the ruling party to portray him as rather a bellicose character on the outs and his party belligerent:
“Fellow Ghanaians, Instead of uniting us and fostering peace, the last four months have been spent intimidating innocent citizens and political opponents. We have seen physical attacks on NPP members in several parts of the country, including Agbobloshie, Kumasi, and Tamale.
“In the Tamale incidents of February 17th, violence erupted after discussions on Radio Justice following the seizure of my vehicle by agents of National Security. According to the report of the NPP Committee sent to investigate, which was confirmed by the press, there were arson attacks in Nyihini, Lameshegu, Worizehi, Choggu and Gumbihini.
“All the 27 properties that were attacked belonged to NPP members. Not a single one belonged to an NDC member. In the most outrageous case, Madame Sadia Seidu, a thirty-five year-old Nursing Officer and wife of Mr. Bawa Baako Alhassan, was brutally assaulted after a mob burnt and razed down the family’s 18-room house.
“She was chased by a mob of about a hundred, firing gun shots behind her. She ran 400 yards down the street to the house of an NDC member, where the gang attacked her and inflicted multiple cutlass wounds on her.
“No one has been arrested and charged for the attempted murder of Sadia, even though she identified those who led the mob attack. No attempt has been made by the state to assist the innocent victims, numbering about 800, who had their homes and belongings destroyed.”
After laying this foundation, Nana Akufo-Addo went on to forewarn: “The NPP’s leadership has worked very hard to restrain our supporters from reacting to these acts of intimidation and provocation. I am very concerned that sooner or later, militants on our side convinced that the state cannot or will not protect them, may take measures to protect their interests, themselves and their loved ones. Events will then be out of control, driving all of us towards a point of no return.
All of us, the President, the ruling party, the parties in opposition and civil society must, together, act to make our country peaceful and safe, and thus preserve our democracy for posterity.”
Unknown to Ghanaians, this was the beginnings of a mobocracy that would end up devouring the extended family of the mob, including MCEs, DCEs, Regional Ministers.
The splenetic reaction of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II to the apparent inaction of the Techiman police to the alleged kidnapping and battery of the Tuobodom Omanhene underlined the emerging culture of mobocracy under Mills.
In 2008, Ghanaians were told the contest was between an ‘Asomdwehene’ (King of Peace) and a firebrand cocaine addict. The false and dirty defamatory propaganda obviously had an impression on some voters and the King of Peace won by the slimmest margin in our history (0.4%). But, the violence and lawlessness started even before the swearing in. In fact, it started when the votes were being counted and collated, with calls to arms to troop to the headquarters of the Electoral Commission.
Since then, on average, there have been six reports a month of major cases of mob action allegedly caused either by NDC activists or by people who, because of their political connections, believed impunity is synonymous to immunity under the umbrella. I have selected just a few monthly examples to illustrate the point:
1. NPP Still Living In Fear (6th January 2009, The Chronicle)
• Supporters of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) have been living with fear over the last couple of days, since the declaration of election results in favour of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) by Dr. Kwadwo Afari Djan’s Electoral Commission, on Saturday. Whilst some have suffered brutalities at the hands of NDC supporters, others have been evicted from their homes by their landlords, for having supported the NPP during the election period. Reports coming in from the regions also confirm similar incidents in which NPP supporters have been subjected to severe beatings, with their properties being vandalized.
2. NDC youth destroy shrine (GNA, 21st Jan. 09)
• Some supporters of the National Democratic Congress Party (NDC) destroy the gods of a fetish priest at Mehame in Asutifi District for allegedly prophesying that Nana Akufo-Addo would win the 2008 presidential election.
3. Actions of NDC Transition Team come under fire (GNA, 28th Jan. 09)
• The Minority in Parliament described the summoning of the Auditor General by NDC transition team as amounting to "utter and contemptuous disregard of the law, intimidation and violation of independent constitutional bodies."
4. Ashaiman NDC supporters besiege assembly, assault Director (GNA, 10th Feb. 09)
• About 30 supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in Ashaiman besiege the Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AMA) and attack the Coordinating Director over management of public toilets. The Director, Mr Kwamina Akwa, was assaulted, had his spectacles destroyed and mobile phone snatched. The NDC supporters were returning from the court that heard the case involving the forcible takeover of toilets filed by operators who were managing them during the NPP administration. The Ashaiman police were informed but failed to bring the situation under control.
5. Ga-Dangbe Youth threaten to eject Kufuor (12th March 2009, Myjoyonline)
• The Ga-Dangme Youth Association threatened to demonstrate against the acquisition of an Office at Ridge in Accra by former President J.A. Kufuor.
6. NDC Youth Strike Again (23rd March 2009, Ghanaweb)
• The Nkwanta National Democratic Congress (NDC) youth joined their colleagues in Accra and other parts of the country in the vehicle snatching spree, with the Nkwanta District Coordinator of the Non-formal Education Division (NFED) and other supervisors being their first victims. The youth, numbering about 40 and allegedly led by the NDC Constituency Youth Organizer, Alidu Musah aka Suraj, rushed on the NFED Coordinator during one of her official supervision duties and seized her car, telling her that “you are an NPP activist and now that we are in power, you must handover all government properties in your care”.
7. NDC youth vandalise Party's office (7th April 2009, GNA)
• Youth supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the Akwatia Constituency vandalize the Party's offices at Akwatia to protest the nomination of Mr George Agyeman-Duah as Kwaebibirem District Chief Executive (DCE). Singing war songs, the protesters smashed louvre windows and furniture, and burnt files and other stationery.
8. NDC Chairman beats up MP (16th May 2009, Daily Guide)
• The Chairman of the Ashaiman branch of the NDC, Alhaji Issifu Braimahm assaulted the MP for the area, Hon. Alfred Agbesi, for refusing to support their call to seize control over public toilets and lorry parks in the municipality. The Party Chairman delivered a heavy punch to the forehead of the Hon. MP making the Ashaiman legislator bang his head against a wall behind him. The incident took place at an executive meeting of the party at Ashaiman around 4:00 pm on the 14th of May 2009.
9. NDC supporters vandalise radio station (31st May 2009, GNA)
• An irate group of NDC youth, allegedly organized by the Member of Parliament for Techiman South in the Brong Ahafo region, Addai Simon, and led by the Constituency Organizer, Mumuni Saaka, invaded a local radio station, Classic FM, on Thursday May 28, 2009 with cutlasses, knives and sharp implements, stabbing two workers in the process and vandalized the station, leaving behind tales of woes, as the workers ran helter-skelter for dear life. The ‘Kanawu’ programme comes off every Thursday to discuss topical issues in the Techiman Municipality and had picked on a story about Hon. Addai, MP for the area who had allegedly threatened to sack National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) officials in the municipality.
10. NDC thugs seize Tamale NHIS, NYEP office (2nd June 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Thugs suspected to be sympathizers of the ruling National Democratic Congress on Tuesday raided the offices of the National Health Insurance Authority and the National Youth Employment Programme in Tamale, assaulted the workers of the two offices, threw them out and locked the office premises. The Metropolitan health scheme manager at the office, Fuseini Aminu who narrated the ordeal to Joy News said the attackers were supposed to be acting on the orders of their leaders. "We were in the office working, doing our normal work when some group of people came to tell us to leave the office immediately. I asked them what the reason was and from where did they get the authority. They told us they have been asked to come and sack us and that we should do that without complain," he narrated.
11. NDC Thugs Attack NPP Serial Callers (12th June 2009, The Chronicle)
• The Western regional Command of the Ghana Police Service (GPS) has taken over investigations into circumstances that led to a brutal assault on three Serial Callers who have allegiance to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Takoradi, by suspected National Democratic Congress (NDC) thugs. The thugs, who assaulted the serial callers, were reported to have been led by one Muhammad Anaba, an NDC activist and Chairman of the Takoradi Butchers Association. The regional Crime Officer, Mr. Vincent C. Agbenyato confirmed in a telephone interview that the said Muhammed Anaba had been arrested and granted bail. Muhammed Anaba reportedly engaged one of the NPP Serial Callers by name Kofi Adu, in a fierce argument which ended on a bitter note, with the latter ordering scores of NDC thugs to assault him.
12. NDC thugs attack NHIS office (18th June 2009, GNA)
• Some youth, believed to be sympathisers of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are reported to have matched to the NHIS Secretariat in Goaso to push for the removal of the District Scheme Manager. The two were picked up early Thursday after police investigations revealed they led the youth to perpetrate the illegal act. Goaso District Police Commander, Chief Superintendent Kwabena Bediako said the other perpetrators would be pursued and arrested. This is one of several such attacks that supporters of the ruling party have been accused of engaging in since the new administration assumed power.
13. Choice FM under attack (19th June 2009, Daily Guide)
• Choice FM, an Accra based private radio station, has been ordered not to broadcast a political current affairs programme it intends to start airing from this Saturday. The threatening order, which was first sent in the form of a telephone call and a sms text message from a telephone number 0244371682, was reinforced by three men who stormed the station yesterday and introduced themselves to the General Manager, Raymond Afaga-Chie, as National Security agents. The agents, said they had ‘orders from above’ to order the station not to broadcast the program because the promotional advert was injurious to the government in power and the host, Martin Adjei-Mensah, is a known student leader of the opposition NPP.
14. NDC supporters on rampage in Kumasi (26th June 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Disgruntled supporters of the ruling National Democratic Congress, Friday vandalized properties in Kumasi, in protest against the resignation of the Sports Minister, Alhaji Mohammed Muntaka Mubarak. The angry supporters reportedly assaulted a woman and valdalised her urvan bus, accusing her of making derogatory remarks about the former minister who is also MP of Asawase in Kumasi. They argued they did not understand why Alhaji Mubarak has been “forced to resign” after he had been exonerated of all charges of financial malfeasance made against him. The Asawase Constituency Secretary of the NDC, one Salifu, who led the demonstration, told Luv FM’s Elton John Brobbey the demonstrators were outraged by the development.
15. NDC supporters threaten to seize toilets in Cape Coast (19th July 2009, Myjoyonline)
• Supporters of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), are continuing to demand the right to control toilet facilities in the country. According to Joy FM’s Central Regional Correspondent, Richard Kojo Nyarko, the angry supporters have given a three-day ultimatum after which if nothing is done they will seize all toilet facilities in the Cape Coast Metropolis. The supporters say although a selection interview was conducted to pick people from amongst them to man the toilet facilities, some machinations were being done to torpedo the process. They warned their patience is thinning.
16. Minority calls for speedy investigations into Agbogboshie killings (27th August 2009, GNA)
• The Minority in Parliament appealed to the Minister of Interior to investigate, arrest and prosecute those who masterminded the killings at Agbogbloshie, Accra. The aggressive assailants reportedly used machetes, axes, iron rods, stones and other crude or lethal weapons to hack two of the victims to death and consequently inflicted degrees of life threatening multiple wounds on others. Hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu wondered why some of the people, who allegedly masterminded the killings, were still walking about freely in the streets of Accra and other places with impunity. Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu said the victims at the hospital have allegedly named names such as Sule, Mohammed Ayatu, Sahana, Awal Voulina Naa, Sule Nabiya, Abdallah Rasta and Abdallah whom they said were responsible for the act.
To be continued
qanawu@gmail.com
Monday, March 29, 2010
No Ambiguity in NPP Constitution On Election Of Flagbearer
Written by Asare Otchere-Darko Monday, 29 March 2010 18:25
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
No Ambiguity in NPP Constitution On Election Of Flagbearer
Written by Asare Otchere-Darko Monday, 29 March 2010 18:25
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
PDF Print E-mail
Some highly respected members of the New Patriotic Party have been arguing that the national leadership of the party, in choosing a date for the election of the 2012 presidential candidate of the party, must stick to the letter of the party’s constitution. This is a responsible statement, ordinarily.
However, their interpretation of the constitution is that the flagbearer must be chosen in (rather than by) December 2010. Some also argue, with some ostensible generosity, that the National Congress to elect the presidential candidate can be done ‘earlier’ but certainly not earlier than September 2010 because of the time the constitution provides for nominations to be filed.
The fundamental canon of interpretation is that where the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning and the words are reasonably capable of only one meaning that one literal meaning must be given. Thus, if a constitution’s language is plain and clear, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.
Chapter 12, Clause 1 of the NPP constitution reads as follows:
1. The election of the Party’s Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than twenty-four (24) months from the date of the national election. The date and venue for the election shall be decided by the National Council, provided, however, that the National Council may, on appropriate occasion, vary the date.
What this means simply is that the only major check on the party, in concluding on a date, is to choose the next flagbearer before December 7, 2010. In theory, it could have been done last year. In practice, it must be done anytime this year before December 7.
It is therefore up to the National Council, which incidentally meets this Wednesday, to take a decision on the date for holding the National Congress. That date should only take two things into consideration: one, allowing for reasonable period of time for people to file their applications for nomination and for candidates to campaign. Two, when would it be practicable to hold a National Congress of some 114,200 delegates with its attendant cost to the party and how that would be funded?
This is because Clause 2 of the same Chapter 12 of the NPP constitution also imposes another time requirement. It reads:
2. Not later than six (6) months prior to the holding of the election, the General Secretary shall give notice inviting applications from Members for nomination as the Party’s candidate to contest for the office of the President of the Republic. The Notice shall be displayed in a conspicuous place in the Party’s Constituency, Regional and National Offices and shall specify the closing date for application, which shall not be more than five (5) months to the holding of the election.
This Clause has been curiously interpreted to mean that notice should be given 6 months before the holding of the election to choose a presidential candidate. But the literal meaning of Chapter 12 Clause 2 is that notice inviting applications or notice to open the filing of nominations should not be longer than 6 months.
It goes on to say that the closing date for nominations should not be longer than 5 months. The operative time frame here is one month. This means that the period for application of nomination should not exceed one month.
There is also another constitutional consideration. Chapter 12, Clause 5(a) of the NPP constitution states that “Where there are more than five contestants for nomination as the Party’s Presidential Candidate, a Special Electoral College shall cast their votes by secret ballot for the first five contestants to be short-listed.”
By some calculations, the Special Electoral College (SEC) should consist of not more than 588 delegates. They comprise of members of the National Council, the National Executive Committee, the Regional Executive Committees (160), the National Council of Elders (15), Members of Parliament (107), three representatives of each of special organs of the Party, past National Officers, 3 representatives each from every external branch (30), Founding Members during the registration of the Party at the Electoral Commission and all New Patriotic Party card bearing Ministers when the Party is in government.
Thus, whichever date is given could be affected by the number of people who opt to file in the period available for the filing of nominations. Yet, this need not arise if the SEC conference is held one day after nominations closed. The date for Congress need not be disturbed by the possibility of a conference of a Special Electoral College.
The root of the constitutional provision which seems to limit the period for applications to one month could be traced to 1992. One could even look at the 1998 Congress, the last Congress when the party was in opposition. The National Council decided to hold that crucial Congress in October 1998, two months after the new national officers, under Chairman Odoi Sykes, were elected. Thus, the candidates had only two months to campaign officially – a period which arguably contained and controlled a campaign that was feared to cause the party some irreparable harm.
This understanding is further underlined under Clause 3 (b), (c) of the same Chapter 12 which deals with nominations when the party is in government.
3 (b) When the Party is in government, the election of a Presidential Candidate shall be held not later than 11 months before the national general election.
It goes on to say that in that 11 month window, notice for applications shall be strictly 3 months, with nominations closing after the first month. It reads:
c) Notice inviting application for the members for nomination as the Party’s candidate shall be given three (3) months prior to the holding of the National Congress and shall close after two (2)months.
Here, aware of the shorter window that the constitution provides for the presidential nomination when the party is in power, it gives a clear unambiguous specific period of 3 months from the opening of nominations to the casting of ballots. Moreover, what is constant here and consistent with Chapter 12 (2) is the one month period it provides for applications to be opened.
This can be construed to mean that whichever date is chosen by the National Council it should give one month for the filing of nominations and an additional period for campaigning. Going by 2007, that additional period could be two months; going by 1998, that additional period should be at least one month.
To show that the relevant provisions under Clause 3 are dealing specifically with the period that the party is in office, Clause 3(d) stipulates:
d) Any Minister, National Officer, and District Chief Executive (DCE) who files to contest to become a Presidential Candidate of the Party shall resign his/her position
In interpreting the party’s constitution, the National Council should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. It must presume that the framers of the constitution say in the constitution what it means and mean in the constitution what it says there.
As reasoned in Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996), "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
There is no ambiguity in the NPP constitution as to when the National Council may decide to hold a National Congress. There may be practical and sectional-interest driven reasons why some may want it sooner and others later. But, let them not seek to advance that sectional cause by importing into the constitution words and meanings that are not there.
The author is the Executive Director of the Danquah Institute, an ideological think tank based in Accra. gabby@danquahinstitute.org
Saturday, March 20, 2010
JAKE, DELAY APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES UNTIL FLAGBEARER IS CHOSEN
JAKE, DELAY APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES UNTIL FLAGBEARER IS CHOSEN
ASARE OTCHERE-DARKO
The intense lobbying started even before the Sunday thanksgiving service in Kumasi the morning after the National Conference which elected the new national officers of the New Patriotic Party.
The 2009 constitutional amendments of the NPP were well-thought through and far reaching. Apart from transferring more power to the rank and file, it introduced something that the NDC were first off the mark on – having deputies appointed for positions such as organisers from the constituency, through the regional to the national level.
Thus, apart from the 10 who won elective office at the Baba Yara Stadium last month, there are still 8 important deputy positions to fill. These are two deputy General Secretaries, two deputy National Organisers, two deputy Women’s Organisers and two deputy Youth Organisers.
The fundamental reason is to use the deputy positions to fill certain gaps which the election might not have taken care of. These are two fold: first is regional/ethnic/religious or gender balance and the second is expertise.
For instance, Sir John, as General Secretary may require two deputies, one in charge of administration and the other to focus on operations. The issue with having a deputy for Operations is to properly define that role so that it does not conflict with that of National Organiser. Alternatively the decision can be made to have two deputy General Secretaries with one in charge of the northern sector of the country and the other in charge of the southern sector.
This northern/southern division of responsibilities is even more necessary for the position of National Organiser. The position of organiser also calls for two sets of skills: a person who can think, plan and draw up organising strategies and a person who can get his hands dirty, go down to the ground to lead the actual grassroots mobilisation, train them and keep them fuelled, equipped and motivated.
The positions of Deputy Women’s Organisers give the party the opportunity to target some three female constituencies: the educated woman who is between 16-38 years of age; the rural, poor and large pool of women within the informal sector and; lastly, the significant group of religious women.
One of the deputy Youth Organiser positions must almost certainly go to a young woman who can also serve as a point of attraction for young women to the party.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the new national officers are spending more time entertaining aspiring deputies and their lobbyists than they certainly bargained for. The aspirants make an interesting bunch: those who contested for other party positions and lost, former office holders, those who believe they can do the job but had neither the stomach or resources to contest and those who are being pushed or encouraged by potential flagbearers to presumably serve their sponsors’ interest or bridge ‘divisions’.
With Jake, the veteran campaign guru, as National Chairman, and learning from the difficulties of past campaigns, especially 2008, there is a general determination on the part of Jake, all office holders in the party and even one or two aspiring presidential candidates to keep the 2012 campaign team lean and mean, using the recognised party structures.
This means that, for a start, the constitution of membership of national office holders of the party must have the experience, competence and balance required for an effective national campaign. What would ensure every gap is filled in this equation is the appointment of deputies.
Appointment of deputies should not be determined by who the substantive office holder merely thinks he can work with; it should be about who can help the party mount a winning campaign. It is the responsibility of the substantive heads to build, encourage and maintain a working environment of teamwork and camaraderie, devoid of their personal idiosyncrasies, whims and predilections.
In choosing who the deputies must be, the last thing the party should consider is how that could help resolve ‘divisions’ in the party. That would be a useless consideration which may even come back to hurt the party. Positions of importance must be held by people who want to work with all their heart, mind and strength.
How then can the party ensure this? I believe by simply delaying the appointment of deputies until the National Congress to elect the 2012 president candidate takes place and the flagbearer chosen.
By and large, those so-called divisions in the NPP are based on who becomes the next presidential candidate of the party. Those who say the divisions are based on Akyem vs Ashanti or UNC vs PFP should stop abusing history.
There is nothing in the leadership line-up of the two defunct parties to support this. Both UNC and PFP were dominated by Ashantis. The population of Akyems in Ghana is so small in comparison to pose any serious hegemonical challenge to Ashantis. The statistics show that Nana Akufo-Addo draws his biggest support from Ashanti. The Akyem vs Ashanti conflict is a convenient lie for those within and without the party who believe they can benefit from fanning it. Let the question of who leads the NPP be settled and see how exposed the ethno-mongers would be.
That question could be answered by June (before the World Cup) or latest at the end of July. In fact, the party needs to answer that question as soon as it is practical for minds to concentrate, not only on unity, but on the more pressing issue of the fiction of non-partisan district assembly elections which take place in August.
If the idea is to get the 2012 campaign ran from the party headquarters then the choice of deputies must be informed by one thing only: those who can do the job of winning 2012.
So Jake and co should seriously consider the call to put off the appointment of deputies until the flagbearer is chosen. If the party could go 18 years without deputies then it could surely do a few months without it.
qanawu.blogspot.com
ASARE OTCHERE-DARKO
The intense lobbying started even before the Sunday thanksgiving service in Kumasi the morning after the National Conference which elected the new national officers of the New Patriotic Party.
The 2009 constitutional amendments of the NPP were well-thought through and far reaching. Apart from transferring more power to the rank and file, it introduced something that the NDC were first off the mark on – having deputies appointed for positions such as organisers from the constituency, through the regional to the national level.
Thus, apart from the 10 who won elective office at the Baba Yara Stadium last month, there are still 8 important deputy positions to fill. These are two deputy General Secretaries, two deputy National Organisers, two deputy Women’s Organisers and two deputy Youth Organisers.
The fundamental reason is to use the deputy positions to fill certain gaps which the election might not have taken care of. These are two fold: first is regional/ethnic/religious or gender balance and the second is expertise.
For instance, Sir John, as General Secretary may require two deputies, one in charge of administration and the other to focus on operations. The issue with having a deputy for Operations is to properly define that role so that it does not conflict with that of National Organiser. Alternatively the decision can be made to have two deputy General Secretaries with one in charge of the northern sector of the country and the other in charge of the southern sector.
This northern/southern division of responsibilities is even more necessary for the position of National Organiser. The position of organiser also calls for two sets of skills: a person who can think, plan and draw up organising strategies and a person who can get his hands dirty, go down to the ground to lead the actual grassroots mobilisation, train them and keep them fuelled, equipped and motivated.
The positions of Deputy Women’s Organisers give the party the opportunity to target some three female constituencies: the educated woman who is between 16-38 years of age; the rural, poor and large pool of women within the informal sector and; lastly, the significant group of religious women.
One of the deputy Youth Organiser positions must almost certainly go to a young woman who can also serve as a point of attraction for young women to the party.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the new national officers are spending more time entertaining aspiring deputies and their lobbyists than they certainly bargained for. The aspirants make an interesting bunch: those who contested for other party positions and lost, former office holders, those who believe they can do the job but had neither the stomach or resources to contest and those who are being pushed or encouraged by potential flagbearers to presumably serve their sponsors’ interest or bridge ‘divisions’.
With Jake, the veteran campaign guru, as National Chairman, and learning from the difficulties of past campaigns, especially 2008, there is a general determination on the part of Jake, all office holders in the party and even one or two aspiring presidential candidates to keep the 2012 campaign team lean and mean, using the recognised party structures.
This means that, for a start, the constitution of membership of national office holders of the party must have the experience, competence and balance required for an effective national campaign. What would ensure every gap is filled in this equation is the appointment of deputies.
Appointment of deputies should not be determined by who the substantive office holder merely thinks he can work with; it should be about who can help the party mount a winning campaign. It is the responsibility of the substantive heads to build, encourage and maintain a working environment of teamwork and camaraderie, devoid of their personal idiosyncrasies, whims and predilections.
In choosing who the deputies must be, the last thing the party should consider is how that could help resolve ‘divisions’ in the party. That would be a useless consideration which may even come back to hurt the party. Positions of importance must be held by people who want to work with all their heart, mind and strength.
How then can the party ensure this? I believe by simply delaying the appointment of deputies until the National Congress to elect the 2012 president candidate takes place and the flagbearer chosen.
By and large, those so-called divisions in the NPP are based on who becomes the next presidential candidate of the party. Those who say the divisions are based on Akyem vs Ashanti or UNC vs PFP should stop abusing history.
There is nothing in the leadership line-up of the two defunct parties to support this. Both UNC and PFP were dominated by Ashantis. The population of Akyems in Ghana is so small in comparison to pose any serious hegemonical challenge to Ashantis. The statistics show that Nana Akufo-Addo draws his biggest support from Ashanti. The Akyem vs Ashanti conflict is a convenient lie for those within and without the party who believe they can benefit from fanning it. Let the question of who leads the NPP be settled and see how exposed the ethno-mongers would be.
That question could be answered by June (before the World Cup) or latest at the end of July. In fact, the party needs to answer that question as soon as it is practical for minds to concentrate, not only on unity, but on the more pressing issue of the fiction of non-partisan district assembly elections which take place in August.
If the idea is to get the 2012 campaign ran from the party headquarters then the choice of deputies must be informed by one thing only: those who can do the job of winning 2012.
So Jake and co should seriously consider the call to put off the appointment of deputies until the flagbearer is chosen. If the party could go 18 years without deputies then it could surely do a few months without it.
qanawu.blogspot.com
Friday, March 19, 2010
JOHN MAHAMA, YOUR KOREAN DEAL DOESN’T ADD UP
I was on Metro TV’s Good Morning Ghana with the Spokesperson to the Vice President of the Republic and he made some comments which I found most lamentable and I hope his boss shares this view.
John Abu Jinapor was asked by Shamima Muslim, the host, to comment on the visit to Ghana of John Clark QC, the lead counsel in the Mabey & Johnson criminal trial in the United Kingdom last year, where some Ghanaian government officials were among those mentioned by directors of M&J to have been receivers of bribes in the UK company’s bid to win multi-million pound contracts in Ghana in the past.
The man who speaks for our Vice President, John Mahama, described Mr Hardy as a discredited lawyer. “If I were the Danquah Institute I would not have invited this character to Ghana to deliver a lecture,” the young JJ said, with contempt in his voice and on his face.
On the same day, another NDC paper, The Post, had described Mr Hardy as a half-backed lawyer because a colleague apparently instructed by George Sipa-Yankey, the respected Owen Davies QC, who joint-heads the Garden Court chambers with the able Courtenay Griffiths QC (Charles Taylor’s lawyer), had, on instructions of the Ghanaian official, written a letter complaining about the name-dropping method of the prosecution.
Frankly, this reaction from Ghana’s ruling party, particularly, the Spokesperson, threw me into a funk. Was Mr Jinapor expressing the sentiments of the Castle to Mr Hardy’s visit? His comments that Mr Hardy was brought to Ghana “clandestinely” to, effectively, cause damage to the Government perhaps exposes his bosses’ sincere commitment to the fight against corruption. I could only ask: what does that say about our President’s commitment to fighting corruption?
According JJ and people who think like him, Mr Hardy’s crime was for mentioning the names of the Ghanaian public officials in court. The directors of M&J had confessed to bribing foreign public officials and volunteered documents, including payments made into personal bank accounts, as evidence of some of the individuals they allegedly bribed. Have the Ghanaians cited denied receiving any of the funds mentioned.
It is true that they were not given a right to reply because they were not parties to the case. That is rather unfortunate but they have every opportunity to ‘correct’ that.
It does not stop any of them from suing the directors of M&J in a UK court for defamation. One would also expect that the decision by CHRAJ to investigate the matter in Ghana should be seen as offering an opportunity to those who have been wrongly accused to clear their names.
John Jinapor and those who think like him have every right to describe the British as hypocrites for anonymising the names of the M&J directors (even under the pretext of pending individual prosecutions) and gleefully naming the foreign officials.
But, they should do their party’s stated commitment to fighting corruption a favour by, first, not discrediting an accomplished professional like John Hardy, and, second, by urging government to bring down the implicated M&J directors to Ghana to face prosecution. Thei anger should be directed at the directors who named their heroes rather than the prosecutor who used the information for the Crown’s case.
Ghana was the actual victim of the corruption to which the directors have confessed. The UK was not a direct victim. We have an extradition treaty with the UK, which is usually invoked for the benefit of the foreign party. For a change, this is an opportunity to invoke it for our benefit and bring those people to book right here in Ghana.
Indeed, Government would be better advised to not set loose its serial callers and hounds like JJ to use ‘half-baked’ reasoning to attack the character and integrity of John Hardy. They should, like CHRAJ, see how they can possibly benefit from the experience of people like John Hardy, to begin the process of extradition for those former directors to face trial here.
Mr Hardy, a recorder (part time judge) and Queen’s Counsel, can never be the sort of character the Spokesperson of the Vice President was struggling to portray him. He is a well-respected international criminal law specialist, an expert on mutual legal assistance, the very area that CHRAJ says it’s been struggling to get information from the UK SFO. His meeting with CHRAJ this morning is, at least, a clear indication that Emile Short and his team see his value to our national efforts against corruption.
He has instructed in a number of lengthy and complex fraud prosecutions as well as continuing his criminal practice, particularly in extradition where his expertise spans over 15 years.
He also appears for both prosecution and defence in major criminal trials and has extensive experience in money laundering cases. His lectures in Ghana were just following a trend. He is in demand as an expert witness on matters of United Kingdom extradition and criminal law in foreign jurisdictions, as well as being a regular contributor to lectures and seminars around the world.
Now let me move to the essence of the trip that Mr Jinapor accompanied his boss to Korea. John Mahama, we are told, went to Korea to sign an MoU for 200,000 affordable homes, valued at $10 billion to be built by STX, a Korean company. This is a five-year project that should lead to 40,000 additional homes built between now and 2015 yearly. This would be a major boost to tackling our housing deficit and I pray for its success.
But, how affordable is this deal? Secondly, we are dealing with a company which claims to have assets of about $2.6 billion and debts of some $7 billion. This is surely a company in crisis which is looking to Ghana for some miraculous salvation.
We are also told that the MoU requires the Government of Ghana to buy 90,000 of the homes in advance. Already it is music to the years of the police, prison guards, etc. Decent accommodation at last! The first 30,000 would go to the security agencies, with 20,000 for the Police Service.
But, let us apply the brakes and wipe the windscreen a bit. That Government pre-financing could cost Ghana $4.5 billion. From where does the Mills-Mahama government intend to raise that kind of money? We need to know now where and how.
This $4.5 billion would more than double Ghana's total external debt! Our total foreign exchange reserves are less than $2.5 billion! Something does not add up. If we had that kind of money why should we not be looking at building the units ourselves? If the Koreans are giving us a loan, we need to what the terms are.
Could, as predicted by the President, this trip by the Veep really be the final nail in the coffin of this Korean deal, meaning it has only exposed it as unreal?
Moreover, the $50,000 price tag at current HFC cedi mortgage rates over 15 years means that workers will pay some 15 million cedis monthly! How many workers can afford this? The questions only expose the lack of transparency surrounding this deal which has received more positive publicity than the IFC and CNTC loans put together.
The Koreans see this deal as good because it provides the company which is currently in a financial bind with some much needed liquidity from the upfront payment. If we have that kind of loose money lying around let us for a change believe in Ghana and make this project home-grown, because, after all, technology can be bought.
My advice to Government is to make the details of the MoU public and to stop the cheap politics and provide details of how this wonderful project would see the light of day rather than being coffin-nailed. As it is now, some things just don’t add up. qanawu@gmail.com
John Abu Jinapor was asked by Shamima Muslim, the host, to comment on the visit to Ghana of John Clark QC, the lead counsel in the Mabey & Johnson criminal trial in the United Kingdom last year, where some Ghanaian government officials were among those mentioned by directors of M&J to have been receivers of bribes in the UK company’s bid to win multi-million pound contracts in Ghana in the past.
The man who speaks for our Vice President, John Mahama, described Mr Hardy as a discredited lawyer. “If I were the Danquah Institute I would not have invited this character to Ghana to deliver a lecture,” the young JJ said, with contempt in his voice and on his face.
On the same day, another NDC paper, The Post, had described Mr Hardy as a half-backed lawyer because a colleague apparently instructed by George Sipa-Yankey, the respected Owen Davies QC, who joint-heads the Garden Court chambers with the able Courtenay Griffiths QC (Charles Taylor’s lawyer), had, on instructions of the Ghanaian official, written a letter complaining about the name-dropping method of the prosecution.
Frankly, this reaction from Ghana’s ruling party, particularly, the Spokesperson, threw me into a funk. Was Mr Jinapor expressing the sentiments of the Castle to Mr Hardy’s visit? His comments that Mr Hardy was brought to Ghana “clandestinely” to, effectively, cause damage to the Government perhaps exposes his bosses’ sincere commitment to the fight against corruption. I could only ask: what does that say about our President’s commitment to fighting corruption?
According JJ and people who think like him, Mr Hardy’s crime was for mentioning the names of the Ghanaian public officials in court. The directors of M&J had confessed to bribing foreign public officials and volunteered documents, including payments made into personal bank accounts, as evidence of some of the individuals they allegedly bribed. Have the Ghanaians cited denied receiving any of the funds mentioned.
It is true that they were not given a right to reply because they were not parties to the case. That is rather unfortunate but they have every opportunity to ‘correct’ that.
It does not stop any of them from suing the directors of M&J in a UK court for defamation. One would also expect that the decision by CHRAJ to investigate the matter in Ghana should be seen as offering an opportunity to those who have been wrongly accused to clear their names.
John Jinapor and those who think like him have every right to describe the British as hypocrites for anonymising the names of the M&J directors (even under the pretext of pending individual prosecutions) and gleefully naming the foreign officials.
But, they should do their party’s stated commitment to fighting corruption a favour by, first, not discrediting an accomplished professional like John Hardy, and, second, by urging government to bring down the implicated M&J directors to Ghana to face prosecution. Thei anger should be directed at the directors who named their heroes rather than the prosecutor who used the information for the Crown’s case.
Ghana was the actual victim of the corruption to which the directors have confessed. The UK was not a direct victim. We have an extradition treaty with the UK, which is usually invoked for the benefit of the foreign party. For a change, this is an opportunity to invoke it for our benefit and bring those people to book right here in Ghana.
Indeed, Government would be better advised to not set loose its serial callers and hounds like JJ to use ‘half-baked’ reasoning to attack the character and integrity of John Hardy. They should, like CHRAJ, see how they can possibly benefit from the experience of people like John Hardy, to begin the process of extradition for those former directors to face trial here.
Mr Hardy, a recorder (part time judge) and Queen’s Counsel, can never be the sort of character the Spokesperson of the Vice President was struggling to portray him. He is a well-respected international criminal law specialist, an expert on mutual legal assistance, the very area that CHRAJ says it’s been struggling to get information from the UK SFO. His meeting with CHRAJ this morning is, at least, a clear indication that Emile Short and his team see his value to our national efforts against corruption.
He has instructed in a number of lengthy and complex fraud prosecutions as well as continuing his criminal practice, particularly in extradition where his expertise spans over 15 years.
He also appears for both prosecution and defence in major criminal trials and has extensive experience in money laundering cases. His lectures in Ghana were just following a trend. He is in demand as an expert witness on matters of United Kingdom extradition and criminal law in foreign jurisdictions, as well as being a regular contributor to lectures and seminars around the world.
Now let me move to the essence of the trip that Mr Jinapor accompanied his boss to Korea. John Mahama, we are told, went to Korea to sign an MoU for 200,000 affordable homes, valued at $10 billion to be built by STX, a Korean company. This is a five-year project that should lead to 40,000 additional homes built between now and 2015 yearly. This would be a major boost to tackling our housing deficit and I pray for its success.
But, how affordable is this deal? Secondly, we are dealing with a company which claims to have assets of about $2.6 billion and debts of some $7 billion. This is surely a company in crisis which is looking to Ghana for some miraculous salvation.
We are also told that the MoU requires the Government of Ghana to buy 90,000 of the homes in advance. Already it is music to the years of the police, prison guards, etc. Decent accommodation at last! The first 30,000 would go to the security agencies, with 20,000 for the Police Service.
But, let us apply the brakes and wipe the windscreen a bit. That Government pre-financing could cost Ghana $4.5 billion. From where does the Mills-Mahama government intend to raise that kind of money? We need to know now where and how.
This $4.5 billion would more than double Ghana's total external debt! Our total foreign exchange reserves are less than $2.5 billion! Something does not add up. If we had that kind of money why should we not be looking at building the units ourselves? If the Koreans are giving us a loan, we need to what the terms are.
Could, as predicted by the President, this trip by the Veep really be the final nail in the coffin of this Korean deal, meaning it has only exposed it as unreal?
Moreover, the $50,000 price tag at current HFC cedi mortgage rates over 15 years means that workers will pay some 15 million cedis monthly! How many workers can afford this? The questions only expose the lack of transparency surrounding this deal which has received more positive publicity than the IFC and CNTC loans put together.
The Koreans see this deal as good because it provides the company which is currently in a financial bind with some much needed liquidity from the upfront payment. If we have that kind of loose money lying around let us for a change believe in Ghana and make this project home-grown, because, after all, technology can be bought.
My advice to Government is to make the details of the MoU public and to stop the cheap politics and provide details of how this wonderful project would see the light of day rather than being coffin-nailed. As it is now, some things just don’t add up. qanawu@gmail.com
AKUFO-ADDO, BETTY, MILLS AND PARTISAN CLEANSING
Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko
On 24th December, 2009, I saw Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu and his wife Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu being among a group of beautiful people enjoying a special carol night in the house of Mr and Mrs Edward Akufo-Addo Jr. Three months later I am surprise to hear her opting to defend her cordial relationship with the Akufo-Addos and others in the NPP by telling what has been pointed out to be a lie about Nana Akufo-Addo.
“I was virtually hounded out of the Ministry of Justice by this same man who people say is my best friend. I had to leave the Ministry of Justice because I was attacked time and time again in 2000/2001 by the former Minister of Justice…I don’t think Nana would deny that. I don’t think that he can deny that he put extreme pressure on me to leave. He said that I was just too prominent a member of the NDC to be head of a division in the Ministry of Justice and so I had to leave… What happened to me was unpardonable. The hurt that it caused me and my family; I had to leave my family, I had to leave my husband, leave my children and leave Ghana in order to sustain myself. What happened to me, I will never do to any other state Attorney or any other public servant.”
The statement above is culled from a 60-minute interview that Attorney General Betty Mould Iddrisu, who last year held a press conference to inform Ghanaians that prosecutions were to flow this year on some 49 corruption cases, granted to Radio Gold Tuesday morning.
The response was straight to the point. “The Office of Nana Akufo-Addo wishes to place on record that this is an unfortunate, even if she sees it as a convenient, lie. Far from hounding her out of office, not only did she continue to act as Head of the International Law Division during the entire two-year period of his tenure as Attorney-General, Nana Akufo-Addo actually left the current Attorney-General behind at the Attorney-General’s Office when he left in March 2003 to take up his new responsibilities as Foreign Minister. Subsequently, he accepted her request for a reference letter to support her application for an international job. In fact, he gave her a glowing reference because he was satisfied about her competence and fitness for the job.”
But, Feisty Betty did not leave it there. In a press release, she shifted blame on to her colleague Ministers and investigators. She said, despite a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Ministers to provide her with documentary evidence on the 49 identified corruption cases arising out of the Transitional Team;s report, only the Transport Minister has been forthcoming, explaining why charges are reportedly prepared on Ghana International Airline dealings. Again, the CID, BNI, SFO and investigators, generally, have not been able to provide her office with enough evidence for her to prosecute the said cases.
Now, let us go back to Pretty (or is it Petty) Betty. According to the Attorney-General’s own CV, she worked with “Ghana’s Ministry of Justice from 1978 until her appointment at the Commonwealth Secretariat in November 2003. At the Justice Ministry, she headed the Industrial Property Law Division and was later appointed Ghana’s Copyright Administrator before leaving for the Commonwealth job, after serving as Head of the Ministry’s International Law Division.”
If Akufo-Addo left Betty behind and she stayed at post under another NPP A-G Papa Owusu-Ankomah for another 8 months before leaving for a more lucrative post at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, then how could she have been hounded out of office by her former boss?
And, why would she not go to Dr Obed Asamoah (the A-G before 2001) or Papa, her last boss, for a reference but chose rather perversely to go to the Foreign Ministry to seek a glowing reference from the very man who tormented her?
One would have thought her game was up. But, no! Not Betty. She has hit back saying she stands by her claim 100%. But, there is a subtle but significant shift. Her latest story is that, whilst working under Akufo-Addo, he kept harassing her that President Kufuor wanted her out. She said, for the two years that Nana was her boss, each time Nana met her at the office, he would say “Are you still here? There is too much pressure from the President and sections of government. Each time I go to the Castle, the President keeps asking me about you.”
Hmmm. So, both her immediate boss, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Republic wanted or reassigned or sacked and they could not do it for nearly 3 years until she resigned to take up another job in November 2003? President Mills must be thinking what a wimp his predecessor was. Why not? It took President Mills just a couple of months to get rid of people like Prof Ken Attafuah and several Chief Directors.
Now, let us take our time and analyse the facts well. (P)NDC had been in office 19 years. The impression in 2001 was that the civil service had been ‘bastardised’ and (P)NDC-ized and the whole government machinery had been booby-trapped against the new NPP government; there were moles everywhere. This mainly motivated the unhealthy ‘proceed-on-leave’ syndrome.
When Nana Akufo-Addo became the Attorney-General in 2001, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, then head of the International Law Division, was among the complement of staff he met at the Office of the Attorney General. Instructively, no significant personnel change took place in that sensitive office.
As his statement Tuesday points out, “It was common knowledge that Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was the wife of the former Defence Minister in the previous NDC administration, Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu. This fact led to some lobbying from some quarters for her to be reassigned to another portfolio within the civil service. Nana Akufo-Addo resisted such calls and defended his decision to maintain her at post on the ground that he had no reason to believe that her political affiliation was affecting either her professional judgment or her competence. Indeed, Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was given additional duties in charge of the de-confiscation of assets.”
It seems the more people seek to destroy Akufo-Addo the more they expose his virtues. This is a man who has been bastardised as a firebrand who would fire, arrest and jail his political opponents. Yet, his actions give an entirely different picture.
But, like the astute politician that he is, Nana Akufo-Addo used the Betty opportunity to attack him to hit back at President Mills, who preaches virtue but apparently not to the hearing of his government.
“Unlike the culture of partisan cleansing that competent Ghanaians in the public service have experienced under the current Mills administration, Nana Akufo-Addo stood firm to his principles that insofar as the Constitution of the Republic gave every Ghanaian the right to join a political party of their choice, he was not going to relieve any officer serving under him of their position solely on the basis of their political party membership, affiliation or sympathies,” the statement from Nana’s office read.
The statement goes on to advise President Mills that like Akufo-Addo, for the NDC, “the only relevant consideration” in appointments must be “competence and professionalism and so long as” public servants do “not allow their political sympathies to affect their competence, professionalism and judgment,” President Mills ought to have worked with the likes of Ken Attafuah.
While the response from Nana office concedes that there was pressure to get rid of Betty, the facts show that Nana did not get rid of her. There are hundreds of examples of Ghanaians who have been literally hounded and chased out of office in this era of a ‘Better Ghana’.
In fact, I remember when the pressure was fully on Nana’s neck in 2002-2003, with NPP hardliners calling for prosecutions to flow and NDC crying persecution, some procedural blunders led to some powerful calls for Nana to be sacked or reassigned. Betty’s current predicament is familiar territory. Nana’s friendship with people like Kojo Tsikata and ET Mensah were often cited as reasons for his ‘reluctance’ to act on prepared dockets.
I got to know of Betty Mould’s sensitive position at that time. People could not understand why she was still at post at the time Tsatsu was ‘winning’ interlocutory judgments in court. The charge was that the A-G’s was infested with NDC people. In fact, Betty today admits that even as a civil servant and against the rules she was a “too prominent member of the NDC.”
There were ‘strange’ and embarrassing happenings. On March 12, 2002, the NPP Government issued a public apology and added that it saw the distasteful attempt attempt to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), in Church was “a calculated move to embarrass it.”
Presidential Spokesman, Kwabena Agyepong, said there were certain elements within the security system bent on giving credence to the accusation by the NDC that the government was harassing former NDC government officials.
“The Attorney-General was emphatic on the day in question that they should not serve Mr Tsikata at the Church. For them to have gone back on his word to create a scene at the Church should be viewed as nothing but a calculated attempt to embarrass the government and to give it a bad name,” he said.
Two days later, it was reported that the Police Service had interdicted Police Commissioner in-charge of Legal and Prosecutions, Sam Awotwi, following the attempt by two policemen to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata in Church. The policemen involved, Detective Chief Inspector Hope Nyadi and Detective Inspector Ashitey Annang, were also interdicted.
The previous evening a security source purportedly told “The Evening News” that they were also investigating whether the interdicted Sam Awotwi’s “long association with the former GNPC boss might have influenced his role in the authorised arrest of Mr Tsikata”!
Such was the atmosphere in Ghana. Again, this happened two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fast Track High Court was unconstitutional. It may comfort Betty to know that the pressure then was not only on Nana to resign, on March 2, 2002, the NDC called for the resignation of Chief Justice Edward K. Wiredu for setting up the ‘unconstitutional’ Fast Track Court.
On that same day, Tsatsu was back in court challenging the constitutionality of the charges against him. Before his plea could be taken, his counsel, EVO Dankwah, raised a preliminary objection that the act purportedly committed by his client was not an offence since it was committed in February 1993, whereas the law under which his client was purportedly charged came into effect in July of that year. The court agreed.
The Judge said, “I must tell the Director of Public Prosecutions that, our laws are stable and under no stretch of imagination could in or about February mean July.” It was difficult to convince the NPP that their celebrated lawyer Akufo-Addo could make such mistakes. The NDC elements of mischief were busily at work at the A-G’s.
There was another if not a more very basic error which only led NPP people to speculate even further that the NDC people at the A-G’s were deliberately doing what Kwabena Agyepong was accusing Sam Awotwi of doing. The summons which ordered Tsatsu's appearance before the FTC was issued in the name of the President and not the Republic.
“How could it be forgotten that by the Courts Act justice must be exercised in the name of the Republic and not the President? Did the A-G's office not know that by summoning Tsatsu in the name of the President, the independence of the judiciary was likely to be compromised? How come that this could not be detected by the whole machinery of the office the A-G? Was the A-G expecting us to believe him when he said that this error could not be traced to his office?” the Voice newspaper asked in its front page comment calling for Nana’s head.
Betty should take some advice from the concluding words of Nana’s statement, “While Nana Akufo-Addo may empathise with her predicament, whereby influential persons within the NDC are baying for her blood because of her alleged slowness in bringing former NPP government officials to trial, he believes that there are more responsible ways of handling the pressure than resorting to unnecessary fabrications.”
Who knows, may be Betty will follow her tormentor to the Foreign Ministry and make her presidential bid from there.
On 24th December, 2009, I saw Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu and his wife Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu being among a group of beautiful people enjoying a special carol night in the house of Mr and Mrs Edward Akufo-Addo Jr. Three months later I am surprise to hear her opting to defend her cordial relationship with the Akufo-Addos and others in the NPP by telling what has been pointed out to be a lie about Nana Akufo-Addo.
“I was virtually hounded out of the Ministry of Justice by this same man who people say is my best friend. I had to leave the Ministry of Justice because I was attacked time and time again in 2000/2001 by the former Minister of Justice…I don’t think Nana would deny that. I don’t think that he can deny that he put extreme pressure on me to leave. He said that I was just too prominent a member of the NDC to be head of a division in the Ministry of Justice and so I had to leave… What happened to me was unpardonable. The hurt that it caused me and my family; I had to leave my family, I had to leave my husband, leave my children and leave Ghana in order to sustain myself. What happened to me, I will never do to any other state Attorney or any other public servant.”
The statement above is culled from a 60-minute interview that Attorney General Betty Mould Iddrisu, who last year held a press conference to inform Ghanaians that prosecutions were to flow this year on some 49 corruption cases, granted to Radio Gold Tuesday morning.
The response was straight to the point. “The Office of Nana Akufo-Addo wishes to place on record that this is an unfortunate, even if she sees it as a convenient, lie. Far from hounding her out of office, not only did she continue to act as Head of the International Law Division during the entire two-year period of his tenure as Attorney-General, Nana Akufo-Addo actually left the current Attorney-General behind at the Attorney-General’s Office when he left in March 2003 to take up his new responsibilities as Foreign Minister. Subsequently, he accepted her request for a reference letter to support her application for an international job. In fact, he gave her a glowing reference because he was satisfied about her competence and fitness for the job.”
But, Feisty Betty did not leave it there. In a press release, she shifted blame on to her colleague Ministers and investigators. She said, despite a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Ministers to provide her with documentary evidence on the 49 identified corruption cases arising out of the Transitional Team;s report, only the Transport Minister has been forthcoming, explaining why charges are reportedly prepared on Ghana International Airline dealings. Again, the CID, BNI, SFO and investigators, generally, have not been able to provide her office with enough evidence for her to prosecute the said cases.
Now, let us go back to Pretty (or is it Petty) Betty. According to the Attorney-General’s own CV, she worked with “Ghana’s Ministry of Justice from 1978 until her appointment at the Commonwealth Secretariat in November 2003. At the Justice Ministry, she headed the Industrial Property Law Division and was later appointed Ghana’s Copyright Administrator before leaving for the Commonwealth job, after serving as Head of the Ministry’s International Law Division.”
If Akufo-Addo left Betty behind and she stayed at post under another NPP A-G Papa Owusu-Ankomah for another 8 months before leaving for a more lucrative post at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, then how could she have been hounded out of office by her former boss?
And, why would she not go to Dr Obed Asamoah (the A-G before 2001) or Papa, her last boss, for a reference but chose rather perversely to go to the Foreign Ministry to seek a glowing reference from the very man who tormented her?
One would have thought her game was up. But, no! Not Betty. She has hit back saying she stands by her claim 100%. But, there is a subtle but significant shift. Her latest story is that, whilst working under Akufo-Addo, he kept harassing her that President Kufuor wanted her out. She said, for the two years that Nana was her boss, each time Nana met her at the office, he would say “Are you still here? There is too much pressure from the President and sections of government. Each time I go to the Castle, the President keeps asking me about you.”
Hmmm. So, both her immediate boss, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Republic wanted or reassigned or sacked and they could not do it for nearly 3 years until she resigned to take up another job in November 2003? President Mills must be thinking what a wimp his predecessor was. Why not? It took President Mills just a couple of months to get rid of people like Prof Ken Attafuah and several Chief Directors.
Now, let us take our time and analyse the facts well. (P)NDC had been in office 19 years. The impression in 2001 was that the civil service had been ‘bastardised’ and (P)NDC-ized and the whole government machinery had been booby-trapped against the new NPP government; there were moles everywhere. This mainly motivated the unhealthy ‘proceed-on-leave’ syndrome.
When Nana Akufo-Addo became the Attorney-General in 2001, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, then head of the International Law Division, was among the complement of staff he met at the Office of the Attorney General. Instructively, no significant personnel change took place in that sensitive office.
As his statement Tuesday points out, “It was common knowledge that Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was the wife of the former Defence Minister in the previous NDC administration, Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu. This fact led to some lobbying from some quarters for her to be reassigned to another portfolio within the civil service. Nana Akufo-Addo resisted such calls and defended his decision to maintain her at post on the ground that he had no reason to believe that her political affiliation was affecting either her professional judgment or her competence. Indeed, Mrs. Mould Iddrisu was given additional duties in charge of the de-confiscation of assets.”
It seems the more people seek to destroy Akufo-Addo the more they expose his virtues. This is a man who has been bastardised as a firebrand who would fire, arrest and jail his political opponents. Yet, his actions give an entirely different picture.
But, like the astute politician that he is, Nana Akufo-Addo used the Betty opportunity to attack him to hit back at President Mills, who preaches virtue but apparently not to the hearing of his government.
“Unlike the culture of partisan cleansing that competent Ghanaians in the public service have experienced under the current Mills administration, Nana Akufo-Addo stood firm to his principles that insofar as the Constitution of the Republic gave every Ghanaian the right to join a political party of their choice, he was not going to relieve any officer serving under him of their position solely on the basis of their political party membership, affiliation or sympathies,” the statement from Nana’s office read.
The statement goes on to advise President Mills that like Akufo-Addo, for the NDC, “the only relevant consideration” in appointments must be “competence and professionalism and so long as” public servants do “not allow their political sympathies to affect their competence, professionalism and judgment,” President Mills ought to have worked with the likes of Ken Attafuah.
While the response from Nana office concedes that there was pressure to get rid of Betty, the facts show that Nana did not get rid of her. There are hundreds of examples of Ghanaians who have been literally hounded and chased out of office in this era of a ‘Better Ghana’.
In fact, I remember when the pressure was fully on Nana’s neck in 2002-2003, with NPP hardliners calling for prosecutions to flow and NDC crying persecution, some procedural blunders led to some powerful calls for Nana to be sacked or reassigned. Betty’s current predicament is familiar territory. Nana’s friendship with people like Kojo Tsikata and ET Mensah were often cited as reasons for his ‘reluctance’ to act on prepared dockets.
I got to know of Betty Mould’s sensitive position at that time. People could not understand why she was still at post at the time Tsatsu was ‘winning’ interlocutory judgments in court. The charge was that the A-G’s was infested with NDC people. In fact, Betty today admits that even as a civil servant and against the rules she was a “too prominent member of the NDC.”
There were ‘strange’ and embarrassing happenings. On March 12, 2002, the NPP Government issued a public apology and added that it saw the distasteful attempt attempt to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), in Church was “a calculated move to embarrass it.”
Presidential Spokesman, Kwabena Agyepong, said there were certain elements within the security system bent on giving credence to the accusation by the NDC that the government was harassing former NDC government officials.
“The Attorney-General was emphatic on the day in question that they should not serve Mr Tsikata at the Church. For them to have gone back on his word to create a scene at the Church should be viewed as nothing but a calculated attempt to embarrass the government and to give it a bad name,” he said.
Two days later, it was reported that the Police Service had interdicted Police Commissioner in-charge of Legal and Prosecutions, Sam Awotwi, following the attempt by two policemen to arrest Tsatsu Tsikata in Church. The policemen involved, Detective Chief Inspector Hope Nyadi and Detective Inspector Ashitey Annang, were also interdicted.
The previous evening a security source purportedly told “The Evening News” that they were also investigating whether the interdicted Sam Awotwi’s “long association with the former GNPC boss might have influenced his role in the authorised arrest of Mr Tsikata”!
Such was the atmosphere in Ghana. Again, this happened two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fast Track High Court was unconstitutional. It may comfort Betty to know that the pressure then was not only on Nana to resign, on March 2, 2002, the NDC called for the resignation of Chief Justice Edward K. Wiredu for setting up the ‘unconstitutional’ Fast Track Court.
On that same day, Tsatsu was back in court challenging the constitutionality of the charges against him. Before his plea could be taken, his counsel, EVO Dankwah, raised a preliminary objection that the act purportedly committed by his client was not an offence since it was committed in February 1993, whereas the law under which his client was purportedly charged came into effect in July of that year. The court agreed.
The Judge said, “I must tell the Director of Public Prosecutions that, our laws are stable and under no stretch of imagination could in or about February mean July.” It was difficult to convince the NPP that their celebrated lawyer Akufo-Addo could make such mistakes. The NDC elements of mischief were busily at work at the A-G’s.
There was another if not a more very basic error which only led NPP people to speculate even further that the NDC people at the A-G’s were deliberately doing what Kwabena Agyepong was accusing Sam Awotwi of doing. The summons which ordered Tsatsu's appearance before the FTC was issued in the name of the President and not the Republic.
“How could it be forgotten that by the Courts Act justice must be exercised in the name of the Republic and not the President? Did the A-G's office not know that by summoning Tsatsu in the name of the President, the independence of the judiciary was likely to be compromised? How come that this could not be detected by the whole machinery of the office the A-G? Was the A-G expecting us to believe him when he said that this error could not be traced to his office?” the Voice newspaper asked in its front page comment calling for Nana’s head.
Betty should take some advice from the concluding words of Nana’s statement, “While Nana Akufo-Addo may empathise with her predicament, whereby influential persons within the NDC are baying for her blood because of her alleged slowness in bringing former NPP government officials to trial, he believes that there are more responsible ways of handling the pressure than resorting to unnecessary fabrications.”
Who knows, may be Betty will follow her tormentor to the Foreign Ministry and make her presidential bid from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
