Drugs, Grass and Cocaine: What should Nana Addo do?

by Etse Sikanku

Nana Akuffo Addo, the veteran politician from Abuakwa whose lifelong ambition has been to become President of Ghana, recently rebuffed allegations over his use of cocaine.

"I have never sniffed or tasted cocaine in my life" he charged while addressing NPP’s youth wing in Tamale.

In the past, opponents within and outside his party made political hay out of what was now beginning to resemble an open secret. Perhaps Nana and his advisers desperate to avoid defeat in 2012 must have resolved to tackle this long standing accusation head on.

Whether this will carve out to be good political strategy or not remains to be seen. Already some of Ghana’s political cognoscenti posit it was unnecessary for Nana to thrust himself into the mud. For others however, Nana’s cocaine tag was a legitimate enough subject deserving serious attention.

The issue of drug trafficking has become a hot button issue in Ghana’s political corridors following high profile cases involving former Director of Police Operations, Kofi Boakye, Ashanti’s Manhyia palace and the infamous duo of Kwabena Amaning, a.k.a Tagoe and Alhaji Abass.

Akuffo Addo represents the greatest threat to any re-election bid by current President Mills. Mills himself is battling insiders within the NDC who are sabotaging his second term bid.

The cocaine topic will not go away easily as political figures such as Kofi Wayo have challenged Nana Addo to blood tests. However there are mixed signals as to whether this is serious enough to undermine Nana’s childhood ambition of following his late father who was once President of Ghana in the early 1970s.

So what exactly should Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo Addo do? Go for the drug tests and risk culpability or just let sleeping dogs lie?

SIKANKU: Is Nick Clegg Britain's answer to Barack Obama?

by Etse Sikanku

There are some days when I secretly thank God for C-SPAN. This past Thursday was one of such days as I happened to catch Britain’s presidential debate live on the network. Though such debates are a staple in US politics, I was surprised to learn it was Britain’s first. Makes me wonder what else the English are late with. But to be fair both democracies work quite differently so my amusement might be quite unjustified. Even worse, my familiarity with British politics is highly remote so these thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, I was overjoyed to find a presidential debate on TV in an off-season year for us. I refused to engage in any mental debates of my own regarding whether it was the best use of my time. I told myself: “If any slipped through, they will be filibustered no matter the merits.” Woa, now I know how it feels to be a Congressional Republican.

I was also very much interested in seeing at firsthand what the excitement about Nick Clegg was all about. From what I saw I think Cleggmania is actually a euphemism for Obamamania. It’s no secret that the Obama effect has traveled well beyond the boundaries of the United States. America is viewed more favorably around the world because of its young, intelligent and wildly appealing president. Surely, it’s understandable that any country will want an Obama of their kind.

But there’s no reason to force it.

Nick Clegg is no Barack Obama. Yes Clegg is young, fresh and way more appealing than the dour Brown or the stoic Cameron. If you believe McLuhan’s theory that the medium is the message, then the Liberal Democratic candidate is obviously a strong magnet for television viewers. But presidential elections are not reality shows. Obama did more than woo voters with impressionistic or stylistic performances. Nick was so focused on coming off as different that he looked choreographed. I was still waiting for him to hit the home run but all I heard Clegg say during his summary was that “We can do something new, something different” without saying exactly what. Yet there was the British press fawning over the next day: “The Other One Wins,” said the conservative Times (London); “Nick Clegg Seizes His Moment in the TV Spotlight” wrote the liberal Guardian and so on.

These are serious and perhaps dangerous times in both domestic and international politics. The UK needs a steady and experienced hand at the wheel. That hand belongs to Mister Brown. Clegg is not ready to lead though he will be a terrific candidate come the next elections. As for Mister Cameron the fact that he has failed to capitalize on Labour’s “incumbent-fatigue” problem says all about his status as a credible challenger.

The biggest question that remains is whether the Americanization of British politics is good or bad for the country. From one perspective it is good if only for the purpose of open, direct and plain-leveled politics where each candidate competes on equal grounding. However from another perspective, I fear that the grand strategizing, pre-screened sound-bites and the desire for glamor that produced a certain Sarah Palin might be the coup de grace for British’s parliamentary democracy. What do you think? What's your take on Britain's latest infatuation with American style politics?

SIKANKU: NPP’s unbelievable political calculus

An NPP supporter at a party rally.

By: Etse Sikanku Published: July 31, 2009 9:14 PM CDT

Ghana’s main opposition party - the NPP - recently announced that no more than three persons will be allowed to contest the party’s flagbearership. In my view, this is nothing but an act of desperation by a party struggling to re-assert itself after a bruising election.

Against the backdrop of recent praise — perhaps exaggerated — for Ghana’s democratic record, the NPP’s desperado act is quite disappointing for a number of reasons. Here’s why.

I think the NPP’s actions is based on a flawed assumption that having just three candidates instead of say 17 will lead to less division within the party. This assumption is incorrect because the major division within their party was between two camps: the Kyeremaneteng and the Akuffo-Addo camps. Unless the NPP wants to adopt NDC’s fabled “Swedru declaration” where only one candidate is anointed by the party, there are always going to be competing factions. If party executives are so concerned about numerous contestants they could as well go ahead and appoint a single unopposed candidate by “consensus.”

When I first heard about suggestions for limiting the number of people who will contest the party’s flagbearership, my immediate reaction was to dismiss it as an idea so out of sync with the very fundamentals of democracy that it will never see daylight. Apparently, some in the NPP and, I guess even outside, think otherwise.

But this is Politics 101: the notion of representation, participation, and pluralism are of enormous value to any democratic system anywhere. In fact, it will not be wrong to say they’re the backbone of such systems; thus I wonder why the NPP wants to put a cap on people’s right to freely contest.

We can all give any number of reasons why we like or dislike the NPP, but there’s an underlying truth to all this chaos: The NPP is most appealing when it’s most competitive. I absolutely agree with Dr Gesika Agambilla one of Kufuor’s longest serving ministers who once stated in an on op-ed piece that, “If, it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

Instead of resisting such competition, the NPP should embrace it, and encourage healthy debate during primaries. The current decision may sound good for the short term but means nothing if the NPP is serious about its long term viability.

For the sake of Ghana, I hope the NPP, NDC and other parties thrive as political institutions.

This is because while democracy is the ultimate goal, it is only a by-product of well established and flourishing party systems.

AGBOKA: Government Is Not Being Unfair to Ex-President Kufuor BUT…

Jerry Rawlings and John Kufuor are Ghana's only surviving former presidents

By: Godwin J. Y. Agboka
Published: July 26, 2009 5:51 PM CDT

Witch-hunting! Witch-hunting! Witch-hunting! That is the rejuvenated term in Ghanaian political circles. Under the NPP administration, the NDC faulted and accused the Kufuor-led government of harassing and falsely prosecuting its members for crimes, it claimed, its officials did not commit. The NPP has lately found solace in the term to also make the case that its members are being hounded by the Mills-led government. Interesting times!

We have all been witnesses to the recent cases involving Asamoah Boateng, Kwadwo Mpiani, Akwasi Osei-Adjei, among a host of others, all of whom have made similar cases of political harassment. Given what we know, we can make the case that the game has just started. Many NPP officials will cry foul in this game of “you-do-me-I do-you” politics that has engulfed our young political process—that is not to say that some of the reasons for which opposition elements have been brought before state institutions or for which they have been prosecuted have not been legitimate. If you asked me, many have been legitimate and many others have been calculated to politically humiliate opposition elements.

I have argued once—and I still do—that people have to be made accountable for their actions either during or after their services to the nation; more so, I have said elsewhere that just because some action(s) was/were right or wrong under the NPP administration does not make it right or wrong under the NDC era. Societies make progress and they learn from the mistakes of the past. That, however, is the ideal situation. Politicians will get their pound of flesh, so I don’t think the NDC will do any less than what the NPP did—at least former president Kufuor can attest to that!

The case of former president Kufuor intrigues me. He wins my sympathy, in a way! He should be enjoying his ESB somewhere. Unfortunately, like many other former African presidents, he is suffering from a negative political process he has helped to build. Mr. Kufuor, notwithstanding his unequaled legacy, set a bad precedent which has, all too soon, caught up with him. Currently, in addition to his many foreign engagements, he has been busy accusing the new government of mistreating him. In an interview he granted to the BBC Network Africa program, Mr. Kufuor expressed his displeasure at the treatment he is getting from the NDC government.

That is not what you will think a former president should be doing. I don’t mean he cannot complain, but conditions should not be created for him to complain. He should be relaxing somewhere in his backyard, playing chess or some “oware.” The man has contributed a lot to the development of the nation, but even if he contributed nothing, he should get what the constitution or any other legal document mandates a former president to get. We may disagree on how much he should get, but he should get what he should get! For purposes of argument, in spite of the campaign waged by then candidate and now President Barack Obama against Bush’s (Jnr) administration, there has never been a time, after he left office, that Bush has complained about the treatment he is getting from the current administration and, I believe, we can say the same about other countries. Sadly, though, Mr. Kufuor has been forced to take his fight outside the shores of Ghana, because he is obviously not happy. It is a shame!

Is Mr. Kufuor a victim of political vendetta? If you asked me, I will say yes! He is in a political battle with the NDC. It is clear that the NDC, given the events of the last eight years, wants to return the favor—albeit negatively. It is a flip of the coin. The new government wants to embarrass and humiliate Mr. Kufuor by making him feel uncomfortable, knowing very well that Mr. Kufuor will give them the perfect response. Thus, what Mr. Kufuor is doing is the perfect response that the NDC expected. It’s a case of “let’s re-enact the Rawlings drama.” Some of this is about Rawlings, trust me. Even though the NDC government ran a campaign that promised not to settle scores with its political opponents, there is no doubt that there has been a subtle attempt, on the part of the NDC, to intimidate its opponents, mainly NPP operatives, even if for legitimate reasons.

Is Mr. Kufuor being treated unfairly? YES and NO! The issue about what a former president deserves or gets after his/her term of office should not be up for public debate. It should be enshrined somewhere in some document. It simply should be a constitutional matter. What does the constitution say he should get at the end of his term? Does any other document speak to this issue, if the constitution doesn’t have such a provision? The country will be setting a very bad precedent if uneducated public debate takes over what a legal or constitutional provision should stipulate. Thus, argued on this front, Mr. Kufuor has been the subject of a democratic political system that should know what to do.

Unfortunately, however, legality runs into ethics and morality sometimes—taking the debate on a fussy tangent that becomes interesting as well. The injection of morality in this debate introduces the historical condition, which gets into many comparative issues. It is sad to say that even though Mr. Kufuor is upset about his new condition,—requiring him to make some adjustments—the case can be made that the country has made tremendous progress in how it treats its former presidents. It is a strange point to make, but it is the fact! On a historical continuum, Mr. Kufuor seems to be enjoying a relatively peaceful retirement together with a bountiful booty, compared to what Hilla Limann got under the Rawlings era or relative to the treatment he (Mr. Kufuor) gave to Rawlings.

On moral grounds Mr. Kufuor had (and still has) no justification to talk (or whine) about the issues that came up during the interview. I am surprised that Kufuor is surprised that this is happening. Why is he complaining? That he wants six cars, but he can only get four cars? That currently he is granted full courtesies in Ghana’s missions abroad, when he didn’t do same for his predecessor? In his own words: “When you look at the situation, it begins to look like there has been a coup d’état. It wasn’t a coup d’état that changed government. People went to ballot and the votes were almost split equally.” Interesting! So, Mr. Kufuor never thought he presided over a dictatorial regime when he mistreated his predecessor? What was Mr. Kufuor thinking when he withdrew privileges constitutionally sanctioned to be enjoyed by former President Rawlings? Was it legally and morally appropriate for the Kufuor-led government to endorse the practice where Ghanaian embassies abroad refused to extend courtesies to Mr. Rawlings?

In spite of his many achievements as president of Ghana—and his government did better, in my view, than the NDC (1992-2000)—but the NPP took politics to a new low with such decisions that should never be repeated. That chapter on this issue should be closed and should be treated as one of the “never happened” events of the country. I can’t say enough about Mr. Rawlings’ dishonorable behavior at various points since he left office in 2000; he has said things unbecoming of a former president; he has taunted Mr. Kufuor; he has acted indecorously, but when someone behaves in such a manner in a democratic regime, you don’t behave unconstitutionally towards him. Apply the law and leave out personal issues that are dictated by your whims and caprices.

To decide to strip Rawlings of his constitutionally mandated privileges, because the government believed he was speaking evil about it on his foreign travels was the most childish decision any democratic government could take—especially when that government came to power through a campaign that promised to respect the rule of law. On that score, in addition to many happenings that strike the moral chord, Mr. Kufour is not being treated unfairly! Maybe both Rawlings and Kufuor don’t deserve any good treatments from the state, because of the poor treatments they meted out to their predecessors.

As I have hinted, in our march to the top, we need to look back, see what we’ve done right, see what we’ve done wrong, and close the door that took us in the wrong direction. We should do better than that! In our journey to political maturation, we need to end the vicious cycle of settling unnecessary political scores that threaten to injure opponents, but which might come back to hit the very same people who began the process. We need to be able to separate personal issues from national issues that are grounded or firmly rooted in law. We need to close the chapter on the “you-did-it-to-me-so-I will-do-it-to-you” politics.” It takes us nowhere. I will be surprised if the NDC doesn’t learn any lessons from this. The wheel of misfortune may strike them “BIG TIME.”

We need to begin an educated debate about what our former presidents should enjoy after they leave office, and such benefits should not be subject to change by the personal concerns of any one person or government. We should avoid the situation where anybody can wake up on the wrong side of his/her bed and decide to do what s/he wants. It’s a shame that 50 years of nationhood, a former president will grant an interview to a media organization and be forced to talk about the poor treatment he is being given by a current government. We should clearly delineate what we mean by accountability from what we mean by witch-hunting. Today, it’s the NPP that is at the receiving end, and tomorrow it might be the NDC, again, if the current practice continues. It becomes a never-ending vicious cycle!

Godwing J.Y Agboka is a PhD candidate in English at Illinois State University

A better democracy for Ghana

Ghana’s electoral politics is the poster child of democratic reform in Africa.

By:Gideon-Nii Ayi

There is a chasm between the ruled and rulers in Ghana and in most of Africa. Democracy as I understand it should be that the power to rule a nation is derived from the people. Others might give reference to the power of the thumb.

We vote and even in the recent elections we showed who has overall power by kicking the NPP out. Yes in terms of voting we still do have the power. But voting for your leaders is a very minute and only an initial part of the whole deal called democracy.

As we forever continue to hear, democracy is the peoples rule. This means we the people should continue to dictate the affairs of the state. We should set the general agenda of the day, -the broad outlook which defines Ghana as Ghana. The little details of running the affairs should be left to the government and the civil servants.

Very often Ghanaians sit back and through their hands in exasperation saying ‘’Why can’t we do this’’ ‘’This is common sense’’ ‘’We should sack that public official ..’’ and we wonder why the government of the day won’t just follow common sense in ruling Ghana.

Well – there is a big space between the voters and the voted. It is called 4 years. We wait till every 4 years before we show our disapproval. At most we leave the airwaves to some few social commentators to make some noise and complain to our wives/girlfriends/boyfriends and whoever is sorry enough to listen to our chatters. We do nothing more.

But how should it be. This 4 years space that we have of what use can it be? As that old blues song goes -I don’t know much about history, don’t know much trigonometry’’ and I also say I know not much about political science- but at least this I do know- I have never met my Member of Parliament before (although he stays some few houses from me!)- neither do a lot of Ghanaians know how to channel their grievances to their MP. In Ghana people approach their MP when they need financial favours-(or placement in an educational institutions for their kids), any other problem and we wait till Sunday church service and give it to Nyame-God- to solve for us- when we asked this same Nyame to give us an MP (and a President), in the same church one fine December Sunday morning. God must surely be puzzled and asking --- so why request for a President then?-

We should be able to influence public policy and not leave it to only some NGO’s and some few parliamentarians to run the show for us. Talking to the MP’s may be one and yet effective method.

Holding public officials accountable for their actions is another but can the everyday person in the street go about enforcing this? It is beyond one person and certainly more than a thousand to effectively control the state of Ghana as it is now, So what is to be done? To be continued

Kenyatta's stance on nature

I thought this would be a nice addition to the blog.
It's from the Kansas City Zoo's Africa exhibit.

Politics influence nature and nature influences politics.

Like Kenyatta says, let's keep nature beautiful.

God is not a politician

By: Edward Amartey-Tagoe, Accra, Ghana.

People have ended up in deep trouble for attempting to broadcast their religious faith in areas where such acts are prohibited. One of such people is Ghanaian Daniel Baidoo who was sentenced to 25 years imprison, in Lybia, for preaching Christianity.

Another instance happened in Afghanistan not too far from Al-Quadafi’s territories. Some American soldiers distributed Bibles printed in Pashto and Dari languages—all Afghanistan’s main languages. Their great commission acts, however, have landed them in trouble—thanks to Aljazeera, Brian Hughes and the Law.

The main point I want to highlight in this post is not about the motives behind the propagation of the Christian religion in both cases. My argument is rather centered on whether or not it is right to do something that may seem right to an individual although it is well known that such an activity is illegal within the province of practice? There is no single doubt that the propagators of the acts—considered criminal—in these scenarios were very much aware of the consequences.

By kind courtesy of the Vice-President Mahama of Ghana, Mr. Baidoo was granted some sort of clemency after he had served seven out of his twenty-five-year sentence. The act may be right, but the place made the act wrong. This is what some staunch followers of Christianity refuse to comprehend. The General Order Number One is a military regulation that expressly forbids “proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice” especially in a predominantly Islamic territory such as Afghanistan.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff cleared the air by saying “from the United States' military's perspective, it is not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period,” That aside, it is even a more serious crime according to the Afghan constitution to propagate any other religion aside Islam. Such a crime is punishable by a death sentence (I guess Daniel was lucky in Lybia then...)


The propagation of the Christian religion in some places has ended some people, usually staunch adherent of Christianity, in trouble. Are there any lessons believers of any faith can take at least from these two instances? I am pretty sure there must be a thousand. I stand to be corrected, but one very intriguing observation I have made is that Muslims are hardly caught up in this trap. Does it mean they are more disciplined than their Christian counterparts are? Also, are Christians more tolerant than Christians, given what has happened?

To a few these issues about Christians breaking the rules to ensure the spread of the Good News might be a debatable one, I personally do not share such opinions though. Nobody is above the very laws that have been made to ensure our existence. I believe the best way to show make-up of one’s religion is to show the discipline that makes up a religion. Breaking the rules to spread one’s faith is not the trick. The spread of a religion I believe can be through other creative mean such as living staying within the legal boundaries set for all.

My closing arguments concern the sort of treatment these ‘criminals’ are to face. Was the clemency really needed for the Ghanaian fellow? Should the same forgiveness be extended to the offender in Afghanistan? Not the likeliest of options, I must admit. In a situation where the crime is not the propagation of Christianity but rather drug trafficking, would a pardon be appropriate?

The law is the law and that is what guides human institutions to run effectively, lest we become savages. I believe the powers that be need not encourage any sort of crime in any form. Believers of various religions should stay within the confines of their faith and be very cautious when they are extending such faith to someone else because God is not a politician.

The Council of State: Ghana’s white elephant

John Mills is the president of Ghana.

by Etse Sikanku

Even though Ghana’s recent electoral triumph may be viewed as a sign of political gain it is no certification of its democratic credentials. One of our governance institutions which need to be re-looked at is the Council of State. According to Article 89(1) of the Ghanaian constitution, “There shall be a Council of State to counsel the President in the performance of his functions.” So how exactly are members appointed?

“Remember Nanfuri? He’s the big man’s man…a diminutive but fearful chap whose guerilla tactics kept the BNI active. Such a shame I can’t possibly make him IGP.

“Oh yeah…an old officer who got embarrassed by the kukurudu NRC and Sawundi’s crocodile tears. He kicked the hell outta that corporal by the way. He certainly deserves some reward…Council of state?”

“That’d be great. Noko fio for the old man huh”

“What about Hajia?”

“Hajia Hajara Aliu, the waakye seller?”

“Of course, of course she’s been a cute loyalist and we can always call it grassroots democracy.”

“Awesome…we could even use her to check the bi-partisan column since she’s PNC. Damn good waakye she serves, that woman.”

On paper, the idea of a council of state sounds glamorous. The more common argument is that it’s an appropriate fusion of our traditional notion of council of elders and western democracy. Within the corridors of civic opinion it was seen as an idyllic route to seek the highly reasoned views of experts, and ‘respectable’ people without engaging in the verbal wars of a parliamentary chamber. But in reality, does anyone really know what happens in a Council of State meeting? All we get to hear about this secret society of wise men is:

“The Council of State called on H.E. President J.A. Kufuor to congratulate him and wish him well after the President miraculously escaped unhurt from a fatal accident at the Opeibea house intersection in Accra.”

Or as gbc.com had it:

“Professor Kofi Awoonor has been unanimously elected as Chairman of the Council of State. This was at an extra-ordinary session of the Council held at the Castle.”

I get the fact that they represent a sort of traditional elderly advisory council but why then do we have a Council of Chiefs? Stripped of its political correctness the Council of State is a redundant and absolutely unnecessary entity which exists to do the bidding of the president. As an economically dependent third world country we do not need the added burden of taxing Ghanaian citizens to pay for the salaries and fat benefits of a Council of State. Heck, that is why we elected a ‘wise’ president, a parliament, appoint ministers of state, their deputies and Castle aides to carry on the business of governance.

The question that needs to be asked is this: can we not survive without the burden of a Council of State?

Some suggest that the Council in Ghana functions in the way an Upper chamber does in a bicameral system. When President Mills inaugurated the recent council of elders he compared their role to a second camber. Now countries which have a second chamber do so because of their size, (for instance US and Nigeria), concerns over representation, the need to double check legislation from the House of Representatives and to serve as a bulwark against an all powerful executive.

The members are elected through very competitive and nail biting elections and are responsible not to the president but to the electorate. If we want to have a second chamber of parliament, we should say so but that will be a matter for another day.

As it stands now the council of states is no different from a kitchen parliament. Kufuor used it mostly as a nursing home or political sanctuary where he ran to seek solace anytime things got too hot to handle. They seem to perform the role of a second chamber but at the behest of the president. Honestly, how can they stand up to the president when over half of the members owe their allegiance to him?

No one doubts the need to have checks and balances, a necessary condition in any worthy democracy. In fact some members of the Council of State deserve to be in any legislative chamber. But where the members in question can be passionate, loyal and sycophantic choirboys, so too can their policies.

My concern is that the consolidated fund in being charged for the functions of a superfluous body which is largely unaccountable and seen as haven to reward party loyalists. The idea is well intentioned but in practice, self defeating.