I-CAN-GHANA

where to buy Pregabalin in canada Introduction
I first heard about Asamani in primary school history, as the man who conquered the Christianburg (Osu) Castle from the Danes in 1673 and served as its Governor for a year. I do not know of any major monument that has been named after him, and he is definitely not as popular in Ghanaian folklore as, for instance, Asante Kings. The writings about him appear fractured and various writers give different accounts of what he achieved. It is from a few of these sources that I have pieced this together.

http://cymaticsconference.com//wp-content/plugins/dzs-zoomsounds/a57bze8931.php Who was Asamani?
Asamani was from Akwamu. In one version of the history, he was employed as a cook in the English forts in Accra and spent a lot of time learning the ways of the Europeans. Soon, he became an established trader in Accra, and was a broker for Akwamu traders who came to Accra to trade with the Danes, who owned and operated from the Castle.

His rise as a businessman coincided with strife between Akwamu on the one hand and the Gas and the Danes, on the other hand, over who should have control over trading on the coast. In the 1670s, Akwamu attacked Accra, but that was foiled by the Gas with the support of the Danes. The pride of the Akwamu King was irreparably bruised. He could neither forgive nor forget what had happened to him, and therefore sought ways to revenge his defeat. He commissioned the prominent Accra-based Akwamu businessman, Asomani, to put this plot into effect.

In another version of the history, Asomani was a troublesome and fierce general of the Akwamu army, who had led raids against the Ga, the Akyems and the Akwapims.

The Capture of the Castle
What is however clear is that it took Asomani some time to come up with a plan that would bring his King’s wishes to fruition. Asomani kept a keen and close eye on the Castle and in 1693, he determined that it was time to invade and capture the Castle. In that year, the Danish occupants of the Castle had been reduced by death and disease, and were in no position to offer any serious resistance to any invasion. That, to Asomani, was the best time to strike. He put together a fighting force of some 80 men, and disguised them as merchants who wanted to buy in arms. But they had concealed bullets in their cloth, and once they had been allowed entry into the Castle and given access to the armory to inspect the guns, they loaded the guns with the bullets. They turned the guns on the Danes, who quickly surrendered.

The Governor is said to have escaped, wounded to the nearby Dutch fort called Crevecceur. But according to Akwamu accounts, Asamani killed him. The remaining Danes were captured and sent to Akwamu as captives.

He hoisted his personal flag (a white flag with a black warrior insignia) over the Castle, and announced and installed himself as the “Governor of Christiansburg Castle.” He then extended friendship to all traders along the coast, irrespective of their nationality (especially the English and the Dutch). He had a peculiar love for guns and cannons and is said to have welcomed all ships approaching his Castle by firing the cannons. He is said to have entertained captains of trade ships to expensive, elaborate dinners, and he appeared at such dinners in the full dress of a Danish Governor.

The End of the Governorship
There are at least three versions of how his rule as Governor ended in 1694. In one version, he sold the fort back to the Danes for 50 marks of gold (worth about £300,000 today. In a second version, the Danes sent an expedition to capture the Castle, but the obviously scared expedition force could only camp at Fort Crevecceur and negotiate with the Governor from there. In yet another version, he was out-manoeuvred by his King, Basua, who took 100 marks of gold as a ransom for the captives and for the return of the Castle’ and then ordered Asamani to hand the Castle over to the Danes.

Without knowing which version is accurate, what is true is that in 1694, Asomani peacefully ceded the Castle to the Danes.

The New, Improved Asamani
What is significant (and is the key lesson), for me, is that Asamani did not slip into oblivion thereafter. He took full advantage of his newly-acquired status, wealth, friendships and contacts, and re-established himself as a successful business man at Labadi. He had kept all the money he made while as Governor, refused to pay reparations to the Danes, and invested that money in his new, expanding business. He remained a thorn in the side of the Danes by diverting a lot of business from the Danes to himself. The Danes are reported to have made at least one unsuccessful attempt to force him out of Labadi. When that failed, they put pressure on a new Akwamu King, Ado, who succeeded in forcing Asamani to move his business empire to Ningo. He eventually wound up his business, resettled in Akwamu, and in 1703, became a minor chief.

As a chief, he is said to have lived in some colour and style. He built a palace and mounted on it, his favourite cannon. Foreign visitors still came to pay him visits and homage, and with every such visitor, he would fire the cannon as a welcome. He became known for his prodigious use of gun powder. Somehow, after 1704, he disappeared from European records, and that is the last that we read of him, because this part of our history was written by the Europeans, who obviously lost interest in what he had become, a chief of a small town.

The keys to the Castle, which he seized when he invaded, are still in the Akwamu Palace.

http://akwamuman.org/test/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78:asamani&catid=42:history&Itemid=29

http://books.google.com.gh/books?id=8seV5xexFHgC&pg=PA352&dq=asamani+akwamu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XEe3UaE7geo4y8KBoA8&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=asamani%20akwamu&f=false

I have, in a couple of radio interviews and on Facebook, expressed my views, based on my understanding of Ghana’s copyright laws, on the heated debate relating to what may be called ‘the Otabil Tapes’ where the respected Pastor Mensa Otabil has expressed strong reservations at the unauthorised used of his voice and sermons by a group called Education Watch as part of the current political campaign. I received a call from Kweku Baako, Managing Editor of the ‘New Crusading Guide’ newspaper, requesting that I put my thoughts in writing. This is what I have produced for him and his paper.

Yes, sermons are protected by our laws on copyright, and may only be used with the consent of the author consents or under circumstances expressly permitted by law. However ‘legalistic’ or ‘religiously objectionable’ this may sound to some, particularly those who hold the view that the ‘Word of God’ should not be subjected to such ‘earthly’ laws, the fact remains that sermons are copyright protected.

The copyright law of Ghana is generally captured in the provisions of the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690), which repealed and replaced the long-standing Copyright Law, 1985 (PNDCL 110).

A Sermon is a protected Literary Work
Section 1(1) of Act 690 provides a list of “work eligible for copyright” and states that authors, co-authors or joint authors of those works are entitled to copyright protection. The first on that list is “(a) literary work,” which term is defined by section 76 to include “(f) lectures, addresses or sermons” [Emphasis added.] There is therefore no doubt that Act 690 protects the rights of an author of a sermon, as literary work.

Authors’ Economic and Moral Rights
The rights of authors of copyright protected material are generally expressed as “economic” and “moral”. Section 5 of Act 690 protects authors’ “exclusive economic rights” to reproduction, translation, adaptation, arrangement or any other transformation, public performance, broadcasting or communication to the public, distribution, and commercial rental of their work.

Section 6 states that in addition to economic rights, an author has “the sole moral right” to claim authorship and demand that his name or pseudonym be mentioned when any of the acts referred to in section 5 are done in relation to the work, and to object to and seek relief where there has been “a distortion, mutilation or any other modification of the work, where that act would be or is prejudicial to his reputation or where the work is discredited by the act” [Emphases added.]

These provisions capture the basic statutory rights of authors, including authors of sermons. For example, and with particular reference to “moral rights” where the author of the sermon is a proclaimed apolitical or politically neutral person, the reproduction of his sermon(s), designed in such a way as to cast him in a political light is clearly prejudicial to his reputation and amounts to a violation of his moral rights over the sermon.

Permitted Uses
However, that does not mean that copyright protected sermons cannot be used by other persons at all. As pointed out, under section 5, the author may authorise the use of his material, and that use would not be a breach of the copyright. Further, Act 690 contains, in section 19, certain “permitted uses” of copyright protected material. Of particular relevance is section 19(1)(g)(iii), which states specifically as follows:

“(1) The use of a literary or artistic work …is not an infringement of the right of the author in that work and does not require the consent of the owner of the copyright where the use involves…(g) subject to subsection (4), the reproduction in the media or the communication to the public of… (iii) lecture, address, sermon or any other work of a similar nature delivered in public, where the use by reproduction or communication to the public is exclusively for the purpose of reporting fresh events or new information.” [Emphases added.]

The effect of this section is that if the conditions (emphasised by me) are met, then the otherwise protected material may be used, even without the author’s consent. The first relevant and critical condition is that the reproduction is wholly and absolutely to give an account of “fresh events or new information.” That is where the current debate on the copyright status of sermons runs into the law. The persons seeking to rely on those sermons, today, have a huge burden of showing that those sermons delivered in the past, somehow report fresh events or new information. It is however clear to me that if the sermon(s) being used was/were delivered in the past, it cannot be claimed as “reporting fresh events or new information.” Such a use is not permitted by law.

The next relevant condition is contained in section 19(4), which provides as follows:

“Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a particular work unless the use referred to in that paragraph is compatible with fair practice and the source of the work used and the name of the author are indicated in the relevant publication, broadcast or recording.” [Emphasis added.]

Once again, where a sermon was preached in the past and was not directed at any current issue, but is subsequently reproduced in a manner that suggest that it does, then certainly, that use is not compatible with fair practice. A practice is “fair” if it is reasonable or unbiased and done properly according to the applicable rules. My views are three-fold. First, the use of work via deliberate distortion, intentional mutilation or wrongful modification, and which therefore violate the “moral rights” of an author, cannot be “compatible with fair practice” by any stretch of any legal principles or any person’s fertile imagination. Second, the use of a previous sermon under circumstances that suggest that it either relates or is related to a current issue, is plainly dishonest. Third, the “splicing and dicing” and “cutting and pasting” of different parts of different sermons, to present them as one sermon, is devious and does violence to notions of fair practice. These fall squarely within the prohibition contained in section 19(4) of Act 690.

Yet another relevant permitted use of copyright protected material is contained in section 19(1)(d)(ii), with respect to “a broadcast on current economic, political or religious topics,” where “the broadcast or any other communication to the public where a statement of the source is provided unless the article or broadcast when first published or made was accompanied by an express condition prohibiting its use without consent.” Note, first, that this provision relates only to a “broadcast” by an author; thus so if the matter has not been the subject of a broadcast, this permitted use does not apply. Second, the use of the word “current” shows that the broadcast must be on a recent or present matter. In the context of the sermons in question, (even if they were broadcasts, which is not the case) they have been explained to have been preached at times when the relevant “current” matters (to which they are being massaged to apply) had not arisen, and/or did not relate to them in any way. Further, once the author had reserved his copyright even to that sermon, then that use is not permitted. I have noted the words “all rights reserved” on the relevant CDs and tapes. It would appear that this permitted use does not apply to the matter at hand.

Are Sermons in the Public Domain?
Finally, I have also heard it claimed that sermons do not enjoy copyright protection because they are in “the public domain.” That is clearly and respectfully untrue or uninformed. The term “public domain” has a strict definition within the context of copyright law. Section 38(1) of Act 690 provides only 3 categories of works that “belong to the public domain.” These are

“(a) works with expired terms of protection,
(b) works by authors who have renounced their rights, and
(c) foreign works that do not enjoy protection in the Republic.“

Clearly, the sermon(s) in question do not fit under any of the above categories, and accordingly the phrase “public domain” does not apply to the sermons. Further section 38 contains regulations for the use of “public domain” work. It does not appear that those regulations have been followed at all.

Sanctions
The law provides both criminal and civil sanctions for the breach of a person’s copyright. Under section 43, copyright violation is an offence and a person who is convicted is liable to a fine between GH¢6,000 and GH¢12,000 and/or to imprisonment not exceeding three years. Where the offence is continuing (as appears to be the case presently), there may be a further fine between GH¢300 and GH¢1,200 for each day during which the offence continues. Note that this offence is committed, not only by the person who put the plagiarized work together, but anyone who continues to disseminate the material.

Where the offender is a corporate body, every director or secretary shall be deemed to have committed the offence, unless the person can satisfy the court that some other person committed the offence without his consent or connivance, and that he “exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence having regard to the circumstances.” Thus, and for instance, it would be very difficult for a director of a radio station that gleefully continues to disseminate such work, in the face of clear objections by an author, to set up the defence of “due diligence.”

In the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, and under section 46, the court may seize the offending material and may direct that monies arising out of the offence be paid to the author. Again, for instance, a radio station may be compelled to pay to an author, all monies it has earned from airing a commercial advert that wrongfully contains copyright material.

With respect to civil sanctions, section 48 provides that a wronged author may obtain injunctions to restrain the further dissemination of the word and damages for the breach of his copyright. The law specifically allows for what lawyers call ‘Anton Piller-type injunction’ applications to be moved ex parte (i.e. when the application is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or contest by, any person adversely interested) and in a judge’s chambers, for the inspection or removal from a defendant’s premises of copyright infringing materials which constitute evidence of infringement by the defendant.

Conclusion
In conclusion, and on the bases of the above (the law and all the exceptions and conditions discussed), my respectful view is that sermons are indeed protected under our copyright laws, subject only to (1) the consent of the author or (2) applicable statutorily permitted uses. And, the law prescribes some severe punishment upon the breach of a person’s copyright.

Presented by Ace Anan Ankomah as Guest Speaker at the 6th Moderatorial Luncheon, organised by the Presbyterian Church on 28th October 2012

DEFINITION OF KEY/RELEVANT TERMS:

Judgment – The official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of parties to an action or suit, litigated in the court and submitted to the court’s determination. Conclusion of law upon facts found or admitted by the parties or upon their default in the course of the suit. Onslow v. IRC (1890) 25 QBD 465 per Lord Esher MR: “A judgment is a decision obtained in an action…”

Final Judgment – disposes of the subject matter of the controversy or determines the litigation as to all the parties on its merits.

Interlocutory Judgment – merely establishes the right of a party to recover in general terms, determines some preliminary or subordinate point or plea, settles some step, question or default arising in the process of the action, but does not adjudicate the ultimate rights of the parties or finally put the case out of court.

Default Judgment: A judgment obtained on account of the Defendant failing to either enter appearance or file a Statement of Defence.

Summary Judgment: a judgment obtained by a plaintiff who is able show that there is no answer to his case, without having to go through a full trial, where the defendant is unable to set up a bona fide defence or raise an issue against the claim which ought to be tried. This provides early judgment in cases where the defendant has no hope of success and any defence raised will merely have the effect of delaying judgment. The court then grants judgment SUMMARILY, i.e. without the delay and expense of a full trial, because it is satisfied that no trial is necessary.

Judgment on Admissions: Judgment entered on account of an admission made by a party in his pleading, an affidavit, in discovery or under any examination under oath or affirmation in and out of court.

Consent Judgment: A judgment, the terms of which are settled and agreed by the parties, and filed in and entered by the court. In effect, they are merely contracts acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded, but bind the parties as fully as other judgments.

Arbitral Award: The decision or determination rendered by arbitrators upon a dispute submitted to them. Upon obtaining the leave of the High Court (after an application) it will be enforced as if it is a judgment of the court.

Mediation Agreement: A mediator intervenes between two contending parties to help reconcile them or persuade them to adjust or settle their dispute. The mediator does not make an award or pass a judgment. He helps the parties to enter into a “Settlement Agreement.” When the parties sign the Settlement Agreement, it becomes binding between them, and has the same effect as an Arbitral Award.

Debt – a sum of money due by certain and express agreement, arising upon an express or implied contract.

Judgment Debt – a debt, for the recovery of which a judgment has been entered.

HOW JUDGMENT DEBTS ARISE:

1. Negotiation Stage
   a. Negotiation skills
   b. Knowledge (technical) of the subject area
   c. Contractual “give and take”
   d. Preliminary “heads of agreement”
   e. Memoranda of Understanding
   f. Involvement of the AG’s Office/Legal Departments of the various Ministries
2. Drafting Stage
   a. Legal advice (from the AG)
   b. Reducing all heads of agreement into writing
   c. Choice of Law Clauses
   d. Dispute Resolution Clauses
3. Performance/Execution Stage
   a. Fulfilling our side of contractual obligations
   b. Technical expertise
   c. Parliamentary approval? Loans/International Business & Economic Transactions
4. Dispute Resolution Stage
   a. When breaches occur (causes – arrogance, lack of understanding, change of government)
   b. Litigation/Arbitration/Mediation/Negotiation
   c. Filing times and difficulty in obtaining responses from the relevant ministries (who is the client?)
   d. Lack of expertise in civil trials and international arbitration (technicalities – substantive and procedural)
   e. Legal costs (foreign lawyers)
5. Execution of Money Judgments
   a. Enforcement against the State – Certificate of Particulars
   b. Any role for auditing at this stage?
   c. Enforcement of foreign judgments – Registration v. Commencement of fresh proceedings
   d. Enforcement of arbitral awards – Leave to enforce
   e. Enforcement Methods
   i. Writ of fieri facias (fi.fa.) – authorises the Registrar to seize and sell the execution debtor’s property, sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, post-judgment interest (if any) and execution costs, and directs the Registrar to pay the plaintiff the amount levied in execution
   ii. Garnishee proceedings – proceedings by which a judgment is satisfied by reaching the credit or property of the judgment debtor in the hands of another person (usually a bank).
   iii. Charging Orders – provides the judgment creditor with the equivalent of a mortgage over land specified in the order or on a judgment debtor’s beneficial interest in securities

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Judgment Debt Czar?
   • In current political parlance, a ‘czar’ is somebody given authority, especially for dealing with a particular issue or problem
   • Short-term solution only
   • Duplicity? Public Accounts Committee of Parliament?
2. Training, Due Diligence
   Continuous, rigorous External Training, Internal training, Cross-pollination, re relevant officials.
3. Wake the Auditor-General up from Slumber!!
   Auditor-General has constitutional powers of “Surcharge” and “Disallowance.”

Constitution, Article 187(7)(b):
“In the performance of his functions under this Constitution or any other law the Auditor-General… may disallow any item of expenditure which is contrary to law and surcharge, (i) the amount of any expenditure disallowed upon the person responsible for incurring or authorising the expenditure; (ii) any sum which has not been duly brought into account, upon the person by whom the sum ought to have been brought into account; or (iii) the amount of any loss or deficiency, upon any person by whose negligence or misconduct the loss or deficiency has been incurred.”

These powers are reiterated and fleshed out in sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584). Under section 17 the debt created by the surcharge will be recovered as a debt by way of civil proceedings. The person surcharged also has a right of appeal to the High Court. And, the Auditor-General CANNOT revoke a surcharge except with prior parliamentary approval. Under section 20, the Auditor-General must report to Parliament (and effectively to the people of Ghana), where
• an appropriation was exceeded or was applied for a purpose or in a manner not authorised by law;
• an expenditure was not authorised or properly vouched for or certified;
• there has been a deficiency through fraud, default or mistake of any person;
• applicable internal control and management measures are inefficient or ineffective;
• the use or custody of property, money, stamps, securities, equipment, stores, trust money, trust property or any other assets has occurred in a manner detrimental to the Republic;
• resources have not been used with due regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in relation to the results attained; and
• any matter, which in the public interest, should be brought to the notice of Parliament.

4. Crack the Whip/Enforce the Laws!
‘Revolutionary’ False Certification:
Government Contracts (Protection) Act, 1979 (AFRCD 58)
— A person who is responsible for issuing certificates for the payment of money out of public funds to contractors or any other person in respect of Government contracts, is jointly and severally liable with that contractor or that other person for the refund of the money so paid where he issues the certificate for payment

• knowing that
  ◦ the work/service has not been performed,
  ◦ the goods have not been supplied, or
  ◦ the money was not otherwise due under the contract; or
• recklessly careless whether
  ◦ the work had been done or not,
  ◦ the goods have been supplied or not, or
  ◦ the money is otherwise due under the contract or not; or
• where in the issue of the certificate that person was grossly negligent.

Without prejudice to the civil liability, (i) that person, (ii) the contractor, and (iii) any other person who knowingly accepted a payment made in any of the above circumstances is liable to a fine of up to three times the amount of money of the improper payment or to imprisonment of up to 10 years, or to both.

— Where it is proved
• that the person responsible for the certificate was bribed into issuing the certificate, or
• that the issue of the certificate was otherwise attended by a corrupt practice,
Both the ‘bribor’ and the ‘bribee’, and any other person who knowingly participated in the bribery/corrupt practice commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment (between 5 and 15 years), and a penalty equal to three times the amount of money of the improper payment.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS
 Do we care?
 Do we mind?
 Do we simply shrug?
 Does it hurt?
 What keeps you up and tossing at night?
 What keeps you burning during the day?
 What is our stake in the enterprise, Ghana inc.?
 Should the last Ghanaian leaving the realm remember to turn out the lights?
 Or do we see, by faith a storm, birthed out of nothing but a cloud, no larger than the size of a man’s fist?

Published in Ghanaian Times, Saturday, February 20, 2010 Page 15

208.   Publication of false news
(1)  A person who publishes or reproduces a statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace knowing or having reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report is false commits a misdemeanour.
(2)  It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the person charged did not know or did not have reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report was false, unless it is proved that, prior to the publication, that person took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of the statement, rumour or report.

I have been deeply concerned about the tone and quality of discussions in the press generally, and the penchant for certain journalist, discussants, ‘social commentators’ and callers to make wild and unsubstantiated claims and allegations, attacking the integrity of other Ghanaians, and when challenged, limply say “I stand by my story.”

Personally, having been the victim of one such unwarranted attack by a newspaper, I definitely know how angry that makes one feel. I definitely empathize with political leaders who are subjected to such attack on almost a daily basis. But in a liberal constitutional dispensation, a person who is sufficiently aggrieved by such statements should head to the courts and file a civil action in defamation, and not rely on or employ the machinery of state to prosecute the author of the falsehood.

The gentleman is charged under section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act. This offence is not new and existed under section 440 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 (191 Rev.) Offences of this nature, just like the repealed criminal libel, have their roots in the old English statutes, namely the Slanderous Reports 1275 “de scandalis magnatum” (3 Edw 1, c 34); Penalty for Slandering Great Men, 1378 (2 Ric Stat 1, c 5) and Penalty for Slandering Great Men, 1388 (12 Ric 2, c 11), which prohibited “telling or publishing any false news or tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander might grow between the King and the people.”

Thus in the old English case of R v Harvey (1823) 2 B & C 257 it was held that a publication that King George III was labouring under mental derangement was “an offence on the ground that it tended to unsettle and agitate the public mind, and to lower the respect due to the King.” Thankfully, for the English, these statutes were repealed in 1887 by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict, c 59).

Section 208 of our law has remained intact and renewed notwithstanding the repeal of its English antecedents. However, it has been the subject of some judicial interpretation in Ghana, and it has, for instance been held that merely making a false and highly mischievous statement did not constitute an offence under the section. It must be shown that the statement was (i) published, and (ii) likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace.

The test whether the offence is committed, the courts have held, is not even the actual result, but whether the false statement was likely to cause fear or a breach of the peace.

The question that one would have expected to police to have considered in deciding to lay a charge and arraign the gentleman, was not whether some party supporter or supporters of the alleged target of the false statement actually massed up at the radio station; because that can be easily orchestrated. The question is whether such a statement is apt or prone to cause fear and/or a breach of the peace. Thus the character of the persons to whom the false publication was made, i.e. the persons who listen to the relevant radio station, must also be taken into account. The question that one would have expected the police to have asked itself before charging and arraigning the gentleman was whether the reasonable Ghanaian listening to the gentleman’s empty effusions on radio was likely to be put in some fear. What fear? Fear that the target of the false statement is a person prone to committing arson? Or that Ghanaians are so fickle minded that we are likely to disturb the peace on account of the gentleman’s false statements, which were challenged there and then on air, and was it was shown that he had no bases whatsoever to make the allegations?

It is unfortunate that this section did not catch the eye of the government when criminal libel and other related offences were repealed in 2001. Or was it deliberately ignored? Although the section attracted the attention of the Statute Law Revision Commissioner in his recent review of statutes, all he did was to modernize the language of the drafting. For my part, I fully expect that the gentleman will be granted bail either on appeal or renewed application for bail. But I also fully expect the Attorney-General to put an end to this discussion by discontinuing the trial immediate. Then we can begin a discussion and debate whether this section still has relevance in a liberal democratic country.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The author wrote this article before the accused was granted bail.

I do not have a beef (complaint or gripe) against the proposed registration of the ‘details’ of the SIM card holders in Ghana. Infact, I support the idea. What I have sought to do is to raise questions about who is leading that exercise, the use to which the information gathered would be put, and also to point to potential legal mine-fields that appear to have been completely lost on those who are in charge of the exercise.

Open Letter

I started to get concerned when I realised that ‘National Security’ has been pushing, behind the scenes for a long time and then in public, for the mandatory registration of the details of all mobile phone subscribers in Ghana, with deadlines and threats of disconnection of unregistered customers. Who gave ‘National Security’ that power? The concerns certainly increased when in the 2010 Budget Statement, we were informed in paragraphs 621, 628, 672 and 864 of plans by the Government to “acquire telecommunications monitoring equipment” ostensibly to “enhance compliance” with the ‘Talk Tax.’

On Monday 14 December 2009, I wrote an open letter to the Ministers of Finance and Communications, to express my concerns and ask certain questions. I am yet to receive a formal response. In the letter, I stated that although the registration and proposed monitoring equipment appeared to be two different, innocuous matters upon first reading, when read together, they threw up many questions that begged for answers. The questions I posed were as follows:

“1. Is there any suggestion or evidence that Telecom Operators have been cheating on the “Talk Tax”, which will then require the implementation of the monitoring of communications to “enhance compliance”?

2. What are the legal bases for the demands by ‘National Security’ for ‘registration’, and therefore unrestricted access to citizens’ details, from Telecom Operators?

3. Is it the case that: (i) at present, the Police, ‘National Security’ and the Military have easy access to individual mobile phone details by simply writing letters to Telecom Operators, without any court orders; (ii) telecom traffic travels in two types of paths, the ‘voice path’ being that in which the actual conversation moves from one network to another, and the ‘signalling path’ being the means by which one network can communicate with the other about a pending call; and that text messages pass through the signalling path, which is the path that the government wants to monitor; (iii) the Government wants to compel Telecom Operators to send all their signalling through ‘black boxes’ owned by the Government, which would monitor all call traffic (i.e. the originating and destination numbers, the time and length of call) and report the data back to the Government in real time; (iii) if or when implemented, the Government will know who we are, who we call, and how often we call, at the time we are calling; (v) although the Government may not be able to decipher the actual words of voice calls, it will be able to read every single SMS coming into and leaving networks, and know every website that a person visits on his/her phone or mobile internet device; (vi) however, by simply manoeuvring the signalling channel messages, the Government will be able to interrupt, process, intercept, block and/or divert calls, so that the Government can then eavesdrop and know every single detail of happenings on the intercepted calls, without our knowledge and/or the involvement of any competent judicial authority in Ghana; (vii) the current proposed implementation will allow the Government, not only to know who is phoning whom, but also from where to where (with accurate location placement), and whether a person is roaming and in which country and on which network; and (viii) by this means, it is possible to change signalling so that although a specific call is made, all traces of it can be removed or disguised so that no one can trace its origin or destination, and create an SMS or call that never existed?”

I also took the opportunity to refer the Ministers to Article 18(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees the citizens’ right to privacy of “correspondence” and “communication” and which provides that this right can only be interfered with “in accordance with law” and for specified purposes.

Existing Relevant Legal Provisions

In writing the letter, I was aware of the provisions of the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 562) which provided that a person’s communications may be “intercepted,” but only upon a warrant issued by a judge of the superior courts. I was also aware of the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772) which prohibits the divulging of subscriber information by providers of electronic communication services, except with the consent of the subscriber or upon a court disclosure order, and reserves to the subscriber the right to apply to the court to vacate the disclosure order.

I was also aware of the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775). This Act provides for the inclusion in telecom licences of “prescriptions regarding national defence and public security” and provides that the licences may be amended “by a written agreement” between the providers and the NCA, specifically where “national security considerations… require the amendment.” The law adds that under those circumstances the providers are “entitled to compensation.” I must also point out that this Act gives the President the power, by Executive Instrument, to issue orders to providers requiring them to intercept communication, provide any user information or otherwise in aid of law enforcement and national security.

If the government is required to comply with these detailed procedures before gaining access to subscriber information or communication, would it not be surely unlawful and unconstitutional for the government and its agencies to gain access anyway as a ‘default’ position by the combination of unrestricted access to the mandatory SIM card registration information (which shows who you are and what your number is) combined with the acquisition of the communications monitoring equipment (which shows whom you are calling, at what time, for what duration, etc.)? In other words, what is the point in having the protections that the laws offer, if the government has access to that information anyway?

Registration: The Way Forward

The requirement for the future registration of the details of SIM card owners is right. No legislation is required for this. But the attempt to compel existing owners to register with the threat of disconnection is fraught with legal problems. With each purchase of a SIM card, the provider enters into a contract with the subscriber. Some of those terms are expressed in the little sheets of paper contained in the ‘package’, and some are implied by law. With some providers, there is the requirement to provide the subscribers details, particularly with post-paid subscribers. One other provider demands that anyway, simply because the technology it uses will not allow the sale of their SIM cards at roadsides.

But the vast majority of subscribers were not required, at the time of entering into the contracts, to provide those details. Any attempt to force them to comply with some new terms, is an attempt to unilaterally vary the terms of the respective agreements. That is unlawful and a breach of those contracts. Of course, subscribers can decide to voluntarily comply and provide those details. That would be most welcome, and this writer would want to take this opportunity to encourage Ghanaians to voluntarily provide that information.

However, they cannot be compelled, under the threat of being disconnected. If the providers do this, they will be inviting unto themselves the biggest class action litigation in the history of this country, and I foresee injunctions that would tie down this process for quite a while. They only other way forward, will be legislative intervention. We have done this before. When Ghana needed to register the identities of its nationals, it passed specific legislation to achieve that purpose. That is the way to go. Let Parliament pass law that requires this, going forward. Then the legislation and regulations made under it will set down the exact procedure for doing this, provide for the relevant forms, etc.

Monitoring Equipment

Returning to my worries about what the “telecommunications monitoring equipment”, I have seen a new law, titled Electronic Communications (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act 786), which was signed into law and received Gazette notification on the same day, 31 December 2009 (which is quite unusual). This law effectively authorises the acquisition of the equipment, this time called “mechanisms and measures,” and then bars the use of the “equipment” or “mechanism” or “measures” for the purposes that I was concerned about. The new provision is as follows:

“The mechanisms and measures… instituted shall not have the capability to actively or passively record, monitor or tap into the content of any incoming or outgoing electronic communication traffic, including voice, video and data existing discretely or on a converged platform whether local or international.”

Conclusion

With this, I guess that I should not expect any response to my letter from the Ministers. What is clear is that my 14 December 2009 letter was not raising false alarms or merely crying wolf. There was clearly more in the woodworks than I even realised when I wrote the letter. Let ‘National Security’ take a step back and allow the Telecom Operators, NCA and Parliament work through this. Let the government and its agencies begin to comply with the provisions of the laws with respect to obtaining the telecommunication records of the citizens. Let the Telecom Operators stop providing customer information to law enforcement agencies upon the mere production of a demand letter. Right now they are exposed to potentially devastating law suits for acting in breach of the existing legislation. The providers should start asking for the court disclosure orders. Further, let the NCA, as the operator of the “telecommunications monitoring equipment,” have regard at all time to the law governing the use of that equipment, so that the NCA does not become a mere ‘pass through’ of information for the government. But by all means, let us pass law on the registration of existing SIM cards. And whilst at it, let us pass the data protection bill into law.

Whether this new legislation amounts to a sufficient protection of our right to privacy and how the law can be enforced in the event of a breach, is a matter that we might only ascertain in the future.

Yours in the service of God & Ghana,

Kojo Anan

(kojoanan.blogspot.com, www.i-can-ghana.com)

14th December 2009

The Honourable Minister
Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning
Accra

AND

The Honourable Minister
Ministry of Communications
Accra

Dear Sirs,

Re: Registration of Mobile Phone Subscribers and Monitoring of Telecommunications

I write to express concern and to pose questions on two matters, namely (i) the demand by ‘National Security’ that mobile phone operators (“Telecom Operators”) must ‘register’ the details of all subscribers, and (ii) portions of the 2010 Budget Statement about plans by the Government to “acquire telecommunications monitoring equipment.” My letter is addressed to you, because primarily, the concerns fall squarely within the purview of your respective ministries. But I make this an ‘open letter’ as the subject is one that the people of Ghana need to be aware of and so that we can all arrive at informed conclusions on the matter.

Before asking the question, I would crave your indulgence to refer to Article 18(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees the citizens’ right to privacy of “correspondence” and “communication” and which provides that this right can only be interfered with “in accordance with law” passed for specified purposes. The Article states expressly as follows:

“No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.”

REGISTRATION:
I note that ‘National Security’ has been pushing, behind the scenes for a long time and recently in public, for the mandatory registration of the details of all mobile phone subscribers in Ghana. I am aware that they now want to set a deadline before 25th December 2009 for the mandatory registration of all new customers. This is to be followed (at a date that has not been specified yet) by the disconnection of any existing, unregistered customers.

MONITORING:
I note further that paragraph 621 of the Budget Statement announced a “special audit initiative to cover the telephony sector.” Paragraph 628 announced the establishment of a special Communications Service Tax (“CST” or “Talk Tax”) Unit and the commencement of “procurement process to acquire telecommunications monitoring equipment and software” ostensibly for the CST Unit to track payments. Paragraph 672 mentioned an increase in “monitoring activities” to “enhance compliance” with the CST. Finally, paragraph 864 mentioned, again, the need for “increased monitoring” of the CST to ensure compliance.

QUESTIONS:
Sirs, these would appear innocuous upon first reading. However, read together, the proposed registration and proposed monitoring throw up many questions that beg for answers. These questions are:

1. Is there any suggestion or evidence that Telecom Operators have been cheating on the “Talk Tax”, which will then require the implementation of the monitoring of communications to “enhance compliance”?

2. What are the legal bases for the demands by ‘National Security’ for ‘registration’, and therefore unrestricted access to citizens’ details, from Telecom Operators?

3. Is it the case:
a. That at present, the Police, ‘National Security’ and the Military have easy access to individual mobile phone details by simply writing letters to Telecom Operators, without any court orders;
b. That telecom traffic travels in two types of paths, the ‘voice path’ being that in which the actual conversation moves from one network to another, and the ‘signaling path’ being the means by which one network can communicate with the other about a pending call; and that text messages pass through the signaling path, which is the path that the government wants to monitor;
c. That the Government wants to compel Telecom Operators to send all their signaling through ‘black boxes’ owned by the Government, which would monitor all call traffic (i.e. the originating and destination numbers, the time and length of call) and report the data back to the Government in real time;
d. That if or when implemented, the Government will know who we are, who we call, and how often we call, at the time we are calling;
e. That although the Government may not be able to decipher the actual words of voice calls, it will be able to read every single SMS coming into and leaving networks, and know every website that a person visits on his/her phone or mobile internet device;
f. That however, by simply maneuvering the signaling channel messages, the Government will be able to interrupt, process, intercept, block and/or divert calls, so that the Government can then eavesdrop and know every single detail of happenings on the intercepted calls, without our knowledge and/or the involvement of any competent judicial authority in Ghana;
g. That the current proposed implementation will allow the Government, not only to know who is phoning whom, but also (i) from where to where (with accurate location placement), and (ii) whether a person is roaming and in which country and on which network; and
h. That by this means, it is possible to (i) change signaling so that although a specific call is made, all traces of it can be removed or disguised so that no one can trace its origin or destination, and (ii) create an SMS or call that never existed?

CONCLUSION:
Sirs, as I stated above, this letter is just to ask the questions and to elicit responses, if any. If or when you respond to the above, we will continue with this discussion.

Yours in the service of God and Ghana,

Kojo Anan
(kojoanan.blogspot.com, www.i-can-ghana.com)

cc. The Honourable Minister
Ministry of Information
Accra

The Parliamentary Majority Leader
Parliament House
Accra

The Parliamentary Minority Leader
Parliament House
Accra

The Director-General
National Communications Authority
Accra

The Press

“Fiat justitia, ruat coelum,” i.e. “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Lucius Caesoninus, Roman statesman.

There are 2 developing news stories about the military and the law that should give Ghanaians grave cause for concern. The first is the story that 2 persons arrested in Bawku (the “Bawku Two”) were stripped naked and marched through the town. The second is the alleged absconding of one of the three persons standing trial for alleged murder.

The Story of the Bawku Two

Of course, the military denied having stripped the Bawku Two naked. Of course, we could tell from the radio interviews that the military spokespersons were lying or had naively believed the denials of the perpetrators. Of course, we have now seen pictures and video, which confirm that the military lied to Ghanaians and that the Bawku Two were clearly subjected to torture.

I have had occasion to comment about the modus operandi of some of Ghana’s security institutions, who, some 17 years into constitutional democracy, are yet to come to full terms with what that entails. I have spoken with security personnel who think that the constitution should rather be amended to recognise the way they operate. And, of course, I have spared no words and effort in telling them how preposterous that position is.

Ghanaians, I believe, recognise the severity of the situation in Bawku and appreciate all the efforts that are being made to bring calm and sanity to Bawku. However, nothing that is happening there provides any justification for the treatment meted out to the Bawku Two. And what was that supposed to do? Bring an end to the fighting there? If the military had any evidence that the Bawku Two have committed any offences, they should simply put them before court and let the courts of the land do their work. Security institutions in Ghana must understand that they have no power to discipline any person for any alleged infractions of the law. The era where persons who are arrested were subjected to brutalisation that was given exotic names like ‘talk-true-slaps’ should be really and truly over.

But as a nation, we are collectively guilty for turning a blind eye to the continued brutalisation of suspects. We see, on our televisions screens and in our newspapers, persons arrested for alleged crimes, bearing all kinds of swellings and injuries, which could not have been self-inflicted. Yet we pretend that we have not seen them. One day, very soon, a court in Ghana is going to summon the guts to free persons accused of committing crimes, on the sole ground that confession statements were obtained by means of torture. Then the full effect of these obvious beatings will come home to us.

When some human rights advocates raise questions, we berate them and call them names on our radio stations. Guess what? You, dear reader, might be the next victim of police or military beatings, if we do not take a collective decision to end this obvious injustice and blatant violation of our constitution. Today it is the Bawku Two. Tomorrow it might be YOU. The only difference between you and the Bawku Two, is that it has not happened to you yet.

Article 15(1) of our constitution provides that “the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.” “Dignity” refers to the self-esteem, self-respect, worth, nobility and even the pride of a person. What the constitution says is that this should be considered and treated as sacred and sacrosanct and shall not be violated. By the use of the word “shall” it is mandatory for everyone to respect this. And, this applies to “all persons”, that is each and every person, including persons who are arrested. That is why article 15(2) specifically provides as follows:

“No person shall, whether or not he is arrested, restricted or detained, be subjected to –
(a) torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(b) any other condition that detracts or is likely to detract from his dignity and worth as a human being.”

There is no doubt, from the pictures and video that we have seen, that the Bawku Two were subjected to torture. The stripping and parading through the streets was vicious, heartless ruthless and cold-blooded. It humiliated, debased and demeaned the gentlemen. This is what article 15(2) outlaws. There is no doubt that the military authorities in Bawku, blatantly infringed Article 15 with respect to the Bawku Two, and urgent action has to be taken against the perpetrators of these acts.

It was in 1966, after Kwame Nkrumah’s overthrow, when another Ghanaian (Boye Moses) was chained and caged, and driven through the streets of Accra, to alleged cheers from onlookers. To date, I have not read that Mr. Moses was subsequently convicted of having committed any offence. Yet this nation turned a blind eye to (and by conduct, endorsed) this public humiliation. I heard some radio journalists and discussants seeking to justify the treatment of the Bawku Two. That was truly sad. This might not happen to me, personally. But that is no justification for it happening to the Bawku Two. It does not appear from the happenings in Bawku that we have moved one step from the 1966 crude mentality. I sincerely wish to be proved wrong by the military taking action against the perpetrators, so that they are tried in civilian courts or face a court martial. The Bawku Two should also take civil action against the state (vicariously) and the direct perpetrators of this act, to make them pay civil damages for this breach of their human rights.

The Story of the Escaped Murder Suspect

It is against this background that we should consider the strange story that we are being told by the military authorities, that a person accused of and charged with murder, and who is not on bail, was allowed to return to his barracks, was allowed to continue to work as a soldier, was transferred from Tamale to Accra, was given responsibility for checking armed robbery, and has escaped – or, as we are hearing today, has been given a posting outside Ghana. I cannot believe that the entire nation is not having a massive, collective heart attack over this matter.

On Wednesday 25th March 2009, the front page of the Daily Graphic quoted the trial judge in Tamale, Mr. Justice Lawrence Mensah as saying that “the accused persons, who are presumed to be in the custody of the military, whether in Tamale, Accra or elsewhere, should be transferred forthwith to prison custody in Tamale to facilitate their easy access to the court.” The judge, after making this order, adjourned the case “to allow the military ample time to produce the suspects when the case is called the next time.”

The Ghanaian Times report of the same date (tucked at the back page) stated that the accused persons had failed to show up in court when the case was called. The acting Director of Public Prosecutions, who had travelled from Accra for the trial in Tamale, is reported to have expressed surprise and thus prayed the court “to direct the Military Command to transfer the three soldiers from military custody to prisons remand to facilitate the trial.” The court obliged and made the relevant order.

According to the Ghanaian Chronicle report of the same date (in the centre spread), Justice Mensah’s order was specifically directed at the “Commanding Officer (CO) of the 6th Infantry Batallion Regiment of the Ghana Armed Forces in Tamale.”

Was this peremptory order ever overturned or varied? Was it complied with? Did the transfer per se of the trial to Accra remove this order? Under what circumstances did other persons decide to grant the accused persons liberties that the court had not given?

These accused persons were not even on bail, which meant that they were supposed to be in custody, whether police or military. How on earth could these accused persons be allowed to live in their homes and be allowed to continue to work and earn a living, so that one of them would simply take a hike and not return?

When a person is arrested, he immediately becomes a ward of the state, and can only walk free if the police (or other arresting authority) grant him bail. When that person is subsequently charged and put before court, he immediately becomes a ward of the state again. That is why upon the first appearance, his lawyers will have to apply for bail. Unless the court grants bail, that person must return into custody. When an accused person is charged with murder, section 96 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act provides in mandatory terms that a court shall refuse to grant bail in a case of murder. The only instance where a person charged with murder might obtain bail is where his prosecution has been delayed unreasonably; then his lawyers might be successful in doing an article 14(4) application for bail. But it is clear that unless and until an accused person who has appeared before a court has been granted bail, he must be kept in custody.

There are therefore many questions that are begging for answers. Do we have a situation in Ghana where some accused persons are more ‘special’ than others? Why should some accused person be allowed all the liberties of the free, at a time when they had not been admitted to bail and the court had made a specific order relating to their confinement? Has the court’s order been treated with contempt? One of the Underlying Objects and purposes of the law of contempt is protect orderly administration of law. The due administration of justice requires no usurpation of the functions of the court. Thus the power to commit for contempt extends to disobedience to orders made by the court. Justice Mensah’s orders were clear. If someone has violated those orders, isn’t that person in contempt of court?

We cannot even say that this accused person has ‘jumped bail.’ There was simply no bail, and no bail means that the person should be kept in custody. How then can Ghanaians simply take this matter in our stride as if nothing has happened and then allow the military to feed us with changing stories? If it was the military hierarchy that decided to breach the court’s order, can we trust their claims of investigating the matter? Indeed, do we need another investigation? Is this not a proper case for the Attorney-General to commence contempt proceedings against the persons who violated the court order, so that they come to court and show why they should not be committed for acting in violation of a court order?

Conclusion

We must juxtapose the treatment of these military men to the treatment given by the same military to the Bawku Two. A specific court order directing the confinement custody of military men accused of murder is flouted by the military. But the same military arrests two ordinary men (who have not been charged with any offence), and subject them to torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.

The good people of this country must demand of the powers that be to call the military to order immediately. Our near-silence on these matters does violence to the word “Justice” in our national motto, which connotes fairness, impartiality and evenhandedness. We are 17 years into constitutional democracy. Let Justice be manifestly done, and let’s see if the heavens will fall.

“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Introduction to Gutter Football
Young and aspiring footballers in Ghana often play an interesting version of the game called “Gutter-to-Gutter”. The ‘goal posts’ are literally two gutters (often wet, slimy, smelly and filthy) on either side of a road, potholed or otherwise. The aim is to play the ball into the gutter goals. Once in a while when a car approaches, the game gets suspended only to resume when the car has driven past, sometimes leaving a mixture of dust and smoke behind it. The most important item in this game is the ball, the “sock ball”. To the unlearned and untutored in matters concerning gutter-to-gutter football, the sock ball is made from a disused sock. It is filled with pieces of cloth and plastic, carefully and tightly rolled into a globe. As you might have guessed, in the course of the game, and depending on how many times the socks ball enters the gutter goal, it becomes wet, dirty, smelly and soggy. But the game continues nonetheless. At the end of the game, usually at nightfall, the players go to take a shower, argue the score (who scored most), have dinner and retire to bed. Everyone forgets about the sock ball that they have been kicking. It is left in the gutter and to the vagaries of the night time gutter tide or the night weather, or it is left on the road for passing cars to flatten out. Tomorrow, there will be another game, and a new sock ball for that game. Sock balls are a dime a dozen. No one really cares about what happened to yesterday’s sock ball. Discarded and unwanted.

This imagery is strong in my mind as I consider the way our politicians are treating the Ghanaian school pupil or student, just as the disused sock balls in a never-ending gutter-to-gutter game. Politicians are actually kicking our pupils and students around as they tinker with our education system on the basis of empty political grandstanding and party manifestos. That is truly sad. We the people of this nation should not allow this to happen.

The purpose of this piece is to call for an end to this silly game, particularly in the face of the vow by the NDC government to revert to the previous 3-year system, based in part on the fact that it had pledged to do this in its manifesto. This piece is also to question the rationale behind the 4-year system, and to advocate new thinking that is based on the peculiar needs of each child.

2008 NDC Manifesto: Card Stacking on Professor Anamuah-Mensah
The 2008 manifesto of the ruling NDC provides as follows:

“Before the NDC assumed office in 1992 there was a total of 210 public sector Senior Secondary Schools. Under the NDC administration, public sector Senior Secondary Schools rose to an unprecedented high of 474 in 2001, an impressive increase and all within a period of 8 years. The NPP has been able to establish only nineteen (19) Senior Secondary Schools between 2001 and 2008. This shortfall is creating intense pressure on existing SSS facilities.

An NDC government shall address the deficiencies and weaknesses in a bold and comprehensive manner. In this regard an NDC government shall:

Revert the current SHS duration of four (4) years to three (3) years consistent with the recommendation of the Report of the Anamuah-Mensah Committee…”

The first thing you might ask yourself when you read the above quote is: “where is the link between the number of SSS’ built by the parties and reverting to a 3-year programme?” Further, you might note that the NDC pledge was to revert the duration to three years was expressed to be “consistent” with recommendations of the Anamuah-Mensah Committee. But what did that committee say and under what circumstances did the committee make the alleged recommendation?

A Daily Graphic news item which was also carried by Myjoyonline.com on 27th May 2009, said as follows:

“Prof Anamuah-Mensah said the com¬mittee, after looking at the two options of a three-year and a four-year duration for the SHS, settled on the three-year duration, with a caveat that infrastructure and resources would be devoted to the educa¬tional sector, particularly from the kindergarten, the primary to the junior high school (JHS) levels.

These levels formed the foundation for the secondary and tertiary levels of education and the committee thought that a “good foundation would ensure the sterling performance of students at those higher levels of education,” he noted.

He said for him when the government accepted the report but made the duration four years, he thought that was because the infrastructural development and resources needed for the effective implementation of the three-year programme were not available.

However, he said currently figures showed that a criterion reference test, that is, the test to rate the literacy and numeracy of pupils in primary school, showed that only 10 per cent of them gained mastery over those skills.

Moreover, a large number of people who should have been absorbed into primary schools could not, while a large majority of pupils completed the basic level of education with no requisite skills for higher education or professional training, he noted.

Prof Anamuah-Mensah said education was the most important structure of any governance system, the basis for all other structures and so if it was toyed with, the results would affect the whole structure of the country.”

This is very interesting. The Anamuah-Mensah Committee did not recommend the blanket, wholesale, unmitigated and unqualified reversal to 3 years, as the NDC manifesto claims. In the words of the learned professor, his committee’s recommendation that the nation maintains a 3-year SHS system was based on a “caveat” (i.e. a warning, caution, qualification or stipulation) that adequate infrastructure and resources would be devoted to kindergarten, primary and JHS levels, which would provide sufficient grounding for a 3-year programme at the SHS. In other words, unless the conditions precedent existed, there was no justification for the 3-year program. The learned professor then said that he believes that the NPP opted for the 4-year programme because the infrastructure and resources required to justify the 3-year programme did not exist. Then he makes reference to a ‘criterion reference test’ that showed that only 10% of pupils gained mastery over literacy and numeracy skills in primary schools. That showed that the conditions precedent for the 3-year programme were non-existent.

What flows from the above is that anyone who is arguing for ‘reverting’ to the 3-year programme should first be required to satisfy Ghanaians that the conditions laid down by the Anamuah-Mensah Committee as prerequisites for the 3-year programme, exist. If those conditions do not exist, which I think is obvious, then we have no basis to revert to the 3-year programme. Clearly the provision in the NDC manifesto was card-stacking, i.e. presenting just part of the story; we probably should not trust or believe in party manifestoes. But as this interview with Professor Anamuah-Mensah shows, he himself did not believe (as at May 2009) that we were ready for the three-year programme. Indeed from his analysis, we probably can conclude that only 10% of pupils are ready for the 3-year programme.

Legal Issue
Be that as it may, the current cabinet decision to revert to the 3-year programme can at best be described as a recommendation or proposal. It is not a fait accompli or done deal. This is because the current 4-year system is backed by law. Section 1(3) of the Education Act, 2008 (Act 778), provides as follows:

The second cycle level of education shall consist of four years of senior high school education, vocational, business and agricultural education, or appropriate apprenticeship training of not less than one year. [Emphasis added]

The current Minister for Education has admitted, and rightly in my view, that it is only an amendment of this provision that will provide a legal basis for the reverting to the 3-year programme. This means that an amendment bill will have to be drawn up by the Attorney-General’s Department, and submitted to cabinet. Then the draft bill has to be sent to Parliament for its consideration. As we all know, Parliament is currently in recess and will only resume in October 2009. The effect is that unless Parliament is recalled from recess to consider a draft amendment bill, the decision to revert to the 3-year programme cannot take effect before the 2009 academic calendar begins to run, unless Parliament is going to pass a retroactive amendment of Act 778. Then that will open a can of worms.

That is why I am concerned about news reports that although Parliament has not convened to consider a possible amendment of the Act, steps are already being taken to implement a change back to 3 years. If that is true, then it has to be pointed out to the government that this is an illegality which will not stand up in court. No one, not even the government, should take it for granted that Parliament will do as the government pleases, and so once the government decides, that decision can be implemented, in the hope that Parliament will pliantly rubber stamp the government’s decision. Parliament has come under severe and brutal attack in recent months over the circumstances surrounding the approval or determination of what is now popularly known as “Ex Gratia”. I have confidence that MPs require no reminder that they owe us a duty to inquire and debate this matter thoroughly.

In other words, absent the required amendment of Act 778, any implementation of, or preparatory steps to, the 3-year programme amounts to a blatant breach of the law.

In Parliament and Outside Parliament: Enter Mr. Tettey-Enyo
But what is Act 778, and what were the circumstances surrounding its passage into law?

The draft education bill which became Act 778, came up for First Reading in Parliament on 10th November 2008. It was presented by the then Honourable Majority Leader, NPP’s Mr. Osei-Aidooh, on behalf of the then Honourable Minister for Education, Youth and Sports, Professor Dominic Fobih. The Bill was then referred to the Committees on Finance and Education, which were to “look at the document and advise whether it [was] one of an urgent nature.”

Just 4 days later, the Bill came up for Second Reading. This time the Honourable Minister for Education, Youth and Sports, Professor Dominic Fobih was present in Parliament. In moving the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, he stated that since 1961 when the original Education Act was passed, there had been no other law enforcing all the changes and transformation that had taken place in education. He said that although the 1987 education reforms had effected significant changes to the structure and content of education, it was not backed by law. He conceded that the 2007 reforms introduced by his government did not also have legal support and said that “there is therefore a need for legal backing to support all these changes.”

When the Honourable Minister had moved the motion and the question was proposed, MPP’s Mr Balado Manu (Honourable MP and Chairman of the Committee that took only 3 days to consider the Bill) supported the motion and indeed became the chief shepherd of the Bill as it went through Parliament through Second Reading, Third Reading, Consideration, Second Consideration and Passage, within 4 hours! In his speech in support of the motion, he highlighted the then proposed change of the 3-year secondary education to 4 years. He said that “the second cycle education consists of four years of senior high school education, technical, vocational and business and agricultural programmes of education.” In concluding, Mr Manu stated that the Committee had recommended that Parliament passes the Education Bill subject only to additional clauses and amendments that the Committee had proposed. It is instructive to note that none of the proposed amendments related to the proposed 4-year term for secondary education.

When Mr Manu was done, Mr Tettey-Enyo, the ranking member of the then opposition NDC (and now Minister of Education) rose, in his words, “to contribute to the motion on the floor and to say that the Education Bill is long overdue.” He revealed that the drafting of the Bill had taken almost 10 years to complete and “so it is very necessary that hon. Members of this august House to realise the importance of this Bill.” Mr. Tettey-Enyo then dwelt on what he called “the merits of the Bill as the hon. Chairman of your Committee has already enumerated.” Mr. Tettey-Enyo was effusive in his praise for the Bill and concluded his contribution as follows:

We want to make the system creditable and well planned and well managed to be able to attract the support that we require to bring up our educational system to the levels that we are desiring for the country. With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I call upon hon. Members of his House to support the passage of this important Bill into law. [Emphasis added]

Dear reader, let us get this right. As noted above, the said Mr. Tettey-Enyo is the current Minister of Education. On 14th November 2008, as the minority’s ranking member of the Education Committee, he had every opportunity to voice his opposition and that of his party to the then proposed increase in the duration of senior secondary education from 3 years to 4 years. That fact of the 4-year duration had been highlighted in the contribution of NPP’s Mr. Manu, the chairman of the Committee. But all Mr Tettey-Enyo did was to praise the Bill, saying that it was “long overdue”, and then encouraging MPs to “support the passage of this important Bill into law.”

However, in a little over two months later, the same Mr. Tettey-Enyo, this time as minister-designate for education, was reported in a Daily Graphic story that was posted on Myjoyonline.com on 26th January 2009 to have “dropped the hint” that one of the first things that the NDC government would do in the educational sector is to abolish the 4-year term of the SHS and revert to the 3-year programme, in fulfilment of a promise in its manifesto. According to him, the 4-year programme had been announced by the NPP administration when it had not put in place the needed infrastructure, syllabi and textbooks to make it work. Although he conceded that the change would require an amendment to the existing law and he is quoted to have said that “what is important is the duration of the system and the new government will go strictly by its manifesto and reverse the decision of the NPP government.”

He is further reported to have said the change in the duration from three years to four years was a political decision taken by the NPP, since the Anamoah-Mensah Committee which the NPP had put in place endorsed the three-year duration. “It was, therefore, surprising that the NPP government came out with a White Paper to introduce the four-year secondary system,” he is reported to have said.

Clearly, when Mr. Tettey-Enyo was speaking in support of the Education Bill on 14th November 2008, after his Committee had had only 3 days to consider the provisions of the Bill, he presumably knew of the contents of the manifesto of his party, which had been launched just about a month before then. He also presumably knew what the Anamuah-Mensah Committee had recommended, and the conditions contained in those recommendations. He claimed in January 2009 that the NPP had opted for the 4-year scheme in a move that he found “surprising”. Yet he did not state or voice any opposition to the 4-year programme in Parliament. He actually supported the Bill in its entirety! Now he was saying that there was no infrastructure, syllabi and textbooks to support the 4-year programme. Why didn’t Mr. Tettey-Enyo bring these matters out in Parliament, and lead the minority caucus to vote against the Bill? If he was truly surprised that the NPP government introduced the 4-year system by a “white paper”, why was he so silent on this matter on the floor of Parliament?

These are questions that beg for answers from Mr. Tettey-Enyo. If he is going to be the one to steer the proposed amendment bill through Parliament, he is well advised to consider these questions and prepare answers. Right now, he sounds like the character that John Stuart Mill speaks about in the quotation that started this writing.

Mr. J. H. Mensah’s Timely Warnings
If any MP deserved the title “hero” in the deliberations in Parliament on 14th November, that would be NPP’s Mr J. H. Mensah, and to an extent, the harassed NDC’s Mr Inusah Fuseini. I will deal with Mr Fuseini’s unfolding drama and harassment later in this writing. But Mr Mensah did not mince words or pull any punches. He started by describing to Mr Tettey-Enyo’s assertions in support of the Bill, that it should be passed because it had taken 10 years to bring the Bill to Parliament, as “regrettable,” adding that “this is too important a matter to have been brought to this House at the tail end [and] in the middle of a parliamentary and presidential election.” Mr. Mensah was to get even more excoriating when he said as follows:

“I am afraid that the Parliament today cannot do justice to this matter as it deserves to be dealt with. I hope that our successors in the next Parliament – unfortunately I would not be here – would go back to this matter and consider it in great detail because we have said that the production of an efficient and well-educated human capital asset is at the basis of all our national development strategies, and a number of things have not been dealt with sufficiently.”

Mr Mensah was not done. In the face of some considerable heckling by NPP’s Mr Manu on the issue of adequately resourcing education, he said:

“Mr. Speaker, those words are ten for a penny that they should be resourced. Who is to decide? It is this Parliament. What have we decided? After being here for 12 years, I am making a confession mea culpa that we are guilty that is all. We have not addressed the matter. In this report that they have said they should be adequately resources, what does “They should be adequately resourced” mean?”

Mr Mensah was interrupted by NDC’s Mr. Twumasi-Appiah who was ruled out of order when he wanted Mr. Mensah to repeat his mea culpa confession.

When Mr Mensah was allowed to continue, he referred to a publication from GETFund which showed that in 2007, while the number enrolled in the JSS was approximately 255,000, only half of this number made it to the first senior secondary year. He said, “in other words, we are throwing unto the streets a half of all the graduates from our JSS, not knowing what we are doing with them.”

Mr Mensah was interrupted again by Mr Manu who was also ruled out of order. But his concluding words were biting:

“Mr. Speaker, I am obeying your instruction to call a halt but I am just leaving this message to the House and to the nation that we have toyed around enough with this matter and that we should get serious, confront the serious facts, the difficult facts and make a real effort to make the educational reform a reality instead of a declaration.”

He sat down to “Hear! Hear!”

Lee Ocran’s Contribution
The next significant contributor was NDC’s Mr. Lee Ocran. Let me point out that Mr. Ocran was also the chairman of the NDC’s manifesto committee and was also presumably as well-versed in its contents and declared intention to reverse the 4-year system as Mr. Tettey-Enyo. But hear him:

“Mr. Speaker, the Bill is good, the intention is very good but I think we must have a serious look at it so that where there are deficiencies we fix them.”

He then elaborated on how to correct what he considered as “deficiencies” thus:

“Let us be able to provide the facilities that would make teaching and learning possible. Books, libraries, these days we have computer laboratories and so on, so that when the child comes out from school, he is not that kind of child who cannot pronounce or who cannot slip through one sentence. It is not good, then he better not have been to school.”

Mr Ocran concluded his contribution with the following words:

“Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity and I hope that those who would be involved in the implementation of this Bill will try to fix things properly so that we have the best coming out of our educational system.”

As noted above, one would have expected Mr. Ocran (now ambassador-designate), from his privileged position as chairman of NDC’s manifesto committee, to have at least voiced his party’s opposition to the 4-year programme in the bill. But he rose in Parliament, did nothing of the sort, but praise the bill as “good, the intention is very good.” Although he spoke of deficiencies, which he highlighted, he never mentioned the 4-year programme. Mr. Ocran therefore leaves us with a number of questions, including, whether he really had read the Bill or NDC’s manifesto?

It is worthy of note that NDC’s Mr. Twumasi-Appiah also spoke in support of the motion, which was eventually carried when the question was put. The Bill was then immediately taken to the Consideration Stage by Parliament waiving Standing Order 128(1) that required that at least 48 hours should lapse between the Second Reading and the Consideration Stage.

Inusah Fuseini, the Rookie MP
I think that NDC’s Mr Fuseini was a freshman/rookie/greenhorn MP in 2008. With the wisdom of hindsight, he deserves a hero’s mention because he was really the only MP who said anything that remotely sounded like an opposition to the Bill’s provisions on the duration of schooling. But I find that he allowed himself to be too easily pushed off his arguments by NPP’s Mr. Manu and others. His argument was only presented half-heartedly and, as is worthy of note, did not exactly reflect the NDC’s manifesto position on the matter.

Mr. Fuseini’s first bite was to say that the provision in clause 1 of the Bill (now section 1 of Act 778), which provided for 2 years of kindergarten was “too mandatory” and would prevent the people running kindergartens from promoting or ‘demoting’ children, as the case may be. He advocated a “flexible rendition that allows kindergarten education to be at least two years.” But Mr Fuseini had apparently bitten more than he could chew. The NPP’s Mrs. Akosua Osei-Opare called his suggestion “inappropriate for this purpose,” arguing that there was the need to set a standard, even if some people would be jumped. Prof. Fobih supported Mrs Osei-Opare saying that it was necessary to set indices for determining credentials and that whatever acceleration might occur “we still have the national structure clearly defined and this is what we mean in this Bill.”

But Mr. J. H. Mensah did not appear to be too convinced by the arguments of his colleagues from the NPP. He rose to say that if the word “year” was causing a problem, the words “grade” or “level” may be considered. The NDC’s Mr Twumasi-Appiah also spoke in support of Mr. Fuseini and merely sought to explain further, what Mr Fusieni had said.

However the NPP’s Mr. Manu countered that “That is the norm: out of the norm there can be special cases that cannot be taken into making a law.” When Mr Fuseini rose to speak again, the First Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair, said the freshman MP was “pushing us back” and that if the latter “felt strongly about it” he should consider bringing it up at the Second Consideration stage. The House (both sides) then spent considerable time debating other aspects of the Bill and approving other amendments.

Mr. Fuseini tried very hard to hold his ground. Just when the question had been put and the motion for the reading had been carried, he drew the First Deputy Speaker’s attention to his arguments. With this, Mr. Fuseini moved for the matter to be taken to a Second Consideration. He was seconded by Mr. Tettey-Enyo, who however remained loudly silent during this stage of the debate. Mr Fusieni’s first amendment proposal was to insert the words “not less than two years” into the provision of the Bill on the duration of kindergarten was roundly defeated. But he soldiered on and introduced his second amendment proposal, which was that the words “four years” should be deleted and replaced with the words “not less than three years.” He referred to the Anamuah-Mensah Report, and argued that adopting those words would “offer us an opportunity in future, without necessarily amending the provisions of clause 1(3) to revert to the three years when we are satisfied that the amenities and facilities exist that will allow the course to run in three years.”

Mr Fuseini added that this would reduce the time and expense that might be incurred in future if the matter had to be brought back to the floor of Parliament for an amendment. He urged Parliament to use “the opportunity to make it flexible enough to be able to adjust to the programme in future.”

But this was met with a forceful rebuttal by NPP’s Mr. Manu who wondered what calculations Mr. Fuseini had done “to arrive at the three years that he is talking about? Has he foreseen or does he foresee a situation where conditions in this country would be so much improved, that secondary education can be done in two years? Why is he settling on three years?” Mr Manu added that what existed was three years but that there was research showed that this was not helping student “to progress in the educational ladder.” Mr. Manu found Mr Fuseini’s proposed amendment “unacceptable and… should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.”

NDC’s Mr Ocran rose only to offer a weak defence of Mr. Fuseini. He claimed that “’not less than three years’ means it can be four, five, six and seven depending on the situation.” But this was significant. The chairman of NDC’s Manifesto Committee, which considered the 4-year duration as a near abomination, was willing to consider an amendment, which in his view, could extend the duration to seven years! Mr Ocran ended by saying that “I do not see the need for long English and talk about it.”

NPP’s Mr. Felix Owusu-Adjapong then rose and forcefully argued that there was no need to gamble with “certain things” and that when it comes to education, “we need to be very certain as to what we are trying to do… If in fact, at a certain level of the development of this country, there will be need for us to amend this clause, we will go through the proper procedure. This is not a clause we want to leave with administrators who may be operating this at their whims and caprices; it is a thing we need to be sure of.” He added that MPs “should not abdicate [their] rights to look at things which really are fundamental to the development of this country.” He then asked Mr. Fuseini to “possibly withdraw and we make progress.”

The Hansard does not record whether Mr. Fuseini withdrew his proposed amendment. The document strangely claims that the “question [was] put and amendment agreed to.” However MPs who were present on that day have confirmed to me that the amendment was actually defeated. Then, after a few comments by Mr. Mensah and Prof. Fobih, the Bill was read the third time and passed. President Kufuor only assented to it on 6th January 2009.

I have taken the trouble to walk us through the parliamentary debates because it shows, graphically, what happened in Parliament, leading to the passage of Act 778. Parliament passed this Act with much speed, a situation that Mr. J. H. Mensah was clearly unhappy with. It was as if the Act had to be passed anyway because soon after that, Parliament adjourned to 16th December 2008. It is also critical to note that none of the NDC MPs who spoke on the matter directly opposed the 4-year programme. What Mr. Fuseini tried to do was not in consonance with the NDC Manifesto. All he wanted was “flexibility” that would allow a reversion to the 3-year programme without resorting to parliament. But as explained by Mr. Ocran, Mr. Fuseini’s defeated amendment would have meant that the duration could actually go up to seven years!

My View
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the NDC Manifesto contains an inaccurate representation of the Anamuah-Mensah recommendations. It is obvious to everyone who wants to assess this matter that the conditions that the Anamuah-Mensah Committee said should exist to ground the 3-year programme do not exist. The result is that many Ghanaians, worried by the gutter-to-gutter mentality that is being exhibited by our politicians on the matter of education, are seeking to protect their children in many ways. As I write, many who can afford it, are sending their children to high school in South Africa, the latest education Mecca for the well-to-do in Ghana. Others have simply removed their children off the national JHS/SHS programme and are paying ‘an arm and a leg’ for their wards to write the International O’Level and A’Level, that are being offered by many private schools in Ghana. Others, whose children have remained on the national programme, ensure that the children go to the best primary schools and JHS’, which is a near-certain guarantee that the wards will end up in the Mfantsipims and Wesley Girs’, and subsequently the Universities.

Dear reader, the gutter-to-gutter that the politicians are playing with the future of our children means that we are creating or deepening the concept of a class society, where those who have will use their resources to protect their children from the gutter-to-gutter, and those who do not have (and who constitute the vast majority of us), are left at the mercy of the politicians, just like the sock ball I described earlier in this writing.

I have heard parents whose children are wring the IGSCE say that even if their wards have to do university education in Ghana, the A’Level guarantees that they will enter the University of Ghana at Level 200 and not waste a year at Level 100. That is sad. And from Professor Anamuah-Mensah’s Daily Graphic interview, we are not ready for the 3-year programme.

But are we ready for the 4-year programme? Is that really the answer to the issue confronting senior secondary education in Ghana? If indeed some students can complete the SHS course and pass the relevant exams within 3 years, what is the justification for holding them back and compelling them to spend an extra year in the SHS?

I am of the firm belief that the progress of a student in school should depend on the student’s own ability and not the lack of ability of another student; this is what the mandatory 4-year programme appears to me to suggest. By passing law that requires a mandatory school duration, we are seeking to impose a kibbutz-like, one-size-fits-all education scheme that is bound to fail. Indeed, as the current wording of Act 778 stands, it would be illegal for a school to put a brilliant student on a fast track or even cause a student to be repeated in class on account of poor performance. Section 1(3) says “The second cycle level of education shall consist of four years of senior high school.” It does not permit any equivocation or change. It does not reserve any right in the schools to do otherwise. Thus a strict application of this provision would mean that a parent can head to court for an order that the decision by a school that that parent’s child should repeat a year (even on account of proven poor performance) is illegal. It is my respectful view that any statute that casts the duration of any educational system in stone, as section 1(2) & (3) of act 778 seeks to do, is at least retrogressive and at worst not in tune with modern educational methods.

A similar argument applies to the mandatory 3-year programme that the NDC is proposing now. If it is indeed the case that majority of the student cannot complete the syllabi successfully, so as to make them well-grounded for university education, why are we rushing to revert to this programme?

Dear reader, the answer to the current problem does not lie in a debate over three years as against four years. That is gutter-to-gutter politics! The answer should lie in determining what is in the best interest of each student, based on his/her ability. We aim at law that puts this up at the key matter for consideration. It should be possible for a school’s authorities, a student’s parents and the student himself/herself to sit, discuss and implement what is in the best interest of that student. It might be that the student will be able to complete the course in, say, two years. However, this tripartite group might be able to agree that with respect to the student’s social development, he/she may not be ready for life in the university, and might have to spend an extra year or more in school, just to “grow up”. This tripartite does not need the strictures and long-arm interventions of MPs and the law to determine and impose what is in the best interest of the child.

This is system is not new. It is in play in many of the private schools in Ghana. And it is working well. We do not need to re-invent the wheel. By all means let us provide the standard duration for every level of education in Ghana. But let the statute provide express wording that vests considerable discretion in the actual implementing parties so that they can adjust this as they deem fit, on a case-by-case basis. I foresee that majority of students will go through the normal duration. But the law must recognise special circumstances that will require change on the basis of either proven ability or the proven inability of the student.

That is why we should not rush to implement the 3-year system. This is because I fully expect that in the upcoming debate, our MPs will note and remember that the issue is not one of political jousting over who has a better idea, or who is tinkering with whose original idea, or who needs to implement a campaign promise based on a misreading of the Anamuah-Mensah recommendation. That is pointless political arrogance and self-importance that we do not need. Our children do not need to be reduced to the level of the sock ball that is kicked around by one Parliament, and is discarded by the next Parliament because there is a new game up. This is not a Gutter-to-Gutter game. This involves the very lives of our children, our future. We require sober minds that are willing, prepared and able to work through this and to bring out what is best for our country and its future.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Fuseini was really up to something. He probably did not articulate his position very well and allowed himself to be bullied off his message. Maybe he needed more time to construct his thoughts and that the rather supersonic speed with which the Act was passed deprived him of this opportunity. We need to revisit and resolve this matter to the best of our abilities, at least for the time being. If sometime in the future, we need to address this again, we must and we will. But we surely do not need the partisan pallour that this is taking. This is something that requires serious multi-partisan and non-partisan effort. Let it not be said that the only times that we see multi-partisanship in our Parliament is when the matter at stake has to do with their terms and conditions of service. Sorry, I had to go there.

We have another chance to bite at this grape; not cherry. I pray that we take a good bite at a ripe grape, so that it cannot be said that “the fathers ate the sour grapes, and the children’s teeth were set on edge.”

Yours in the service of God and Country,

Kojo Anan

And So What?
So how did all this end, and where does it lead us to or leave us? Is this just some intellectual babble? Did we just talk and end the matter there? I was resolved not to let all of the gems gathered in the discussion go to waste. So I made use of a facility on Facebook by which one can introduce people into ‘friendships.’ I was privileged to be Facebook ‘friends’ with a government deputy minister with direct responsibility for branding Ghana. I therefore introduced these ‘friends’ to each other and to this Deputy Minister, in the hope that some of the things we shared can move from the ‘talk’ stage to the ‘walk’ stage. Then we would have made some progress.

But as I was thinking about progress, then my beloved Cape Coast hit the headlines, this time on account of a political struggle over the control of public toilets. Let us be clear on one thing. Public toilets are very important in Ghana. Indeed, in many places, they constitute significant land marks. And just before anyone thinks that I am being merely cynical or flippant, I will want to refer to at least five local government regulations, which expressly mention certain public toilets as boundaries of some Town/Area Council Zones: LI 1421 (West Akyem), LI 1427 (Yilo Krobo), LI 1453 (West Dagomba), LI 1488 (Atebubu) and LI 1614 (Kumasi). Further, revenue from public toilet facilities is so critical to local government authorities that it has been legislated in our statute books. The Local Government Act, Schedule 6, titled “Revenue of Local Government Bodies”, Item 10 (viii), mentions “Toilet Receipts” as one of the statutory sources of revenue.

To my mind, public toilets should not be the first reference point for any citizen of this country who seeks to ‘answer nature’s call.’ But that is the case in many communities in Ghana, simply because in the 21st century, there are homes and workplaces in Ghana that do not have toilet facilities, and so many people have to use public toilet facilities all the time. But Ghana’s Building Regulations demand that every house must have toilet facilities. Under Part XIV of the Regulations, every house must have a water closet, where water is available, or an earth closet or chemical closet, where there is no water. The law also provides detailed specifications for installing and maintaining these in homes. With respect to offices, the Labour Act imposes a burden on all employers to ensure that employees have access to “separate, sufficient and suitable toilet and washing facilities and adequate facilities for the storage, changing, drying and cleansing from contamination of clothing for male and female workers.” The Factories, Offices and Shops Act also require that “adequate and suitable sanitary conveniences conveniently accessible to persons employed shall be provided, maintained and kept clean in every factory, office and shop, and effective provision shall be made for their lighting and ventilation.”

It is therefore illegal to build a home or run a factory, office of shop without toilet facilities. We must enforce these laws. The non-enforcement of these laws means that many people depend on public facilities as the first port of response when ‘nature calls.’ This is what has created a huge business and statutory source of income for local government authorities, who, ironically, are required to enforce the Building Regulations. Local government bodies, as we are learning, farm out the actual running of these facilities to various people, and the contractors are selected on the basis of their political party affiliations. Thus with every change of government we will have crises on our hands when the winning parties’ foot soldiers begin to demand a change in control over such facilities, so that they also can ‘enjoy’ the “toilet receipts.” This is the source of the problem, and we simply have to de-emphasise the importance of public toilet facilities by enforcing the laws.

The public toilet story from Cape Coast is not new or isolated. Each forcible take over or quarrel makes its way into the news. Ashiaman public toilets were taken over with force and threats of violence. I heard one public toilet ‘contractor’ screaming on Peace FM that she had placed an injunction on the ‘tsiafi’. Oh… Ghana! And the Cape Coast version of the story is on the internet (myjoyonline.com) for all to see. A prospective tourist who does a Google search on ‘Cape Coast’ probably seeking to visit the Cape Coast Castle, will see that the most topical issue to arise from the beloved city, since Obama left, is over who controls public toilets. In Accra, cows and goats and sheep still roam a road as major as the Graphic Road on an almost daily basis, competing with vehicles for space. The Obama-by-night road refurbishments are still in place and holding out against the rains. (Hey, did Obama take the rains away with him?) The polished and refurbished hospital and King’s Palace are still there for all to see.

My love for Ghana has not diminished. Obama was a high. The toilet fights are a low. Today, I am somewhere in between highs and lows on this sometimes creaking roller-coaster called Ghana. I am still incurably romantic to believe that I can be part of turning this wheel on which we turn, even if T.S. Eliot will call me “a fool fixed in his folly.”

Maybe Obama left Ghana with the smell of fresh paint in his nostrils, and with our rains. Maybe not. But we still have a nation to build and market, a nation that lives in many centuries at the same time. That is our beloved Ghana. But whilst at it, let’s simply enforce the law – one house, at least one toilet. Cage the cows and goats. That would be a great start. Simple.

Yours in the service of God and Country,
Kojo Anan