Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jnr., Ph.D.

Needless to say, the Asantehene was preaching to the wrong crowd and audience. First of all, the institutional sponsor of the democracy lecture being attended by Otumfuo Osei-Tutu II, the National Commission on Civic Education (NCCE), was founded by Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia, one of the three pillars behind the ideological tenets and agenda of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and not by either Chairman Jerry John Rawlings, the founding father of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), or Mr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first postcolonial Ghanaian premier and founder of the so-called Convention People’s Party (CPP).

But even more importantly, the Asantehene ought to have conferred with the judges hearing the Election 2012 petition and admonished them about the fact that their conduct and decision were being sedulously watched by the global community; and also that the youths of today and posterity would not judge them kindly if their judicial performance is found to lack the highest level of integrity and professionalism. And maybe the operatives of the International Criminal Court (ICC) ought to dispatch a delegation to monitor the judicial proceedings, if they are not already doing so.

In other words, prevailing on Nana Akufo-Addo and the main opposition New Patriotic Party to preempt their righteous craving for justice, by vacuously undertaking to abide by any decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Ghana is grossly ill-advised. It is grossly ill-advised because the Asantehene has yet to significantly and publicly comment on the incontrovertible evidence of deliberate rigging of Election 2012 by Messrs. Mahama and Afari-Gyan. He needs to comment on this because he is the most powerful traditional ruler in the country and, therefore, cannot pretend to be totally unaware of the kind of political corruption and government-sponsored acts of mayhem and downright brutality that are the daily fare of the existence of the proverbial average Ghanaian.

Secondly, the sanguinary history of the National Democratic Congress and before the latter, the so-called Provisional National Defense Council (P/NDC) must not be either condoned or appeased, and the members and supporters of the P/NDC ought to be made to fully appreciate the fact that theirs is an unpardonably bloody political heritage.

Indeed, Nana Akufo-Addo demonstrates his enviable patriotism when he pledges to put the peace and political stability of Ghana above all else. Nevertheless, the NPP leader ought to be also reminded of the fact that the imperative need for democratic justice and accountability cannot be facilely sacrificed on the altar of bankrupt peaceability and/or tranquillity. The latter quality-of-life existential feature is what differentiates a civilized polity or society from a half-enslaved nation.

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D. Department of English Nassau Community College of SUNY Garden City, New York

E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

Dr Neeraj Mistry, Managing Director, Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases/Photo: Agbelessessy/ANA

What targets are envisaged with the adoption of 36 multi-year national NTD control and elimination at the African Union meeting?

This is very, very important because, what it means is that, it’s institutionalized within the country’s national health plan, when each country in Africa has national integrated plan on NTD control. It also means that whereas before, NTDs were addressed by one disease at a time, now it’s moving towards more and integrated control programmes which means that it’s the very same communities that are affected by not just one disease but very often more than one disease, and so we’ve been more efficient in the response by saying when the community health workers go to treat one disease, we also add the drug for the other diseases. This makes the response more comprehensive.

How critical would you say are government leadership and commitment to NTD control and elimination?

That’s the other thing that’s important in having the national plan. If it’s in the national plan for NTD control it also means it gets financed or have the potential to get money from the ministry of finance. And increasingly this is something that we have to see. We have to see national countries, national governments of endemic countries contributing to their own national plans for NTD control. And, unlike HIV and other diseases where the budget is far more expensive and countries need more help the opportunities for countries to co-invest on their national plans for which we want to bring some external donors in the form of the US government and the UK government which are the leading contributors to NTD control.

Experts are of the opinion that we need to focus on interactions, synergies, and challenges of integration of NTD care with management strategies for communicable and non-communicable diseases without eroding the functionality of existing national programmes for NTDs. What’s your view on that?

I think the critical thing that we need to look at is what are the common factors across all these diseases? One, we want to look at what is the biological link between diseases like AIDS, TB, malaria and NTDs as well as some of the NCDs? But the other thing is, the common factor is the communities that are affected and very often the communities that are vulnerable to NTDs, are the ones that are living in the rural areas outside the cities and they are also the communities that are susceptible to other infectious diseases, like AIDS, TB and malaria. And so when we look at the supply chain, the distribution mechanisms, the community health workers etc., that are involved in responding to these diseases, we need to leverage off the common infrastructure to actually make the response more efficient.

Let’s talk about funding. Will you say the need for sustained and increased funding for NTD initiatives is today greater than ever? And are there requirements for increased political and funder commitment?

So, what we certainly have is tremendous progress with very little money in the NTD response. But the opportunity that we have with NTDs is the prospect of eliminating these diseases in the next seven years till 2020 which are based on the global target from the NTD community and the World Health Organization. And this was also re-stated with the London Declaration. And so, the need for funding is critical for a scale-up response when we increase coverage and a typical example is, if we have two African villages with let’s say a river running between it, if we treat one village and not the other, the village that we treated get re-infected from the village that hasn’t been treated. And so, with expanded coverage, of both villages, we can eliminate these diseases and that’s why an injection of additional funding is important to make sure that we actually expand the coverage to reach elimination. If we don’t get an injection of new funding, then we would maintain the level of NTD control that we currently have which will mean that we have to do these programmes for much, much longer. But if we get a new injection of funding, we can accelerate the response, broaden coverage and actually work to elimination.

Did you get the sense at the African Union Health Ministers meeting that governments are prepared to increase funding in their budgetary allocations for NTDs?

I think we’re seeing a new level of political commitment and this has been the call from the Global Network and the African Union Commission to raise the level of awareness of NTDs and to prioritize NTDs on the African health agenda; and now it is left at the country level for the process to work whereby ministries of finance have to work with the ministries of health to actually allocate that funding. But that leadership comes from the highest level, it’s the Heads of States that have to say that NTDs are a priority for their countries.

Regarding the PSA video that was launched recently, has there been any impact in your understanding that the video has helped in raising awareness?

Absolutely, what we saw in a very short period of time since the launch of the PSA video is the number of views of the video online and its well into the four or five hundred thousand range of the number of people that have viewed that. In addition to that we are actually seeing donations coming in from the general public. And these are small donations with people giving $10 or $20 each; but that is an important sign that the general public is actually seeing this as an important issue for us to address and that is the type of message that we actually need to send to the donor governments who are thinking about their development allocations and priorities as well as the endemic country governments to say that this is what the general view is on a disease priority for national development.

About END7

These and other partnerships with groups such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, governments, academic institutions, scientists, medical professionals, and non-profit organizations are critical in furthering the development of strategies to reduce human suffering from devastating vaccine preventable and neglected tropical diseases.

ErzeugerpreisindexStart04

Energie war im Vergleich zum Vorjahresmonat um 0,7 % billiger, wobei sich die Preise der verschiedenen Energieträger uneinheitlich entwickelten. So waren Mineralölerzeugnisse 8,3 % günstiger als im April 2012, elektrischer Strom insgesamt hingegen 1,4 % teurer. Gegenüber dem Vormonat März 2013 fielen die Energiepreise um 0,3 %.

Ohne Berücksichtigung von Energie erhöhten sich die Erzeugerpreise im April 2013 gegenüber April 2012 um 0,4 %. Gegenüber März 2013 sank der Erzeugerpreisindex ohne Energie leicht um 0,1 %.

Die Preise für Verbrauchsgüter waren im April 2013 um 1,6 % höher als im April 2012, gegenüber März 2013 blieben sie unverändert. Nahrungsmittel kosteten im Jahresvergleich 2,6 % mehr (unverändert gegenüber März 2013). Butter war mit + 15,3 % deutlich teurer als im Vorjahr (+ 5,0 % gegenüber März 2013). Frisches Brot und Brötchen kosteten 3,5 % mehr als im April 2012. Im Gegensatz dazu war Kaffee um 3,3 % billiger.

Gebrauchsgüter waren im April 2013 um 0,9 % teurer als im April 2012, Investitionsgüter um 0,8 % (jeweils + 0,1 % gegenüber März 2013).

Vorleistungsgüter (Güter, die im Produktionsprozess verbraucht, verarbeitet oder umgewandelt werden) waren im April 2013 um 0,7 % billiger als im April 2012. Preisrückgänge gegenüber dem Vorjahresmonat hatte es hier letztmalig im August 2012 gegeben (– 0,2 %). Gegenüber dem Vormonat März sanken die Preise um 0,4 %. Metalle kosteten 5,4 % weniger als im April 2012, Edelmetalle waren sogar um 22,3 % billiger. Futtermittel für Nutztiere (+ 13,9 %) und Getreidemehl (+ 11,1 %) waren hingegen deutlich teurer als im April 2012.

Detaillierte Informationen zur Statistik der Erzeugerpreise gewerblicher Produkte bietet die Fachserie 17, Reihe 2 “Erzeugerpreisindex gewerblicher Produkte”. Basisdaten und lange Zeitreihen sind über die Tabelle Erzeugerpreise gewerblicher Produkte (61241-0004) in der Datenbank GENESIS-Online abrufbar.

“When first diagnosed with breast cancer, women are instantly part of a vibrant breast cancer support community,” said Maira Caleffi, MD, President of Brazilian Federation of Philanthropic Institutions to Support Breast Health (FEMAMA). “But when their cancer metastasizes or if they are first diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, it is no longer about becoming a survivor; it’s about surviving.”

In early stage breast cancer (stages I and II), cancer cells are confined to the breast or immediate lymph node area; the focus for the patient is to become a “survivor.” When cancer metastasizes, treatments that worked at the beginning may lose effectiveness over time[5]. The focus shifts to surviving, despite the anxiety and uncertainty that comes with disease progression and ongoing treatments[6]. The survey showed that these patients crave resources and support that are specific to their needs.

Along with key members of the global advocacy community, Novartis Oncology has created resources, support and education tailored to the ABC community on the newly launched www.advancedbreastcancercommunity.org. The website is a hub of resources for people living with ABC as well as their caregivers, supporters and loved ones. Such resources include a step-by-step guide to creating a personal plan after being diagnosed, videos that offer first-person accounts of life with ABC and lists of advocacy organizations, periodicals and medical journals that focus on the advanced forms of breast cancer.

The global survey also found that more than three in four women (77%) say they actively seek out information on their own; however, nearly half (45%) say it is hard to find information about ABC, and more than half (55%) say the information that is available does not address their needs[2]. This is likely because most of the information available is applicable only to those with early stage breast cancer.

In addition to lack of information and feelings of isolation, many women (41%) find that support from friends and family wanes over time[2]. Interestingly, all of this may motivate some women to create their own support networks. Nearly half of women (45%) say that being diagnosed with ABC has led them to volunteer or give back to the ABC community[2].

“These survey results give great insight into our global community and the reality of living with metastatic breast cancer, an incurable and deadly disease,” said CJ (Dian) M. Corneliussen-James, Director of Advocacy for METAvivor Research and Support, Inc., a nonprofit advanced breast cancer organization. “It is my hope that this ignites a movement of public recognition, understanding and outreach so that the isolation and rejection our community so often encounters might become a thing of the past.”

About the “Count Us, Know Us, Join Us” Survey

The Count Us survey was conducted online by Harris Interactive on behalf of Novartis Oncology between October 8, 2012 and March 15, 2013. A total of 1,273 women diagnosed with ABC (that is, breast cancer that has spread beyond the breast to other parts of the body) completed the survey in 12 countries: US (n=349), Canada (n=55), Mexico (n=102), Brazil (n= 100), Argentina (n=100), UK (n=66), Germany (n=100), Russia (n=100), India (n=100), Taiwan (n=99), Hong Kong (n=52) and Lebanon (n=50). Total sample data are not weighted and therefore representative only of the individuals interviewed. A global post-weight was applied to ensure all countries received an equal weight in the global and regional data. No estimates of error can be computed.

Additional Count Us Survey findings:

Support and Information from Healthcare Providers:

Most women (80%) say they get enough support from their oncologists[2].
Three in four women (76%) would like their healthcare professional to address their emotional needs[2].
One in three women (35%) say it is important to make information about decreased interest in sexual activity available to women with ABC[2].

Relationships and Marriage:

Two in five women (40%) say their relationship with their spouse or partner has been negatively impacted a lot or a moderate amount by their ABC diagnosis[2].
However, nearly all women (87%) say they receive sufficient support from their spouse/partner[2].
Many women (41%) find that support from friends and family wanes over time[2].

Workplace:

More than half of employed women (57%) say most or all of their co-workers know about their ABC[2].
About seven in ten women (69%) say their ABC has interfered with their ability to work such that they suffered a loss of personal income[2].

About Count Us, Know Us, Join Us

The mission of Count Us, Know Us, Join Us is to recognize those living with ABC, their caregivers, supporters, friends and family members. This is a community that has different physical and emotional needs from those living with early stage breast cancer. Novartis Oncology has collaborated with leading members of the global advocacy community to create the program and corresponding website – www.advancedbreastcancercommunity.org.

About advanced breast cancer

Advanced breast cancer comprises metastatic breast cancer (stage IV) and locally advanced breast cancer (stage III)[7]. Metastatic breast cancer is the most serious form of the disease and occurs when the cancer has spread beyond the breast to other parts of the body, such as the brain, bones or liver[7]. Locally advanced breast cancer occurs when the cancer has spread to lymph nodes and/or other tissue in the area of the breast, but not to distant sites in the body[7].

About Novartis

Novartis provides innovative healthcare solutions that address the evolving needs of patients and societies. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis offers a diversified portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative medicines, eye care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals, preventive vaccines and diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and animal health products. Novartis is the only global company with leading positions in these areas. In 2012, the Group achieved net sales of USD 56.7 billion, while R&D throughout the Group amounted to approximately USD 9.3 billion (USD 9.1 billion excluding impairment and amortization charges). Novartis Group companies employ approximately 129,000 full-time-equivalent associates and operate in more than 140 countries around the world. For more information, please visit http://www.novartis.com.

Novartis is on Twitter. Sign up to follow @Novartis at http://twitter.com/novartis.

References

[1] Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October. World Health Organization. Available at http://www.who.int/cancer/events/breast_cancer_month/en/index.html. Accessed on March 15, 2012.

[2] Count Us, Know Us, Join Us Advanced Breast Cancer Survey, Harris Interactive, sponsored by Novartis Oncology (2013).

[3] Buckley N, Isherwood A. Breast Cancer. Decision Resources. March 2011:1-301.

[4] Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, et a;. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet. October 2011;378(9801):1461-84.

[5] Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Morales-Vasquez F, Hortobagyi GN. Overview of Resistance to Systemic Therapy in Patients with Breast Cancer. In: Madame Curie Bioscience Database [Internet]. Austin (TX): Landes Bioscience; 2000-. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6306. Accessed on March 15, 2013.

[6] MBC Advocacy Working Group. Bridging gaps, expanding outreach: Metastatic Breast Cancer Advocacy Working Group consensus report. The Breast. 2009; 18:273-5.

[7] American Cancer Society. How do you determine the stage of breast cancer? Available at http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-staging. Accessed on October 9, 2012.

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jnr., Ph.D.

Anyway, speaking on Asempa Fm-Radio’s Ekosii Sen (How Did It Go?) program, Mr. Adu-Asare, the former National Democratic Congress’ Member of Parliament for Adentan Constituency, in Central Accra, was reported to have critically observed that New Patriotic Party “polling agents were not vigilant enough to protect the votes of their [presidential] candidate in the various polling stations around the country.”

The unmistakable implication here, of course, is that the lack of vigilance on the part of Akufo-Addo partisans opened the floodgates for a clinically theft-prone National Democratic Congress (NDC) polling agents to illegally bag ballots, or votes, belonging to Nana Akufo-Addo under the name of the then-Caretaker President John Dramani Mahama.

And so, clearly, what we have here is an open and shameless admission by a prominent member of the ruling National Democratic Congress that, indeed, contrary to what the Ato Dadzie-led NDC Legal Team would have Ghanaians and the global community believe, deliberate electoral rigging, as forensically and convincingly attested by Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, the second petitioner of the Election 2012 impasse, did, indeed, take place. Needless to say, this is the sort of significant unsolicited testimony which the Atuguba-presided panel of Supreme Court jurists ought to be sedulously studying and considering as they prepare to hand down their verdict in the offing.

The preceding is quite edifying and fascinating because in the aftermath of the fraudulent declaration of Mr. Mahama as the decisive winner of Election 2012, by Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, the Electoral Commissioner (EC), the NDC general-secretary, Mr. Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, made a strikingly similar remark to that of Mr. Adu-Asare which could be readily accessed and verified via Google, the global Internet search engine.

For me, however, what is even more intriguing is the patently lame and silly manner in which key NDC operatives have been desperately struggling to extricate themselves from their own proverbial Tar-Baby. That they are highly unlikely to succeed, no matter how hard they try, is a foregone conclusion. The tricky catch here, though, is that the limpid clarity and forensic soundness of the evidence presented by Dr. Bawumia may not necessarily carry weight with the Atuguba Court. This is a personal observation objectively based on the conduct of the presiding judge; but, of course, it ought to be promptly pointed out that Justice Atuguba’s is only one out of a maximum number of nine votes. And the fact that he is widely known and associated with the ideological tenets of the National Democratic Congress does not necessarily mean, or imply, that Justice William Atuguba is not his own man.

In fact, he may shockingly be his own man; and on a good day and in the best of moods may quite remarkably even surprise the viewing global public by clinically casting his lot on the strength of the evidence without qualms.

At any rate, Mr. Adu-Asare’s rather lame assertion that the New Patriotic Party may have remarkably benefited from “excess votes” in the Central Region, in 2004, does not constructively address the Akufo-Addo/NPP petition. First of all, Nana Akufo-Addo was not the the NPP presidential candidate or the running-made of the latter at the time in question. The man is also not even from the Central Region.
But even more significant is the fact that Nana Akufo-Addo did not prevent the purportedly aggrieved National Democratic Congress’ presidential candidate from petitioning the Supreme Court for redress.
Predictably, in much the same lame and risible manner, the Ato Dadzie-led NDC Legal Team is now claiming, rather childishly that, in fact, considerable over-voting had occurred in the Asante Region, putatively the traditional stronghold of the NPP. Paradoxically, the foregoing state of affairs, even if it could be objectively corroborated, still falls under the statutory responsibility of Dr. Afari-Gyan and the Electoral Commission, and not either that of Nana Akufo-Addo or the main opposition New Patriotic Party.

It also clearly boosts Dr. Bawumia’s argument that there was a calculated and collusive decision by Messrs. Afari-Gyan and Mahama not only to cause widespread over-voting, but also to illegally guarantee the electoral victory of Mr. Mahama at all costs.

Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D. Department of English Nassau Community College of SUNY Garden City, New York

E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

The last time I wrote an article questioning why the NPP would want to seek refuge in him after losing the elections and taking to the streets to present a petition to him, I was virtually “eaten alive” by those who didn’t want me to criticize him.

Some even threatened to have me expelled from my workplace for daring to take on their sacred cow.
Now, here is a good reason for me to return to the politics involving the Asantehene. He has been in Accra and done many things, including paying courtesy calls on President Mahama, ex-President Rawlings, and the defeated Akufo-Addo.

He made pronouncements with intriguing implications at each meeting. He asked President Mahama to do all he can because he is “the President” and also asked Akufo-Addo to accept the outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing of his petition challenging the outcome of Election 2012.

Then, he delivered this year’s democracy lecture organised by the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), and made interesting suggestions and observations:

i. He condemned the serial callers and propagandists who dirtied Ghanaian politics (which I praise as very insightful and necessary);

ii. He condemned the politicization of “everything” in the country, which he claimed to be doing more harm than good (which is also laudable by all standards); and

iii. He advocated for the inclusion of chiefs in Ghana’s democracy (which I reproduce below, courtesy Myjoyonline).

He said traditional authorities cannot be excluded from playing a role in the country’s democratic process. Under the 1992 constitution, traditional authorities are excluded from taking part in active party politics.

But he has argued that there is nothing wrong with chiefs assisting to advance the course of Ghana’s democracy.

Despite their democratic credentials, there were monarchs in Great Britain, Kingdoms of Netherlands, Norway Sweden, Spain and several other countries he said.

“Is there any country more democratic than these great states yet all of them are headed by monarchs?” he asked.

The Asantehene cited the Commonwealth and said the foundation of its influence was the monarchy despite the institution’s “abiding values” of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law.

He said: “It is difficult to think of any institution that has done more to advance the cause of democracy than the Commonwealth. But if the truth be told, the Commonwealth has been held together by the overriding allegiance and respect for the uniting influence of the British Monarch.”

He concluded that enlightened monarchies provide their countries with the spirit of unity and national pride.

MY COMMENTS

The Asantehene’s suggestions and observations provide enough food for thought. If he wants chiefs to be involved in partisan politics, he is calling for far too much because of the nature of Ghanaian politics—divisive, acrimonious, and virtually damning.

Do our chiefs have the stomach for the “nonsense” that this kind of politics entails? How will they feel if slighted by political opponents? Can they remain as “unifiers” or go all out as praise-singers, ventriloquists, and sycophants to be bad-mouthed at will, especially by political opponents?

It is not strange for chiefs to be castigated at will by those who see them as a “nuisance” in many areas of the country where some bad nuts (misguided chiefs) have misconducted themselves—indulging in dubious/criminal activities, selling and re-selling lands, and inciting communal unrest just to save their own status and protect their interests. The numerous chieftaincy and land disputes that we have in the country can be traced to the activities of unscrupulous chiefs who allow their selfish interests to take the better part of them.

Can Ghanaian chiefs not contribute to our democracy in ways other than being deeply involved in partisan politics? The framers of the 1992 constitution did a good job by debarring them from doing so and this must be maintained to save the chieftaincy institution itself from being torn apart by sectional interests.

Why do the chiefs have Regional and National Houses of Chiefs? Can’t they use such avenues to make contributions with wide-ranging benefits for the country’s democracy if properly channelled to the appropriate quarters to be adopted?

We already have some chiefs in the Council of State and others are serving in other capacities of high repute. Can they not contribute their quota therefrom without tainting themselves with partisan politics? Many troubling questions, not so?

Now, let me briefly say something about the Asantehene’s charge to President Mahama to act as the President. Of course, he hasn’t so far congratulated President Mahama since the Electoral Commission announced him as the winner of Election 2012. Numerous chiefs and Regional Houses of Chiefs have done so, but not the Asantehene. I leave the rest to you, friends.

His interaction with Akufo-Addo has brought out the promise from Akufo-Addo to respect the decision of the Supreme Court. We hope he will be honest enough to do so. We have hindsight knowledge of the Kumasi Peace Pact that the Asantehene fostered for Akufo-Addo to sign only to go wild when he lost the elections. The mayhem that his followers caused in Accra couldn’t have happened had he stuck to the terms of the Peace Pact.

As the proceedings continue at the Supreme Court, I hope that all those with high stakes in the petition will remind themselves of the dire consequences of any ill-thought-out move that they may make in reaction to the outcome.

Those who want to build the future do not sit down and prate over the past (as is the case of this petition against Election 2012). We can’t, however, throw away the past because we must build the present on it; but we must not allow the past to stand in our way as we attempt moving forward.

I shall return…
• E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com
• Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

We note again that Tsatsu’s interrogation also revealed the impropriety of the pink sheets that the petitioners compiled, claiming to have selected 24,000 out of the 26,002 polling stations nationwide. The 11,842 pink sheet exhibits (out of 24,000) with which they are fighting their cause came from the NDC’s strongholds won by President Mahama. Nothing came from the NPP’s strongholds won by Akufo-Addo. Why?

Tsatsu’s interrogation revealed this calculating mischief and proved that the petitioners were acting in bad faith, especially with their demand that 55% of votes won by President Mahama and 28% by Akufo-Addo in the NDC’s strongholds should be nullified without anything being done to the NPP’s strongholds where similar “administrative errors” occurred.

Additionally, even though the Court didn’t allow Tsatsu to produce pink sheets from those NPP strongholds, his reference to that anomaly in the compilation of pink sheets exposed the petitioners as being dishonest. At least, it threw the door open for us to see what informed and influenced their interests, conduct, and decisions in choosing the pink sheets with which to fight their cause.

Other aspects of the petitioners’ allegations that were torn into by Tsatsu included “ghost” polling stations. By forcefully interrogating Bawumia on this score, Tsatsu succeeded in discrediting that claim and forcing the petitioners to change their “tongues” by reducing the number from 28 to 23, and, then, to 22. This vacillation doesn’t bode well for the petitioners.

As of now, there is little credibility about this claim of “ghost” polling stations because of Tsatsu’s ability to prove that those polling stations were officially mandated by the EC to the knowledge of all the political parties. He provided evidence from Akufo-Addo’s letter designating the NPP’s agents for duty at those polling stations. If the petitioners didn’t know of those “ghost” polling stations, how could Akufo-Addo write such a letter assigning the party’s agents for duty there?

Another problem for the petitioners was exposed by Tsatsu when it became clear during his cross-examination of Bawumia that none of the NPP’s agents at the polling stations lodged any formal complaint concerning goings-on on Election Day. In other words, the party’s agents signed the pink sheets to confirm that the elections were free, fair, and transparent. So, what justification do the petitioners (who were not at any of the polling stations to observe what went on) have to complain about fraud?

We may draw attention to complaints from the NPP camp and accusations that Tsatsu had set out to “waste” time and delay the hearing of the case by the line of questioning that he had adopted; but in the eyes of the judges, there was nothing wrong with his extended cross-examination (covering 10 days in all so far). They might not like his repetition of questions, but Tsatsu had his way.

Those complaining that Tsatsu was “boring” and incapable of breaking down Bawumia might not know what he set out to do. Of course, he wasn’t interrogating Bawumia to suit the NPP’s interests; so, why should he bother about their tantrums?

Another interesting issue raised by Tsatsu’s cross-examination is his request to interrogate three witnesses that the petitioners included in the affidavits before the Court. He has filed a motion to that effect, supported by the EC and the President whose lawyers have also filed similar motions on which the Court will give its ruling tomorrow.

The NPP petitioners have opposed these motions. What for? Indeed, in line with the Court’s efforts to streamline the hearing of the case, anything that stands in the way should be cleared; not so? That’s why the motion to interrogate those witnesses should be regarded as pertinent.

Even before we move any further, another major upshot of Tsatsu’s interrogation of Bawumia is evident: the strident self-assuring noises often made by the petitioners’ legal team has vanished. We no more hear them in their vehement pronouncements concerning the case. Why is it so? Something epiphanic happening?

It is not because any of them has been gagged. It is simply because the substance on which they’ve based their rabble-rousing is swiftly being eroded before their eyes and their house of cards is collapsing on them. With the live telecast (what they fought for and has now turned out to be their own nemesis because it has enabled us all to monitor the proceedings and read between the lines), they can no more spin anything without shooting themselves in the foot. And what we have seen so far doesn’t favour them at this point in the proceedings. Silence at this stage is no more golden but painfully irritating to them.

As Tsatsu prepares to end his cross-examination, the lead counsel for the petitioners (Gloria Akuffo) exhaled: “That’s a big relief!” A big relief it may be for them, not necessarily because they are bored with Tsatsu’s lengthy cross-examination but because of the feeling that he will no more subject Bawumia to more interrogation to cause more harm to their cause. The heart is beating too fast and loud!

I shall return…
• E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com
• Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

The writer, Dr Michael J.K. Bokor

When Tsatsu said that the starting point of the petition was to have the first petitioner (Akufo-Addo) declared winner of the election, Bawumia replied “That is not true”.

Indeed, if the purpose of the petition is not to have Akufo-Addo declared as winner of Election 2012, why are these NPP people in court, wasting everybody’s time and the country’s resources (with the live telecast, especially) and continuously assuring their supporters of victory to sustain their anti-Mahama activism? Are these people being honest to themselves and their followers?

I recall the numerous reliefs sought by them in their original and amended affidavits and can’t understand why Bawumia should be giving this answer. Is the ultimate goal no more to have Akufo-Addo as the President? I am not sure how to process Bawumia’s answer at this point. His revelation doesn’t surprise me because of the instances of dishonesty that he has demonstrated in answering questions. That is where his credibility problem lies.

Of course, the demand that over 4 million votes be nullified is itself not coming up again. So, what do the petitioners seek to achieve? Don’t tell me that they are looking for means to reform our electoral system because that’s a need the EC itself has identified and articulated and will do without necessarily being forced by any court of law before doing so.

When Tsatsu said that, based on that starting point, the petitioners made claims of malpractices, irregularities and violations just for the purpose of achieving the objective of getting Akufo-Addo to become the President, Judge Atuguba said the question was over flogged and over-ruled it; but the implication is that the petitioners couldn’t have gone to court if they didn’t see anything wrong with the elections. So, if the petition is not to reverse the election results, what is it worth?

That might be why Tsikata suggested that Bawumia and his co-petitioners were seeking to achieve what they could not achieve through the ballot box.

When he asked Bawumia if he knew about the General Secretary of the NPP’s declaring results in favour of the NPP and some leading members of the NPP asking their supporters to go in white to church to celebrate Akufo-Addo’s victory, Bawumia said he was not sure about that. Bawumia explained that several NPP leaders made comments to that effect but that the only institution mandated in this country to declare results in the country is the EC. So, if the EC did so, why should anybody complain?

Tsatsu’s lengthy cross-examination of Bawumia may have its ups-and-downs but it has largely succeeded in harming the cause of the petitioners in many ways. We consider some of those ways.

He has exposed the naivety of Bawumia and confirmed that the evidence presented by the petitioners is questionable at several levels. He exposed Bawumia to ridicule and scrutiny by the court.

Indeed, the numerous cautions given Bawumia by Judge Atuguba and other panel members attests to the fact that he lacks knowledge of the norms of court. That is why, for instance, he veers off into injecting his personal opinions into the answers that he was required to give. He does not know the difference between FACTS (evidence in the nature of the pink sheet exhibits submitted as affidavits) and OPINION (in the nature of his analysis of the entries on the pink sheets).

In fact, this ignorance was reinforced at today’s sitting when Judge Atuguba cut Bawumia short to tell him what he might not want to hear: “Bring your mind to the court and deal with the facts so the Judges would rule, based on the facts.”

This is a serious admonition, which Bawumia should accept as evidence of his lack of knowledge on what the Supreme Court is geared toward doing in hearing this petition.

Clearly, Bawumia’s flight into assertions concerning his ANALYSIS of the pink sheets—attempting to establish that even though there were duplications, triplications, quadruplications, mislabelling and inclusion of pink sheets for the parliamentary elections, he used them ONLY ONCE in his analysis—didn’t resonate with the judges. After all, no one is interested in his ANALYSIS (a mere opinion and not the facts that the Court is looking for to inform its judgement of the case).

Apparently, Bawumia doesn’t even know that the Court won’t value the evidence recorded on the CD-ROM that he vehemently requested to be allowed to use for a PowerPoint presentation. The Court has on several occasions attempted pointing him in the right direction on this score, which is why the hardcopies of the pink sheets are regarded as the only evidence on which the hearing of the petition will be based—which Bawumia can’t reconcile himself with. Pathetic.

At other times, Judge Atuguba had drawn Bawumia’s attention to his lack of knowledge on the norms of the court and what is expected of a witness. Thus, instead of indulging in what Judge Atuguba called “rally ground talk” (raw politics), Bawumia is expected to behave as all witnesses are expected to: that is, to answer questions directly without recourse to political gimmicks. In other words, by flying into rally ground talk, Bawumia is still at the level of making allegations instead of providing evidence. That is a terrible indictment.

Tsatsu’s interrogation of Bawumia also revealed the extent to which the petitioners’ shoddy work in respect of the pink sheet exhibits has contaminated their case before the Court.

By forcing Bawumia to admit such contamination as inconsistencies, anomalies, mislabelling, duplication, triplication, and quadruplication of the pink sheet exhibits, Tsatsu has cast a huge cloud of doubt on the quantum and quality of that evidence.

Obviously, his pointed interrogation clearly undermined the integrity of Bawumia and the admissibility of the evidence on which the petitioners have based their case, which is why the Court’s order for the international accounting firm (KPMG) to recount and audit the exhibits is relevant. If it were not, why would Philip Addison object to Tsatsu’s request?

The recounting/auditing of the pink sheet exhibits will tell us whether the petitioners are being truthful to the court or are acting in “bad faith” by padding the exhibits to “deceive the court” as vehemently and variously alleged by Tsatsu.

For one thing, Tsatsu’s interrogation has revealed that the quantum of exhibits submitted by the petitioners couldn’t be left unquestioned at several levels. Thus, his successful effort to determine whether the claim by the petitioners that they submitted 11,842 pink sheets as exhibits for that number of polling stations is tenable.

As Tsatsu sought to imply, the number fell far short of what the petitioners and Addison had insisted on. The implications of this aspect of the matter are dire because of the element of perjury involved.

I shall return…
• E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com
• Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor

The opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Editorial Board of www.africanewsanalysis.com, www.africa-forum.net and www.wapsfeatures.wordpress.com

« Nous sommes fiers que notre programme Arogya Parivar ait été récompensé par GBCHealth, a déclaré Joe Jimenez, Administrateur délégué de Novartis. Arogya Parivar constitue une part importante du travail que Novartis accomplit dans le monde pour développer des solutions durables qui répondent aux besoins médicaux insatisfaits des populations de pays en développement. Nos initiatives à caractère social font la différence en promouvant l’amélioration de la santé tout en stimulant la croissance économique locale. Nous pensons qu’Arogya Parivar aura un impact durable en Inde et espérons étendre ce modèle à d’autres économies en développement. »

Arogya Parivar, qui signifie « Famille en bonne santé » en hindi, est un programme social à but lucratif développé par Novartis, qui adapte une approche basée sur le marché afin d’améliorer l’accès aux soins de santé des populations rurales pauvres d’Inde. Novartis forme des éducateurs sanitaires qui, à leur tour, instruisent les communautés sur la santé et la prévention des maladies, ainsi que des chefs des ventes qui améliorent l’accès aux médicaments à l’échelle locale dans plusieurs domaines thérapeutiques en informant les pharmaciens sur place des produits existants. Depuis le lancement d’Arogya Parivar en 2007, Novartis a formé plus de 500 éducateurs sanitaires et chefs des ventes, et a amélioré l’accès aux soins de santé pour 42 millions de patients dans 33 000 villages indiens. Résultat de l’impact positif d’Arogya Parivar, Novartis travaille à l’extension du modèle d’entreprise social en 2014.

Arogya Parivar est un exemple d’une approche à but social de Novartis. Les projets à caractère social créent des solutions locales durables pour relever les défis liés à la santé dans les marchés émergents. Ces programmes vont au-delà de la médecine, des dons et des réductions de prix en s’attaquant à des problèmes sociétaux plus larges qui ont une influence sur l’accès aux soins de santé : l’éducation, l’infrastructure et la distribution. Novartis adapte son approche à chaque initiative sociale afin de satisfaire à divers besoins sanitaires et culturels locaux. Pour en savoir plus sur les actions sociales de Novartis, veuillez consulter http://www.novartis.com/corporate-responsibility/access-to-healthcare/our-key-initiatives/index.shtml.

A propos de Novartis

Novartis propose des solutions thérapeutiques innovantes destinées à répondre aux besoins en constante évolution des patients et des populations. Basé à Bâle, en Suisse, Novartis propose un portefeuille diversifié de produits susceptibles de satisfaire au mieux ces besoins : médicaments novateurs, soins ophtalmiques, médicaments génériques peu coûteux, vaccins, instruments de diagnostic, produits de santé en vente libre et produits vétérinaires. Novartis est le seul groupe international à occuper une position de leader dans ces domaines. En 2012, Novartis a réalisé un chiffre d’affaires net s’élevant à USD 56,7 milliards et dépensé environ USD 9,3 milliards (USD 9,1 milliards hors charges pour pertes de valeur et amortissements) pour la recherche et le développement (R&D). Le Groupe Novartis emploie quelque 129 000 collaborateurs à plein temps et déploie ses activités dans plus de 140 pays à travers le monde. Pour de plus amples informations, veuillez consulter notre site à l’adresse http://www.novartis.com.

Novartis est présent sur Twitter. Pour vous tenir informé sur Novartis, enregistrez-vous sur http://twitter.com/novartis.

“We are proud to be recognized by GBCHealth for our Arogya Parivar program,” said Joe Jimenez, Novartis Chief Executive Officer. “Arogya Parivar is an important part of the work Novartis is doing around the world to develop sustainable solutions that address the unmet medical needs of people in developing nations. Through our social ventures programs, we’re making a difference by encouraging better health and at the same time driving local economic growth. We expect Arogya Parivar to have an enduring impact in India and look forward to extending the model to other developing economies.”

Arogya Parivar, meaning “Healthy Family” in Hindi, is a for-profit social business developed by Novartis that adapts a market-based approach to improve healthcare access for India’s rural poor. Novartis trains health educators, who teach communities about health and disease prevention, and sales supervisors, who increase local medicine access across several therapeutic areas by informing local pharmacists about products. Since launching Arogya Parivar in 2007, Novartis has trained more than 500 health educators and supervisors and improved access to healthcare for 42 million patients across 33,000 villages in India. As a result of the positive impact of Arogya Parivar, Novartis is working to further expand the social business model in 2014.

Arogya Parivar is one example of a Novartis “social venture” approach. Social ventures build local, sustainable solutions to address healthcare challenges in emerging markets. These programs go beyond medicine, donations, and price reductions, by tackling larger societal issues that impact access to healthcare: education, infrastructure and distribution. With each social venture, Novartis adapts its approach to meet diverse local health and cultural needs. To learn more about Novartis Social Ventures, please visit http://www.novartis.com/corporate-responsibility/access-to-healthcare/our-key-initiatives/index.shtml.

About Novartis

Novartis provides innovative healthcare solutions that address the evolving needs of patients and societies. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Novartis offers a diversified portfolio to best meet these needs: innovative medicines, eye care, cost-saving generic pharmaceuticals, preventive vaccines and diagnostic tools, over-the-counter and animal health products. Novartis is the only global company with leading positions in these areas. In 2012, the Group achieved net sales of USD 56.7 billion, while R&D throughout the Group amounted to approximately USD 9.3 billion (USD 9.1 billion excluding impairment and amortization charges). Novartis Group companies employ approximately 129,000 full-time-equivalent associates and operate in more than 140 countries around the world. For more information, please visit http://www.novartis.com.

Novartis is on Twitter. Sign up to follow @Novartis at http://twitter.com/novartis.