TOO MUCH “SECRECY” BY SCIENTISTS
By CAMERON DUODU
The Ghanaian Times 30 June 2015
A lot of abuse has been heaped on the head of the South African Government for allowing President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan to leave South Africa on 15 June 2015, whilst a South African court was still considering a complaint from a South African NGO requesting that Al-Bashir should be arrested in execution of a warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Al-Bashir had been attending an African Union (AU) Summit in Cape Town.
The simple truth is that in the Al-Bashir case, South Africa was caught between two separate and conflicting arms of international law: (1) the obligation to execute a warrant issued by the ICC and (2) the obligation to respect the provisions of the protocols governing mutual diplomatic relations between South Africa and Sudan.
Diplomatic relations between countries are governed by the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations” signed on 18 April 1961 in Vienna, Austria. According to Wikipedia, “Throughout the history of sovereign states, diplomats have enjoyed a special status. Their function to negotiate agreements between states demands certain special privileges. An envoy from another nation is traditionally treated as a guest; their communications with their home nation treated as confidential, and their freedom from coercion and subjugation by the host nation treated as essential.”
Article 22 of the Vienna Convention provides that “The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country, except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.”
Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.
So how could Bashir have been arrested if he had resided , say, in the Sudanese Ambassador’s house?
There is more: “Article 27: The host country must permit and protect free communication between the diplomats of the mission and their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be opened even on suspicion of abuse. A diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained.
“Article 29: Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.”
Such an injunction would clearly be considered unenforceable, if not ultra vires; indeed, an oft-quoted example of a conflict between a judicial decision and a political imperative occurred in the US in 1832, when President Andrew Jackson, commenting on the US Supreme Court decision on The Indian Removal Act (concerning the removal of the Cherokee “Red Indians” from their lands in the state of Georgia) is reputed [apparently in error!] to have stated: “Well, Chief Justice John Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it!” (By the way, one historical essay claims that Jackson was misquoted and that “Although [Andrew] Jackson is widely quoted as saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,” his actual words to Brigadier General John Coffee were: “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born; and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”) Much the same thing, though, isn’t it, despite the difference in words?
I come now to the issue of “Mandela’s ideals”: these ideals are invoked by many people who do not bother to find out what they really are, but rather subsume their own perceptions of what they might have liked Mandela to think, for what he actually thought! The thing is that Mandela’s ideals were essentially “ring-fenced” with common sense and realpolitik. Mandela would not have handed Omar Bashir over to the ICC against the political interests of South Africa and the African Union, just to be popular with the ICC, or its Western patrons. He was chided, on an American TV programme, the Ted Koppel Report, telecast on 21 June 1990, by a member of the Israeli lobby, for being “friendly” towards the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, then led by Yassir Arafat.http://ushypocrisy.com/2014/05/19/nelson-mandela-faces-off-against-imperialists-on-the-ted-koppel-report-1990/His firm answer, in his usual, crisply deliberate manner, was that the PLO is a friend of the ANC. The ANC knew who its friends were, during its long and bitter struggle against apartheid. And the ANC was not now going to allow anyone else to CHOOSE its friends for it!” He was wildly cheered by the largely African-American audience when he said this. Mr Mandela adopted the same attitude towards Cuba, despite pressure put on him by the Americans.But all that aside, it should be noted that there were other practical reasons why the South African judicial authorities could not, in defiance of the mutually enforceable diplomatic protocols their country had voluntarily entered into in accordance with the Vienna Convention, arrest Al-Bashir on South African soil. Sudan would have taken immediate retaliatory action by refusing to accord South African diplomats in Sudan any further diplomatic recognition, which means, in practice, that Sudan would have taken the South African diplomats as hostages. Which South African citizen – including the superficial South African judge and his supporters – would have liked that to happen, if his or her relatives were serving as diplomats in Sudan, given that country’s reputation for brutality?
And isn’t it enormously droll that US former President George W Bush, whose acts of inhumanity during the Iraq invasion still shock the world, and Tony Blair of Britain, who supported Bush with British troops and Air Force, as well as Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, still strut around the world as free and sometimes even honoured men, though they have all committed woeful crimes against hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis, the population of Gaza, and other Arab peoples? Don’t Obama’s drones continue to kill Arabs and even some Americans — without the victims ever having been tried or convicted, as demanded by the US Constitution? Which death is not a death? Why are these people who have used their enormous power to kill so many defenceless people, not being hauled before the ICC? It might be said that ICC warrants against them cannot be enforced because their nations are so powerful. Fine. So might is right in international relations? Even if ti cannot arrest them, has the ICC even ATTEMPTED to issue warrants against them? Does the mere fact that they each come from a mighty country exculpate them from crimes against [weak] humanity? Isn’t justice supposed to be blind, punishing the weak and the powerful alike equally, if they go against it?
Finally, is it not rich that a newspaper published in Britain should be chiding the South African Government for refusing to bow to its own judiciary in this matter? Hasn’t it conveniently forgotten that when the Judicial Committee of the British House of Lords (now the British Supreme Court) decided in October 1999 that General Augosto Pinochet should be extradited to Spain to face trial there for his horrendous crimes, he was allowed to go free, through a POLITICAL DECISION taken by that hypocritical British Home Secretary of the time called Jack Straw? Where was judicial “autonomy” in that instance in Great Britain, the self-styled mother of ”The Rule of Law”?
OH, WHAT A WEEK! By CAMERON DUODU
The Ghanaian Times 23 June 2015
IS it really possible that the country that has twice voted for a Black President – in the person of Barack Obama – can still harbour in its ranks, White people who are so ravaged by hatred for Black people that they can walk into a church, sit quietly with the congregation for over an hour, and then stand up calmly to shoot nine of them dead – in cold blood?
It is precisely such a thing that happened in Charleston, South Carolina, on 17 June 2015, when a 21-year-old Whiteman called Dylann Roof, committed an act of murder so wanton in nature that neither America nor the world can quite get its head round it.
A photograph posted on a website with a racist manifesto showed Roof brandishing a “Confederate Flag” that US racists have adopted as a banner for their wish for the “resumption” of the American Civil War, in which the country’s “South” fought against the “North” over whether the horrendous system of enslaving Black people should be allowed to continue.
For Black people, the “Confederate Flag” conjures up ghastly images of lynchings and other inhuman practices that were part and parcel of slavery. But despite the fact that the US Constitution says that “All men are created equal”, White American politicians are so pusillanimous that they have allowed one Southern state — South Carolina – to fly the ignominious flag over its Capitol building. The Governor now says the flag will be taken down. But it has done its work already, in as far as it has inspired someone to murder nine human beings he did not even know. [See Update Below]
Although the brutal nature of Roof’s crime is acknowledged by the US media, reaction to the crime has shown once again that American society is ridden to the hilt with hypocrisy over race issues. For instance, whilst telecasting a discussion of the murder on Meet The Press on 21 June 2015, NBC TV managed to insert a clip in which a Blackman who was in prison for murder tearfully confessed his regret at having pulled a trigger to take the life of a fellow human being. Now, what was the relevance of that to a heinous mowing down of nine Black people by a Whiteman?
It was as if they were standing the story on its head and blaming Black murderers for what had happened at Charleston! Are NBC TV producers so asinine and insensitive that they couldn’t see the insulting fallacy in what they were doing? It was as if Marshall MacLuhan (“The Medium Is The Message”) had never existed, and that if you are talking about guns and murder, any clip would do!
Now, NBC TV is one of the most respected national networks in the US. So if they behaved in this way, just imagine what the lunatic-fringe networks (such as Fox) would have been doing with the story.
Even worse, the Director of the FBI, James Comey managed to to specify, publicly, that Roof’s crime was not what the Bureau would classify as “terrorism” or a “terrorist act”. At a press conference in Baltimore on 20th June 2015, Comey said the FBI was currently investigating whether or not Roof committed a “hate crime”, but not “terrorism.” “Terrorism”, according to Comey, “ is [an] act of violence done or threatens to (sic) in order to try to influence a public body or citizenry, so it’s more of a political act and again, based on what I know, so more (sic) I don’t see it as a political act.”
I beg Comey’s pardon? if a guy who brandishes the “Confederate Flag” and espouses a racist manifesto is not carrying out a “political act”, then what is a “political act”? I am afraid Comey’s comment would have played into the way America’s power structure routinely characterises racist crimes.
If Roof had been a Muslim who posted pictures of himself wielding an al-Qaeda flag on a website, the FBI would have been on to him before he could shoot anyone. The FBI might even have set him up for arrest and prosecution by mounting a “sting operation” on him (as it has done with several other Muslim “terrorist suspects” in the past.)
But racist violence? That’s low on the priority list of the FBI, hence the pervasive continuation of White police “turkey shoots” of Black people, that have become the “new normal”. These crimes have hitherto not merited the full intervention of the FBI as a national emergency that musty be ruthlessly uprooted by Federal law enforcement. Indeed, White police murderers of Blacks must know, before they commit their murders, that White State Prosecutors in many States would not prosecute them vigorously; or that even if they did, few White-majority juries and White judges would find them guilty of the most serious crime with which they could be charged – first-degree murder. The absence of deterrence equals the multiplication of crime, doesn’t it?
Maybe I am being harsh, but I noticed that although President Obama displayed the right body language, and also said the right things in his first comment on the Charleston murders, he did not wear a black tie during his TV appearance in which he spoke on the murders. Was it because — as some have asserted – he wants to keep affirming the notion that his is a “race-less” presidency? Such a posture, if it really exists, would remind one of the Lord Kitchener calypso song: “If you’re not white, you can say that Blck!”
I was also appalled by the way the media extracted from the relatives of the dead, who were still in deep shock over losing their beloved ones, statements to the effect that they “forgave” Roof for his hideous crime. Pour encourager les autres? a French speaker might ask (meaning: forgive him so that others might be encouraged to do the same thing? How inane.)
Another thing – and this goes back to the point I made earlier about the NBC TV clip about shootings in general – discussion of crimes like that at Charleston must differentiate the subject from the general debate about gun control, lest such crimes become accepted as an immutable aspect of American “culture”. We do know that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the gun lobby are not going to vanish overnight, but The difference between gun murder in general and racist murders is that many of the Blacks who are killed by policemen are the victims of racists who are – anyhow – legitimately permitted to wear guns as part of their job of protecting the public, but who abuse that legitimacy, in order to carry out criminal turkey shoots of Black people.
To equate the gratuitous murder of Blacks by such racist White policemen with those of ordinary murderers – both Black and White – who are able to lay hands on guns easily because of lax gun laws — is to codify, a priori, a legal sleight of hand which exonerates the murderous White policemen in advance. All citizens, alike, look to these policemen for protection, by dint of the fact that law enforcement officers are paid with everyone’s taxes. And such an exoneration in advance is not only unconstitutional in the US but also patently puts the lives of Black people at risk every second of every minute of every hour of every day.
That’s why to conflate the two issues in a facile manner is — arguably – to encourage White police murder of Blacks. The two crimes both end in loss of life, but they are different social phenomena that must be separated in order that the one – a general disease — may not be used to lessen the uniqueness of the other, which is a specific crime in every sense of the word.
Nikki Haley Calls For Confederate Flag To Be Removed From South Carolina Capitol
— — —
SODOM AND GOMORRAH
The brutally inhuman way in which the authorities of the Accra Metropolitan City Council, backed by the Central Government, have treated the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in Accra, is a disgraceful demonstration of the fact that our current rulers are very cynical indeed.
For what they have clearly is to capitalise on the revulsion felt by the public against those whose thoughtless acts of clogging and silting up gutters, caused such a tragic loss of life in the recent floods, to perpetrate an injustice against the slum-dwellers.
Now, no-one will dispute the fact that some of the slum-dwellers had erected both homes and commercial kiosks in waterways, and had thus contributed to the flooding of the area. But was it every structure pulled down in the area that stood in the way of flowing water and therefore deserved to be demolished? The people obviously don’t think so.
That aside, what a Government that respects its moral duty of care to its citizenry ought to have done would have been to get town engineers to demarcate and mark with red chalk, the structures that specifically contribute to flooding. Then accommodation should have been found for the inhabitants, and those willing to move, evacuated before sending the bulldozers in.
As it is – and remember we are in the rainy season – where are the homeless to go?
Of course, we all know that our Government is broke and, moreover, has borrowed money up to its neck. So carrying out any meaningful resettlement would be difficult for it to do at this time in any case – even if it wanted to.
Nevertheless, if it had drawn up an attractive practical plan and tried to sell it to the people, some of the slum-dwellers (at least) would have co-operated with the plans.
You see, the demonstration effect of providing modern one or two-room houses to people who live in shacks cannot be over-emphasised. We have the evidence before our very eyes: in Accra, the old “estate houses” at Labadi, Osu, Kaneshie and elsewhere were all meant to prevent the growth of slums in the metropolis, and people fought over them. Tema, Kumase and Takoradi also had their share. The work of the colonialists was embraced and expanded greatly by the Ghana Housing Corporation.
Mr John Dramani Mahama would do well to remember that his father belonged to a Convention People’s Party (CPP) Government which sometimes exhibited admirable humanitarian concerns for the welfare of the people. For example, when it realised in advance that the Akosombo Dam would cause massive flooding and create “the largest man-made lake in the world”, it planned new townships for the people who would be displaced.
Of course, not everyone liked the houses given to them (mainly because they were not based on our traditional concept of “the compound house” but, rather ignorantly, on the modern idea of one/two-bedroom houses which are alien to many Ghanaians’ desire to interact constantly with other members of their extended families.
Well, I can tell the Government that the displaced people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be watching keenly to see whether the real reason for moving them so precipitately – and in such an opportunistic manner to boot – is to make the vacated lands available to the “business cliques” that now rule the country.
I hope not!
A Salute To The Mail And Guardian, Johannesburg
DAILY GUIDE, ACCRA June 20, 2015
It is not easy to create a great newspaper; partly because it is so easy to set up what appears to be a newspaper, but what turns out, in reality, to be either a propaganda sheet or a collection of commercial pull-outs masquerading as news pages.
A great newspaper is first and foremost, a paper devoted to real news. It seeks to tell its readers about something they did not know about before; and moreover, something they could not find in any other publication. How is that possible when some news items are circulated to every publication in the land?
The answer is that a great newspaper finds its own way of treating a story. It looks for aspects of the story that no-one else will have got because the great paper is the only one asking the intelligent questions about the story. In short, it creates its own angle to it; an angle which leaves the reader to say “Hmmm? I wouldn’t have expected that to be the case!” It’s better still when the reader acknowledges the professionalism manifested in the story by wondering: “But how did they get that?”
They would have “got that” by discussing the raw news item, tossing it around and finding questions to ask the actors — and experts – on the phone, or if necessary, turning up on their private doorsteps as well as their offices, to interrogate them with special skills, including feigned sympathy, deliberately concocted “facts” put to the actors to wring from them, the genuine article which they don’t want to expose; and even the occasional, humble appeal to their humanity: “Listen, my editor will kill me if you don’t tell me; I had to hitch a ride to this place, you know, and I have been hanging around waiting for you all this time! You know?”
In police parlance, the indefatigable reporter gets the would-be informant to “crack”! But even then, he has to get the story to the office before his “deadline” runs out.
This is the aspect of their work which thrills good journalists the most. They hate and fear deadlines, yet if they manage against the odds to beat a difficult deadline, they get a feeling that is almost orgasmic. For if you are a journalist and you don’t secure the information in time to meet your deadline, it’s of no use. You could get it tomorrow, right? Wrong! You see, your editor might by then have read it in a rival paper, and concluded that the paper’s reporter is more assiduous than yourself. Or he could hear much fresher info being reported and/or discussed on radio or television. A journalist could lose his or her job if this happens. At best, he or she would sink lower in the editor’s estimation.
When I was appointed editor of the Daily Graphic in February 1970, I went to the job with three years as a radio newsman and five years as a magazine editor, under my belt. In the radio newsroom, we were obliged to read the papers each morning to see whether they had managed to carry forward, the stories we had broadcast the day before. We scoffed at them often, for they would repeat, almost word for word, what the Ghana News Agency had originally sent, which even we, with our much shorter deadlines and more limited space, had tried to turn into stories with a proper background and context. And when I was editor of the Ghana edition of Drum Magazine, my task was to see elements in short newspaper reports that lent themselves to expansion into much deeper, more interesting stories.
I took these two skills to the Daily Graphic, and swore that under my editorship, it would have to become a great news-paper once more. (it had been good for news in the 1950s, when it was first founded. Like its marvellous “mother” from Fleet Street, London, the Daily Mirror of Hugh Cudlipp, it was generous in awarding bylines, and this inspired its reporters to turn in stories that had an individual touch: if you saw the name of S N Addo; Kofi Ahorsey; E W Adjaye; P. Peregrino-Peters or Anthony Mensah, Oscar Tsedze, Kofi Badu or Addo-Rwum above a story, you would know that it would be original and thereby enjoyable.
I tried to inspire my boys at the Graphic to revive the paper’s old news spirit. When their curiosity let them down in a story they had submitted, I turned the editorial meeting into a seminar, hauled the reporters before the editorial executives assembled at the meeting and got the whole group to grill them: why didn’t you say how much money was involved? Did the amount of the alleged fine make sense to you? Where was his wife? The questions came from every quarter and often, the reporter had to go back and get the answers. If the story was big enough, we would wait for the answers (to the great annoyance of the production team, which didn’t appreciate the minutes away from the nearby pub that the waiting took away from them!)
However, the “seminars” helped us to get some really good stories out, and I felt a special thrill whenever I had to go down into the hot printing house adjacent to the office to okay stories on “the stone” itself – rather than wait for them to be brought up. Do modern journalists know what ‘the stone” is? I sometimes wonder, as I watch them tweet and text their way through smart cellphones!
The nicest words I ever heard at “the stone” were “Lock up!” — uttered by the Chief Printer. A tall heavy man called Mr Lutterodt, he would say this when the last corrections had been done and fitted onto the page. The “Stone Sub” would, meanwhile, be trying not to shake like a leaf, as I watched his interactions with the typesetters who churned out words in the form of lead from their hot machines . (Sometimes I felt both Mr Lutterodt and his staff would have loved to punch me for delaying “their” paper! So I always made sure he got a bottle of cold beer to drink when he turned up in my office, smiling — with sweat pouring from his large face, to find out “how things were shaping up.”
I knew the real reason why he had come, but I held my peace, and so we got on very well: he appreciated my viewpoint that it was no use producing a paper to scheduled time, only to hand the readers a bland product that could be “read” in exactly five minutes, from cover to cover. Mr Lutterodt did everything possible to make “lock up”’ time as painless to both of us as possible. But every now and then, we would be hit by a power failure, at which point nearly all of us cried in pain, for it meant that the lead making up the pages that had not already been “molded”, could become “molten” and have to be redone all over again — even with standby power available.
Readers appreciated our effort to offer them great news and the circulation of the paper rose and rose. Heck! — we created news! One day, I was photographed sitting in a rubber dingy of the Ghana Navy, watching warships bring back to Tema Harbour, a fleet of Russian-made trawlers which the Ghana Ministry of Agriculture was selling cheaply to a British dealer who was going to sell them in Brazil for a huge profit. We exposed the deal, and the Government had to bring the boats back. Our unforgettable front-page headline for the story, in our biggest font (144pt.) was “BACK TO BATAAN”!
In the 10 months I was with the paper (I got myself sacked for opposing the Busia Government’s attempt to establish “dialogue” with the apartheid regime of South Africa — a ridiculous “dialogue” in which the people of South Africa themselves would have no part but be “represented” by the independent African states!) names like Kofi Akumanyi, Ben Mensah, Teddy Konu, Vincent Vivor and Nana Daniels and many others had already become recognisable by-lines. My greatest regret at the time was that I did not stay long enough to instil a news culture at the paper that would be ineradicable. But hey — a man can only try.
Because of my interest in news, I have developed a habit of avidly perusing publications all over the world. That’s how, in the mid-1980s, whilst practising journalism in London, I discovered that I could buy a South African newspaper called the Weekly Mail at Foyles Bookshop on Charing Cross Road, not too far from Trafalgar Square. As Africa Editor of Index On Censorship – a magazine that devoted itself to recording attempts by the world’s totalitarian governments to censor the news, suppress news organisations or brutalise journalists, I found the airmail edition of the Weekly Mail to be an extremely rich resource. This was the time when the apartheid regime, under President P W Botha, was in its death throes, and fighting ferociously – like all dying animals – to hang on to political power through repression. Outspoken journalists were banned or harassed; newspapers were often prosecuted and banned – and the Weekly Mail gave me the raw material to report all these happenings.
The paper was founded in 1985 by Anton Harber and a few colleagues who courageously tried to fill the gap left by the apartheid government’s banning of two leading liberal newspapers in South Africa, the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Express. The government, of course, tried to intimidate the Weekly Mail too by arresting its journalists, seizing individual issues and closing the paper for long periods. But Anton Harber and his colleagues stuck it out. The paper has since survived on a diet of accurate investigative journalism, enlightened comment, and a refusal to be dull.
I was thus excited when, on my first visit to South Africa in 1990, I visited the paper’s offices in the company of one of its star commentators, the poet Don Mattera. But I was not to know that I would soon become a columnist for it myself. It had changed its name to the Mail and Guardian, and when a weekly broadcast I was making for SAFM entitled Letter From the North was axed, I somehow managed to persuade the then editor of the Mail and Guardian, a very enlightened journalist called Philip Van Niekerk, to run a column of mine under the same title.
Philip’s decision was an incredibly brave one, forhe was, in effect, placing before a supposedly inward-looking South Africans on a weekly basis, the views of an African from the other side of the continent, who had never lived in their country. He was also taking away space from the South African staff, who, of course, wanted to run their own columns!
I tried to justify my occupation of their ”prime estate” by using the column to tell them about the Africa that the constricting apartheid system had ensured that they would know very little about. (The fruits of that lack of information about the rest of Africa can be seen, today, in the recent attacks on Africans from other countries by black South Africans. Philip Van Niekerk was thus, a very prescient Editor.)
I also tried to titillate my readers with my irreverent and often humorous take on world affairs — I entertained them with the vicissitudes of the incredible Pinochet trial in London; and one piece I very much enjoyed doing, during President Bill Clinton’s much-publicised fling with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, was entitled: If Clinton Were An African.
I even touched on some sensitive South African issues — for instance, I ran a couple of columns on the arms deal with France and Gremany [before it became a national scandal whose repercussions are still being felt in South African politics].
And I challenged white South Africans to reflect on the reasons why so many Africans were put in a position whereby they were “grateful” to their white fellow citizens for giving them jobs as gardeners, cooks, stewards, drivers, nannies or other domestic help.
I must have made enemies with some of what I wrote, for although the column ran until Philip Van Niekerk left the paper, the moment he left and was succeeded by Howard Barrel, the latter immediately killed the column – without ever saying a single word to me!
As the Nigerians would say, “I throw a salute” to the Mail & Guardian on its 30th birthday. Those who started it in 1985 could hardly have foreseen that apartheid would collapse as spectacularly as it did — with the assistance, of course, of courageous and intelligent journalists. Nor could they have imagined that the paper would become the main instrument of exposing the shortcomings of the African National Congress Government they assisted in bringing about to take over the reins of government from the apartheid racists in 1994.
From the negligent — to say the least — policy of then-President Thabo Mbeki on HIV/AIDs, to the widespread corruption that is being practised with impunity today by President Jacob Zuma and some mebers of his Government – as typified by the Nkandla scandal – the Mail and Guardian leads opinion in South Africa in trying to ensure that sanity prevails in the affairs of a country on which so much of the world’s emotions were once rightfully expended.
The Mail and Guardian is currently owned by a Zimbabwean entrepreneur, Trevor Ncube, who holds the majority of the shares in its publishing company, and is the company’s Chief Exective.
This “foreign ownership” is sometimes hurled at the paper as a last resort by those who seek to intimidate it. They do not, of course, care whether what it exposes is true or not; but no matter: many South Africans – both black and white – recognise that it speaks sincerely for all South Africans when it tries to stop their “Beloved Country” from becoming another authoritarian, corrupt African state, waiting in the queue to become a “failed state”.
Long may the M&G continue to be a beacon of light in a country once shadowed by an impenetrable political and social darkness! Long may it be a good example – in courage and literacy – to the media in the rest of Africa.
By Cameron Duodu
Tags: “Dialogue” with apartheid South Africa, Anton Harber, Attacks on African “‘foreigners” by black South Africans, Daily Graphic, Don Mattera, Drum Magazine, Failed State, Foyles Bookshop London, Ghana News Agency, HIV/Aids, Howard Barrel, Hugh Cudlipp, If Clinton Were An African, Index On Censorship, Joburg Sunday Express, Johannesburg, Letter From The North, London Daily Mirror, Mail and Guardian, Monica Lewisnky, Nkandla scandal, Philip Van Niekerk, President Jacob Zuma, President Thabo Mbeki, Radio Ghana, Rand Daily Mail, South African arms deal with German and France, Trevor Ncube, Weekly Mail