For simplicity, how does the following sound as the likely most proximate events leading to the sacking of National Security Minister Francis Poku?
At 8ish in the morning of Saturday past, Francis met JAK in his house. JAK confronted Francis over what Francis had purportedly been saying about him. Francis became defensive. JAK reminded Francis of his own skeletons. Francis became even more defensive. JAK threatened Francis with dismissal. Francis threatened to speak to the press. JAK demanded his resignation. Francis was defiant. JAK asked Francis to nick off from his joint - a most literal translation of ?fri ha, fri mi fie?!. Jack proceeded to sack Francis.
My source of information on this matter may be wrong, but my source is often not, and not inconsistent with what Kwesi Pratt, on the ground, described (see http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=137720) :
?There has been all kinds of speculations, so far no evidence has been provided to back up any of the speculations. And government itself has been reluctant to explain the situation. What we do know is that there was a confrontation between him and the president, the president asked him to resign; he refused to resign and the president then instructed that he be dismissed. And all of this happened within two hours on Saturday morning?
The similarity between my source and Kwesi Pratt hinges on this: ?there was a confrontation between him and the president, the president asked him to resign; he refused to resign and the president then instructed that he be dismissed.?
The simplicity of the path to sacking Francis is the most scary part of this whole saga. Believe me, more scary than the wild rumours on what Francis intended to do or not to do or what he may have done. And more scary than the wild rumours on JAK?s motives or a pending Armageddon. If latter, Francis? dismissal would have been more clinical, with minimum fuss, and Francis would have left the country on his own accord - with a nice package, thank you!
So let us stick to the simple things
1. A decision to sack a person in Francis? position can only be made after very careful consideration by significant figures in Government and the security forces. Such decision must be deemed to be in the national interest. Not in the personal and parochial interests of politicians. It would not appear to me to be the case that a decision had been made to sack Francis before JAK met Francis last Saturday morning. JAK did not call Francis to his house to sack him nor to ask for his resignation. He called him to his house to discuss ?mainly? personal rumours. He sacked Francis because he was angered by Francis? petulance.
2. In countries with sophisticated Governments and well established reputable democracies, civil servants would never have allowed JAK to see Francis without knowing precisely why he wanted to see him. And certainly if the civil service got the hint that JAK was going to confront Francis on an issue such personal, they would have moved heaven and earth to stop the meeting. Why? Because they would have foreseen the consequences of a meeting that has presently put the nation on edge.
Margaret Thatcher once said the BBC TV comedy series ?Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister? was not comedy but the real thing. I can just see Sir Humphrey Appleby doing his best (or worst) to sabotage the meeting between JAK and Francis. I can see Sir Humphrey ensuring the meeting took place in the castle, and not in JAK?s house. I can see Sir Humphrey insisting to be present at such a meeting. And, on objection from JAK, Sir Humphrey giving a long winded lecture on why such meeting needed to be recorded for posterity or deceptively arguing to be a witness to defend JAK in case Francis distorted what transpired. And if JAK insisted on seeing Francis alone, I can see Sir Humphrey arranging with a department head to phone at a crucial time with an urgent message for the President, on which Sir Humphrey would rely to disrupt the meeting at the stage before the ?fri ha, fri mi fie?.
3. I do not think JAK is in a state of mind to run the country after his car accident of two months ago. One and only one evidence is the manner he handled Francis, a kinsman in today's ethnic Ghana, who may well have sustained his presidency with honest and not too honest tricks in the armoury of a spook.
A person involved in a car accident of that nature would not recover psychologically for up to 3 years after the accident. The harm is greater when the accident is likely an attempt on one's life. Different people have different rates of recovery. Politicians are by nature very tough, mentally and psychologically. Ironically, they are also very weak - ask their wives or concubines! They have another disadvantage - roller coaster emotions in the line of duty that don't help recovery from trauma. Difficult to take in your strides even in times of normality. Worse, if unable to even out emotional experiences during recuperation from trauma.
The type of car accident JAK endured would affect fine judgement in ordinary tasks, let alone in pressure cooker jobs. There is literature on faster recovery of Africans from the most amazing trauma. Actually we are not talking about Africans, we are talking about the social dynamics that hasten recovery. A person in a village setting with all social supports intact is in a better position to recover than a President who can be lonely indeed.
Has anyonepaused to consider the outburst of JAK? - ?leave here, leave my house, leave my house if you won?t take my advice?. I would have liked to be there to observe his demeanour, hear his voice, feel his feelings. It was no ordinary response, even to our way of speaking. It was an intensely emotional reaction that cannot be necessarily put down to a show of ?where power lies?. In that phrase lies a sense of personal disappointment even rejection possibly generalised beyond Francis, a desperate desire to be left alone.
JAK?s state would have been helped by old trustful mates, not recent trustful mates and formation of new trustful mates is not possible immediately post trauma. JAK?s state is not helped by the absence of old mates who left to fight the NPP Presidential candidacy elections. Those mates who he fought alongside the trenches to power would have at least bolstered him psychologically if they were still in their positions. One that readily comes to mind is Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, only because I witnessed the chemistry between them when they visited Australia during CHOGM of 2001 or so.
I recommend that those close to JAK must now consider the long lasting effect of trauma of a car accident when advising and dealing with JAK. That may well have avoided the current saga. And JAK himself must submit to psychological counseling over his trauma.
One approach would have been to give Aliu Mahama greater role in the final year of JAK, while JAK takes on more measured circumscribed role in Government. But this option does not look feasible at the moment since Aliu spat the dummy after the NPP December Congress.
4. The situation Ghana finds itself now for the next 11 months of JAK is like this: Ghana an airborne aeroplane, the whole of Ghana on board, JAK the pilot. Inside the aeroplane, there are those who want to take over as pilot, so wish JAK makes more and more mistakes to improve their chances of taking over as pilot. But more mistakes, and JAK may well crash the plane with the human cargo.
5. The Presidency has been run too casually. Too many rogues have got too close to the President in the past. It is a reflection of insecurity and weakness, rather than strength and evidence of a President in charge. Politically appointed presidential aides should not have greater clout and greater influence on the President than seasoned bureaucrats. Those closest to him have failed him. We understand the pressure he is under. But he is adding to the pressure - all by himself. His schedules should be more tightly controlled. The company he keeps should be more tightly controlled. In his state, he should take to more hands-off approach and play the statesman for the rest of his term. Otherwise, see 4 above. Had this saga, complete with the military siege of Francis? house, occurred closer to the December elections, it would have be a disaster with a capital D.
For simplicity, how does the following sound as the likely most proximate events leading to the sacking of National Security Minister Francis Poku?
At 8ish in the morning of Saturday past, Francis met JAK in his house. JAK confronted Francis over what Francis had purportedly been saying about him. Francis became defensive. JAK reminded Francis of his own skeletons. Francis became even more defensive. JAK threatened Francis with dismissal. Francis threatened to speak to the press. JAK demanded his resignation. Francis was defiant. JAK asked Francis to nick off from his joint - a most literal translation of ?fri ha, fri mi fie?!. Jack proceeded to sack Francis.
My source of information on this matter may be wrong, but my source is often not, and not inconsistent with what Kwesi Pratt, on the ground, described (see http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=137720) :
?There has been all kinds of speculations, so far no evidence has been provided to back up any of the speculations. And government itself has been reluctant to explain the situation. What we do know is that there was a confrontation between him and the president, the president asked him to resign; he refused to resign and the president then instructed that he be dismissed. And all of this happened within two hours on Saturday morning?
The similarity between my source and Kwesi Pratt hinges on this: ?there was a confrontation between him and the president, the president asked him to resign; he refused to resign and the president then instructed that he be dismissed.?
The simplicity of the path to sacking Francis is the most scary part of this whole saga. Believe me, more scary than the wild rumours on what Francis intended to do or not to do or what he may have done. And more scary than the wild rumours on JAK?s motives or a pending Armageddon. If latter, Francis? dismissal would have been more clinical, with minimum fuss, and Francis would have left the country on his own accord - with a nice package, thank you!
So let us stick to the simple things
1. A decision to sack a person in Francis? position can only be made after very careful consideration by significant figures in Government and the security forces. Such decision must be deemed to be in the national interest. Not in the personal and parochial interests of politicians. It would not appear to me to be the case that a decision had been made to sack Francis before JAK met Francis last Saturday morning. JAK did not call Francis to his house to sack him nor to ask for his resignation. He called him to his house to discuss ?mainly? personal rumours. He sacked Francis because he was angered by Francis? petulance.
2. In countries with sophisticated Governments and well established reputable democracies, civil servants would never have allowed JAK to see Francis without knowing precisely why he wanted to see him. And certainly if the civil service got the hint that JAK was going to confront Francis on an issue such personal, they would have moved heaven and earth to stop the meeting. Why? Because they would have foreseen the consequences of a meeting that has presently put the nation on edge.
Margaret Thatcher once said the BBC TV comedy series ?Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister? was not comedy but the real thing. I can just see Sir Humphrey Appleby doing his best (or worst) to sabotage the meeting between JAK and Francis. I can see Sir Humphrey ensuring the meeting took place in the castle, and not in JAK?s house. I can see Sir Humphrey insisting to be present at such a meeting. And, on objection from JAK, Sir Humphrey giving a long winded lecture on why such meeting needed to be recorded for posterity or deceptively arguing to be a witness to defend JAK in case Francis distorted what transpired. And if JAK insisted on seeing Francis alone, I can see Sir Humphrey arranging with a department head to phone at a crucial time with an urgent message for the President, on which Sir Humphrey would rely to disrupt the meeting at the stage before the ?fri ha, fri mi fie?.
3. I do not think JAK is in a state of mind to run the country after his car accident of two months ago. One and only one evidence is the manner he handled Francis, a kinsman in today's ethnic Ghana, who may well have sustained his presidency with honest and not too honest tricks in the armoury of a spook.
A person involved in a car accident of that nature would not recover psychologically for up to 3 years after the accident. The harm is greater when the accident is likely an attempt on one's life. Different people have different rates of recovery. Politicians are by nature very tough, mentally and psychologically. Ironically, they are also very weak - ask their wives or concubines! They have another disadvantage - roller coaster emotions in the line of duty that don't help recovery from trauma. Difficult to take in your strides even in times of normality. Worse, if unable to even out emotional experiences during recuperation from trauma.
The type of car accident JAK endured would affect fine judgement in ordinary tasks, let alone in pressure cooker jobs. There is literature on faster recovery of Africans from the most amazing trauma. Actually we are not talking about Africans, we are talking about the social dynamics that hasten recovery. A person in a village setting with all social supports intact is in a better position to recover than a President who can be lonely indeed.
Has anyonepaused to consider the outburst of JAK? - ?leave here, leave my house, leave my house if you won?t take my advice?. I would have liked to be there to observe his demeanour, hear his voice, feel his feelings. It was no ordinary response, even to our way of speaking. It was an intensely emotional reaction that cannot be necessarily put down to a show of ?where power lies?. In that phrase lies a sense of personal disappointment even rejection possibly generalised beyond Francis, a desperate desire to be left alone.
JAK?s state would have been helped by old trustful mates, not recent trustful mates and formation of new trustful mates is not possible immediately post trauma. JAK?s state is not helped by the absence of old mates who left to fight the NPP Presidential candidacy elections. Those mates who he fought alongside the trenches to power would have at least bolstered him psychologically if they were still in their positions. One that readily comes to mind is Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, only because I witnessed the chemistry between them when they visited Australia during CHOGM of 2001 or so.
I recommend that those close to JAK must now consider the long lasting effect of trauma of a car accident when advising and dealing with JAK. That may well have avoided the current saga. And JAK himself must submit to psychological counseling over his trauma.
One approach would have been to give Aliu Mahama greater role in the final year of JAK, while JAK takes on more measured circumscribed role in Government. But this option does not look feasible at the moment since Aliu spat the dummy after the NPP December Congress.
4. The situation Ghana finds itself now for the next 11 months of JAK is like this: Ghana an airborne aeroplane, the whole of Ghana on board, JAK the pilot. Inside the aeroplane, there are those who want to take over as pilot, so wish JAK makes more and more mistakes to improve their chances of taking over as pilot. But more mistakes, and JAK may well crash the plane with the human cargo.
5. The Presidency has been run too casually. Too many rogues have got too close to the President in the past. It is a reflection of insecurity and weakness, rather than strength and evidence of a President in charge. Politically appointed presidential aides should not have greater clout and greater influence on the President than seasoned bureaucrats. Those closest to him have failed him. We understand the pressure he is under. But he is adding to the pressure - all by himself. His schedules should be more tightly controlled. The company he keeps should be more tightly controlled. In his state, he should take to more hands-off approach and play the statesman for the rest of his term. Otherwise, see 4 above. Had this saga, complete with the military siege of Francis? house, occurred closer to the December elections, it would have be a disaster with a capital D.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
