What Dabbousi’s Moslems & Otabil’s Christians have in common 1

Fadi Bni Fadi Dabbousi

Fri, 14 Oct 2016 Source: Kwarteng, Francis

“The problem of Africa is because folly is set in dignity and the wise have been reduced to nothing. People who have no business telling anybody anything shoot their mouths everyday and people who have something to say shut up every day and the rest look on…

“It is very interesting that many people who step into the corridors of power are not fit to walk in those corridors. People who influence our world mostly are people who have no business influencing anything because they are not good examples themselves; many of those who determine how we live our lives have been failures in their own lives…” (Pastor Mensa Otabil).


Of course, no one says journalism is an exact science. It is not.

Regardless, it should be the conscience of society speaking truth to power, promoting humanism, entertaining, educating, challenging the status quo and so on.

That is, journalism should be a watchdog of the public interest as well as of the public morals.

Our journalists must therefore put partisan politics aside and work towards a platform for positive dialogue across ideological, ethnic, religious, class and political lines, exposing the rotten underbelly of society even if it is inconvenient and uncomfortable, through temperate language.

Thus, journalism should be the moral and political voice of the people and not only those of the elite and the privileged few.

This means out journalists speaking inconvenient and uncomfortable truths where it hurts the most.

Certainly, we cannot expect journalism to be perfect because it is a human invention. We can improve it nonetheless.

However, oftentimes the complex question of subjectivity permeates opinion pieces to the point of exaggerated infallibility because the writer thinks he or she exclusively owns “the facts.”

But these “facts” may actually be a fictive imagination of the writer, mere opinions in other words.

Opinions on the other hand are not necessarily facts. Anybody can have opinions just about everything but not everybody can have facts.

Particularly in the case of lampoons and satires opinions sometimes resolve seamlessly into facts, fiction into facts.

Dabbousi correctly points to this contrastive blend of facts and opinions as “concoction of malice.”

It bears pointing out that the entire geopolitical conflagration of the Middle East, so-called, is premised on “concoction of malice.”

Also his empire of yellow or right-wing journalism is built on a strong foundation of this bizarre concept.

It is interesting how he quickly he diagnostically imputes this concept to others and not to himself.

This fact alone does not mean we should tolerate any kind of Donald Trump-like journalism in our body politic. In fact society should frown upon this dangerous breed of journalism.

After all, the kind of Donald Trump-like journalism we are talking about surely belongs in the political caliphate of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Al-Queda, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the like.

And the contemporary history of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Al-Queda, the Lord’s Resistance Army…is the ancient history of the National Liberation Army (NLM), the United Party (UP), and the National Liberation Council (NLC), all of which have metamorphosed into the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

More so, one of these Donald Trump-like journalists, Thomas Sowell, compared President Obama to Adold Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, and Jim Jones. He writes in this regard:

“Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

“It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts…

“Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

“The magic word ‘change’ makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check ‘change…

“These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.”

Apparently, Sowell made these right-wing apocalyptic forecasts before Obama’s first assumption of the highest office in the land, the United States.

And here we are today, such politically and ideologically motivated auguries that have proven patently false.

Obama is certainly not Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler, or Mao Tse-tung.

This is the kind of journalism we are getting from our Lebanese-Ghanaian pilot, journalist and author Fadi Samih Dibbousi.

Our friend must pay close attention to Pope Francis’s views on journalism, bearing in mind he does so outside the protracted conflicts between his Western neo-Christians and Arabs-Muslims, the point being that Pope Francis and the Catholic is—understandably—part and parcel of the axis of what he, Dabbousi, had referred to as neo-Christians.

Yes, right-wing Fadi Sadih Dabbousi is in a good Eurocentric camp, the afore-referenced political caliphate where bigots from Akufo-Addo, Kennedy Agyapong, Yaw Osei-Marfo…to Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, and their village and useful idiots inhabit.

Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana does not need these kinds of men and women as leaders. No! Never!


Is President Mahama Obama or George Bush? To answer this question we need to make some hypothetical assumptions first:

If as some historians claim is true that gonorrhea was partly responsible for Hitler’s rabid racism and anti-Semitism, then might it well be possible that President’s HIV-AIDS condition could be partly responsible for his poor management of the economy and, in retrospect, for his having children outside his marriage, for his philandering tendencies?

We know this parallel comparison is problematic, one being the question of anachronism, but it is only a hypothetical assumption. However beyond this parallel comparison, who then is Akufo-Addo?

Could his prostate cancer have been partly responsible for his poor leadership, the results of which are intra-party internal division and needless suspensions and intolerance and anarchy, and, in retrospect, for his murdering his wife, for his wee-smoking habits, for his philandering proclivities?

All these speculative assumption do not make any sense, yet, once again, Dabbousi makes it worse by not looking at the diagnostic and prognostic profiles of Akufo-Addo and President Mahama from the viewpoints of holistic evaluation and parallel comparison yardsticks.

In any case if President Mahama is not Obama and Obama is Hitler but President Mahama is Obama to a certain extent, then who is President Mahama?

If Akufo-Addo is not Obama and Obama is Hitler but Akufo-Addo is Obama to a certain extent, then who is Akufo-Addo?

But, we strongly suspect that in Dabbousi’s closet journalistic mind President Mahama is either Obama or George Bush. The connection to Hitler becomes obvious, otherwise why has he not negatively speculated on Akufo-Addo’s potential illnesses as President Mahama’s?

This is why Kweku Baako, Jr. has opined that Dabbousi’s write-ups on President Mahama are “serious and hugely offensive.”

The former added that the latter relied on “‘none existing and fake’ media organizations.”

It is funny how Dabbousi quickly makes a volte-face, reportedly making the equally funny claim that his write-ups on President Mahama were “without malice,” a sharp detour from his “concoction of malice.”

This is how the claustrophobic cage of the BNI can transform hardened avian loudmouths from Dabbousi to Captain Edmund Koda (rtd). Finally and quite expectedly, Dabbousi would say the following in an interview after his release from this claustrophobic cage:

“I respect President Mahama a lot because he is our President whether we like it or not but that will not deter me from criticizing him when he is taking the people of Ghana for granted and to the wrong direction. I didn’t intend to insult him…”

Further questions:

Dabbousi didn’t intend to insult President Mahama but ended up insulting the anyway?

Perhaps inadvertently?


“I apologise unequivocally. If I am able to get the opportunity to talk to the president, I will definitely apologise vehemently and if I’m not able to, I’m doing so through your outfit. I do apologise unequivocally. I will not at any point in time insinuate anything evil…except to state my opinion, flat as it is” (Fadi Dabbousi)

In the end Dabbousi’s slandering of the office of the presidency without the benefit of verifiable forensic evidence is not good journalism. It is journalistic demagoguery! It is journalistic McCarthyism! It is journalism of the kind Salman Rushdie provocatively called “The Satanic Verses.” It is simply terrorism in the wise words of Pope Francis!

And it is not as if his idol, Akufo-Addo, Dabbousi’s man known for his post-factual politics, is a strong leader in political and moral terms. He is not.

What Dabbousi needs to do at this point in time, is effectively exploring Akufo-Addo’s moral and political weaknesses, rather than President Mahama’s, and initiating a strategic program of policy formulations to eradicate or suppress these lapses, before he [Akufo-Addo] finally resolves into an uncontrollable bombshell of monumental failure, ideally against the backdrop of his potential resumption of political office if the favor popular sovereignty looks his way.

Indeed, it is a question that remains to be answered if the name Fadi Dabbousi is not a pseudonym under which Soloman Nkansah, Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, Chairman Wontuni, Ofosu Kwakye, Koku Anyidoho, Kofi Adams, Kennedy Agyapong, Akua Donkor, Omane Boamah, or Gabby Otchere writes his or deeply polarized articles. Thus, his kind of journalism is at best “a concoction of malice” even when he says his anti-Mahama write-ups are written “without malice.”

This volte-face is a poor attempt at sophistry. Yet it is also good that he has returned to his sense and rendered an unqualified apology to President Mahama. This is how it should be once he realized that some of his write-ups in the corpus of his yellow, “fa di,” or attack, adversarial journalism were based on questionable, irresponsible sources. That is bad journalism to say the least!

We shall return with Part 2, the concluding segment.


Ghanaweb. “I’m Not Scared—Fadi Dabbousi.” September 27, 2016.

Ghanaweb. “Error of leadership, Cause of Ghana’s Woes—Otabil.” October 6, 2016.

Thomas Sowell. (October 20, 2008). “Believers in Obama.” Townhall. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2008/10/20/believers_in_obama

Ghanaweb. “Fadi Dabbousi’s Write-ups on Mahama Hugely Offensive—Kweku Baako.” October 1, 2016.

Ghanaweb. “My Articles About Mahama Were Without Malice—Daboussi.” October 2, 2016.

Ghanaweb. “I respect President Mahama—Fadi Dabbousi.” September 26, 2016.

Columnist: Kwarteng, Francis