88
Opinions Sat, 20 Jul 2013

Did Addison Discredit Dr Afari-Gyan?

Read Article

Comment: INTERESTING ANALYSIS, INTERESTED IN pdf

Author:
Paul Amuna
Date:
2013-07-20 07:12:19
Comment to:
Did Addison Discredit Dr Afari-Gyan?

Kofi, once again an illuminating take on proceedings and some interesting insights. I just want to focus on the question of pdf.

My question is: MUST Dr Afari Gyan KNOW what pdf is? Why is such knowledge relevant to his credibility? whether he actually "Knew" but chose to be "economical with the truth" regarding such knowledge, what is the weight of that in the overall scheme of things? Can we liken this to say Dr Bawumiah's glaringly false statement about knowledge of Owusu Afriyie's declaration of NPP victory and encouraging his supporters to were celebratory attires to church on the following Sunday?

Here is my own take on the issue of pdfs. I personally would answer in the negative if you asked me if I know what pdf is, and here is why: I am from the old school and am averse to the use of abbreviations without first stating the terms IN FULL. Is it possible Dr Afari Gyan is of a similar mindset? This is very common of academics and people who have such attention to intellectual detail that dotting i's and crossing t's are part of their everyday existence.

I have a colleague professor, well accomplished and of similar age to Dr Afari Gyan who is in the habit of saying to me, when my doctoral students submit their PhD thesis to his office: I am sure you have gone through this final work with a "tooth comb".

I for one do not see Dr Afari Gyan's answer as a falsehood. Counsel Addison should never have assumed that Dr Afari Gyan would know what his abbreviation stands for- after all we are in a court of law, and dealing with technical matters. PDF could easily mean 'PIECE OF DEAD FODDER' for all he Afari Gyan cares.

In my opinion, what Addison should have done was give its full name and describe the type of document, then (if you like) use the abbreviation. IF after that Dr Gyana said he did not know what Addison was talking about, then I would be the first to condemn him and to question his credibility as a witness in the case. But that is far from the case here, and I would side with Dr Gyan on this one.

To add a twist to the issue and to see the other funny side of it: As we all know now, even counsel Addison himself apparently DOES NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT pdf!!!

Isn't it ironic that the same person who (pompously in my view) sought to discredit the witnesses' credibility and to make him look ignorant of something that he (counsel) was presenting to the witness, himself turns out not to know that there is indeed software which allows ANYONE to EDIT pdf documents? Now we are talking about pdf as defined by you (not the portal of the defence force), see what I mean?

As someone with sound and detailed knowledge of the law and how it works (whether you accept that or not), I am sure you will agree with me that this matter of pdf and Dr Ggyan's credibility can be argued successfully in his defence that he did not know the meaning of the abbreviation used by counsel and surely, he is NOT obliged to know what any abbreviation means unless it is used, and seen to be properly used in the right context.

In this case, you and I can only guess what was on Dr Gyan's mind, but if indeed he thinks like i do, then I can tell you, he wanted counsel to tell him exactly what he meant by pdf and I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This article is closed for comments.

Paul Amuna on Jul 20, 2013 07:12
INTERESTING ANALYSIS, INTERESTED IN pdf
kwabena Asante on Jul 20, 2013 16:43