Is Rawlings a Threat to Free Speech?

Read Comments Comments (10)

• Military Man 11 years ago

  I'm not a fan of Rawlings' but in this case, I agree with him. If there was an agreement( be it a gentleman's or not), then it's binding.
  
  If the authour agreed with Rawlings that the manuscript had to be read and approve ...
  read full comment

  I'm not a fan of Rawlings' but in this case, I agree with him. If there was an agreement( be it a gentleman's or not), then it's binding.
  
  If the authour agreed with Rawlings that the manuscript had to be read and approved by Rawlings before final publication, then the authour is in clear violation of that agreement.
  
  Rawlings has the right to ask the courts to put a stop to the publication of the book because the author unilaterally abrogated the terms in the agreement and that's not fair to Rawlings.
  
  Unless the author can prove otherwise, I will support Rawlings to sue the pants off this author. Period.

  reply
• George, USA 11 years ago

  Your views are not academic. I used to admire your articles but of late there is lack of logic in your analysis. Publications all over the world are subject to ethical codes and Rawlings could even seek for action against the ...
  read full comment

  Your views are not academic. I used to admire your articles but of late there is lack of logic in your analysis. Publications all over the world are subject to ethical codes and Rawlings could even seek for action against the publication. Rawlings is lenient to hire experts to review this book at his own cost. Freedom of speech does not mean being unethical and lawless.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  George, for your information all my articles on Ghanaweb are not academic work. I write for public consumption and not producing academic theses. I have not come across ethical codes in any academic work or publication. If, o ...
  read full comment

  George, for your information all my articles on Ghanaweb are not academic work. I write for public consumption and not producing academic theses. I have not come across ethical codes in any academic work or publication. If, of late, my analyses are illogical to you, I am glad that some readers and commentators share some of my views. and analysis. You may disagreed with me but that does not mean my analyses are illogical. What makes you makes you even suggest that what is unethical is not freedom of speech let alone regarding to the subject matter under discussion? You have not seen the contents of the book or manuscript so how could you say the author is being unethical or lawless? Is that logical?
  
  By your logic, is it ok for Rawlings to take two years to review and edit the manuscript? I hope you read comments by others and compare if my analyses are illogical as you claim?

  reply
• Kodjo 11 years ago

  Rawlings has no veto on any academic work.If out of courtesy he is obliged access to the manuscript that does not mean he has exclusive monopoly over the work.
  
  This is not a copyright which should conform to the copyright ...
  read full comment

  Rawlings has no veto on any academic work.If out of courtesy he is obliged access to the manuscript that does not mean he has exclusive monopoly over the work.
  
  This is not a copyright which should conform to the copyright laws but a historical account of an era.Interpretation of such accounts are subjective and can not be subjected to the whims and caprices of the subject matter.
  
  Even under the fair rules of copyright law you don't need the permission of the subject if it is an intellectual work.what happened during Rawlings regime was public knowledge and therefore can not be any one's exclusive possession of the facts.
  
  If Rawlings disagrees with Professor Boafo's account he can rebut it in his memoirs.If he is allowed to have his way it will amount to restriction of intellectual work and freedom to express one's opinion without interference.

  reply
• Auntie Rose 11 years ago

  A big mistake was made initially by the professor who consulted Rawlings for input and an agreement being it express or implicit.
  
  In this regard, Professor Adu Boafo opened an avenue for Rawlings to use the court to stop h ...
  read full comment

  A big mistake was made initially by the professor who consulted Rawlings for input and an agreement being it express or implicit.
  
  In this regard, Professor Adu Boafo opened an avenue for Rawlings to use the court to stop him from publishing the book.
  
  The professor can therefore go ahead to write something else this time without consultation.

  reply
• Oldtimo 11 years ago

  Just tell Rawlings to shut up and go look for his father in Britain. He should not forget that he is a -50% Ghanaian and we Ghanaians need peace and not confrontation or big mouth in running the administration.

  Just tell Rawlings to shut up and go look for his father in Britain. He should not forget that he is a -50% Ghanaian and we Ghanaians need peace and not confrontation or big mouth in running the administration.

  reply
• LONTO-BOY 11 years ago

  MASSA KOFI, firstly, this injunction is a classic example of how determined ex-President Jerry John Rawlings wants to be the author of his own political life and legacy. To start with, "Gentleman's Agreement" is done in the s ...
  read full comment

  MASSA KOFI, firstly, this injunction is a classic example of how determined ex-President Jerry John Rawlings wants to be the author of his own political life and legacy. To start with, "Gentleman's Agreement" is done in the spirit of trust, understanding and respect. And whether such agreement could be enforceable in court depends on whether it was formalised in writing or by other conditions that can be evidenced in a Court of Law. So, it will be interesting to see what entails in the "Gentleman's Agreement" between Prof Danso-Boafo and Mr Jerry John Rawlings. Personally, I would rather wish the Court does not grant Rawlings his wish.
  
  I think injuncting the book launch in this circumstances is an attempt by Rawlings to suppress and prevent startling revelations emerging about him, Rawlings. All should be revealed. What actually happened in the darker corners of the corridor of power during Rawlings leadership and the Revolutionary years should not remain in the dark. Rawlings as an ex-President, is a person of overwhelmingly legitimate public interest, hence, it is in the public interest that Prof Danso-Boafo is not impeded by the court from his startling revelations.
  
  Surely, this injunction, if granted will have a chilling effect on legitimate freedom of expression and threat to intellectualism. Such injunction could adversely affect investigative journalism, free press and critical media reporting.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  LONTO-BOY, it's always refreshing to read your contributions. In fact, you have raised a very important subject that did not occur to me. That of public interest and you are absolutely right that the subject matter of the boo ...
  read full comment

  LONTO-BOY, it's always refreshing to read your contributions. In fact, you have raised a very important subject that did not occur to me. That of public interest and you are absolutely right that the subject matter of the book is of public interest and will pass the public interest test.
  
  I pray that the court will not grant the application and to open the doors to others to write vivid historical account of the PNDC era before they are lost to posterity through death. Such decision or victory will also demystify the Rawlings' institution or cult in Ghana. For example, I still remember vividly some of what Rawlings used to say to us before 31 December 1982 and in the early PNDC days. However, I did not keep documentary records of them. In fact, even if I did it would be very difficult to trace them in Ghana since I left most of my records in Ghana. Today, assuming I decide to write something about those days, I am sure Rawlings will strongly disputes them. Does that mean I should not be able to write my version of events but only what according to Rawlings are accurate? That would be unfortunate, though I am not inclined to do so.

  reply
• KKO 11 years ago

  Kofi,
  I thought about the suit myself. Why will an academic undertaking an academic/historical exercise wait for two years for Rawlings and his bunch of lazy "literary and legal experts" to come back to him? Suppose Prof Dan ...
  read full comment

  Kofi,
  I thought about the suit myself. Why will an academic undertaking an academic/historical exercise wait for two years for Rawlings and his bunch of lazy "literary and legal experts" to come back to him? Suppose Prof Danso-Boafo had secured an agreement with a publisher, wouldn't he be in breach of that agreement by now?
  
  Rawlings is simply afraid of his own shadow. That is why he has not written anything and I believe he has bullied his accomplices from writing, lest they expose some of the more gory episodes of his stewardship of Oman Ghana.
  
  In any case, what prevents Rawlings from writing his own to "clarify issues" after Prof's publication? It is back to his culture of silence all over and nothing else.
  
  For once I hope the courts in Ghana will have the guts to throw out this frivolous suite.
  
  It is all part of the effort to keep Ghanaians perpetually in the dark. When the president's ministers have stolen, instead of a public enquiry, he forms a "presidential commission" to cover the unsavoury parts of their dealings!

  reply
• mensah abrampa 11 years ago

  What comes out of a man is deep rooted and it is that which defines him. The leopard cannot change its spots because those spots are not just surface deep but older than the leopard itself. Rawlings did many bad things for w ...
  read full comment

  What comes out of a man is deep rooted and it is that which defines him. The leopard cannot change its spots because those spots are not just surface deep but older than the leopard itself. Rawlings did many bad things for which he can be convicted and easily receive the death sentence.
  He loved free speech and used it to further his political ambitions but became its suppressor-in-chief  when he realized its tremendous power could be marshalled against him too.
  His past will continue to haunt him but right now that he's no longer in the driving seat of constitutional power and authority, he will try to use the law courts to gag anyone who wants to exercise their power of free speech to expose his dirty past. He is still a threat to free speech because during his tenure of office Rawlings courted the loyalty and friendship of some lower court judges by elevating them to the Supreme Court. What else apart from self preservation could have prompted Rawlings to look far into the future and make those SC appointments? Now that his hand is shortened, it is his reaping time and he's expecting those friendly judges to return the favor. Until his dying day, Rawlings remains a real and imminent threat to not only free speech but to peace and stability as well. Many people still love him and care less about the past, present or future and will do anything to defend his name and legacy.

  reply