What I learnt from Hon Bagbin

Read Comments Comments (8)

• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  Mr. Isaac Kyei, next time, let's ask Mr. Bagbin why his NDC party has not fulfilled their promise to enact the Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB), six years and counting.
  
  
  But on the matter of the present essay, here are ...
  read full comment

  Mr. Isaac Kyei, next time, let's ask Mr. Bagbin why his NDC party has not fulfilled their promise to enact the Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB), six years and counting.
  
  
  But on the matter of the present essay, here are our comments:
  
  READ: "...Even after the Big Six were arrested and disagreement led to the split between Nkrumah and the others, Dr JB Danquah and his colleagues opted for ‘Self Government within the Shortest possible time’ when the people craved it now.
  
  OUR COMMENT: When was it never a benefit for the People to fight for what the People want?
  
  
  THEN: "....Personally,...I am of the view that gradual pursuit of independence would have benefited the country in the long-term than N(K)rumah’s radical approach that has led to the sorry... nation we have now....With Dr. JB Danquah’s approach, Ghana would have attained independence somewhere in the seventies or late sixties..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: Hindsight-conjecture, surely, period! "Self Government within the Shortest possible time’" from the British colonial governments is the equivalent of the American version, "With All Deliberate Speed" from the Brown v. Board of Education on the subject of equal education for African Americans in the US discussed in our last essay.
  
  In this case, the occupiers could always move the goal post, with support from Danquah-Ofori-Atta-likes.
  
  And so, by similar hindsight-conjecture, Ghana would not have attained independence even after the "late" nineties.
  
  
  THEN THIS: "...Most of Dr. JB Danquah's defeats in elections was down to his inability to appeal to and identify with the uneducated and low class of society..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: We get all of that from the two (2) "Prison Letters," at least from the extracted, undated first letter posted by Attorney Dr. Samuel Adjei Sarfo, and the more credible, dated, second letter posted by the Danquah Institute that was the subject of an absurd complaint by Danquah worshipper Dr. Samuel Okoampa-Ahoofe.
  
  Samuel, ha!
  
  
  Again, Mr. Isaac Kyei, next time, let's ask Mr. Bagbin why his NDC party has not fulfilled their promise to enact the Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB), six years and counting. You should agree this is hand-down more important that a Danquah lecture by Mr. Bagbin on J. B. Danquah.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  To say
  .......absurd complaint by Danquah worshipper Dr. Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe.

  To say
  .......absurd complaint by Danquah worshipper Dr. Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe.

  reply
• Kem Anderson 10 years ago

  "He will not admit that the downfall of Nkrumah was as result of his going autocratic, intolerant and taking matters into his own hands instead of strengthening the courts and institutions to effectively deal with the violenc ...
  read full comment

  "He will not admit that the downfall of Nkrumah was as result of his going autocratic, intolerant and taking matters into his own hands instead of strengthening the courts and institutions to effectively deal with the violence and lawlessness that informed PDA and other measures."
  
  Mr. Andoh, your effort to write a balanced, objective article is clear and commendable. However, it's seriously flawed in several respects, and this is basically because you seem to have unfortunately based your conclusions on info gathered from a sole source, that's Mr. Albin Bagbin's lecture.
  
  One of the flaws of your article is to be found in your statement cited above. To attribute President Nkrumah's overthrow solely and exclusively to his being "autocratic, intolerant and taking matters into his own hands" without mentioning the role foreign elements, especially the American CIA, played in the act devalues your article. For the CIA's own declassified documents abundantly clearly revealed that the only reason they executed Nkrumah's overthrow by the Ghana military-cum-police, in collaboration with Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia and his senior colleagues in the United Party, was that they decided to and did indeed overthrow the President of Ghana because they considered his activities inimical to American interests, especially his call for Pan-Africanism. So, you'll do well to widen your net in gathering all the crucial facts when writing this kind of article.
  
  Secondly, you've faulted President Nkrumah for his autocratic rule and intolerance, but you've not stated why he became such a "villain". What would you do if you and your opponents disagreed with each other, as you yourself have correctly pointed out, and they felt that the only way they could stop you and your activities was to assassinate you. Ghana, under Nkrumah's leadership, attained independence in 1957 and just the next year the Danquah-Busia party, the UP, began to plan a military coup against him and his administration. Following that the UP made numerous attempts to kill him and/or to overthrow him, while opposing every and any development project the President and his CPP administration implemented. They opposed even Nkrumah's agitation and plan for Ghana's independence "now". Indeed, the UP sent a delegation to Queen Elizabeth II in England asking her to deny Nkrumah and his CPP administration's request for Ghana's independence. They also opposed the construction of the Adomi Bridge, the Accra-Tema Motorway, the Akosombo Dam, the New Tema Township, the Takoradi Harbour and numerous other projects.. When Nkrumah sent his Finance Minister, Mr. Komla Agbeli Gbedema, to America to negotiate for a loan for the construction of the Akosombo Dam, the Busia-Danguah group also dispatched their delegation to America to ask them to deny Ghana's request. While they were busy at these, they were at the same time throwing bombs aimed at the President himself and his supporters. This led to the passing of the PDA by Parliament.
  
  The question therefore is, what would you do if you were in Dr. Nkrumah and his party's dilemma? Please don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way defending the President's autocratic rule' I'm just asking what you'd do if you were in his shoes? Secondly, to be completely objective, these are some of the crucial points you need to consider in your article.

  reply
• isaac Kyei Andoh 10 years ago

  thanks and good addition there. however, this article was not meant to be balanced, it had nothing to do with comparison of JB and Nkrumah. it was more of JB focused with just some reference to Nkrumah because you can't write ...
  read full comment

  thanks and good addition there. however, this article was not meant to be balanced, it had nothing to do with comparison of JB and Nkrumah. it was more of JB focused with just some reference to Nkrumah because you can't write the story of JB without Nkrumah. aside that, this is just to point out some of the distortions in the historical of JB with a little mention of Nkrumah. you seem to like Nkrumah a lot, me all I want is that the very be told of them. we have been made to believe many lies. if you listened to the Danquah lecture, you'd agree to this and the same thing happens when Nkrumaist take the turn. I just want the truth told. thanks for your comment though. Watch out for more later.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  Good effort, Mr. Andoh!
  
  YOUR: "...you seem to like Nkrumah a lot, me all I want is that the very be told of them..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: We do not see any basis for your conclusion from what Kem Anderson wrote above.
  
  1. Y ...
  read full comment

  Good effort, Mr. Andoh!
  
  YOUR: "...you seem to like Nkrumah a lot, me all I want is that the very be told of them..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: We do not see any basis for your conclusion from what Kem Anderson wrote above.
  
  1. You were reporting on a lecture.
  
  2. You want the truth to be told.
  
  3. Then, report directly what the "lecturer" said. Do not include your own subjective perspectives, conjectures. (Saying when Ghana would have attained independence if..., is total conjecture).
  
  4. To the extent you did conjecture, Kem Anderson asked you to "conject" what you would do, in Nkrumah's shoes, if...
  
  5. Again, in our humble opinion, the FOIB is more important than this re-hash of history that does not solve any practical problem for Ghana. Let's speak truth to power.
  
  Let's ask Bagbin about the FOIB, what says you?
  
  Thanks.

  reply
• sir lucas 10 years ago

  Prof Lungo
  
  The very moment the writer said " what I learnt", he positioned himself morally to b add his opinion. What I learnt can never be considered the exact thing Bagbin said but what He the writer picked from what wa ...
  read full comment

  Prof Lungo
  
  The very moment the writer said " what I learnt", he positioned himself morally to b add his opinion. What I learnt can never be considered the exact thing Bagbin said but what He the writer picked from what was said. In such instance, the writer is not necessarily quoting the said speaker but inferring from what he said to make his case.
  
  I find nothing wrong with the article because it is not only objectives, it seeks to look at both sides of the spectrum though the main subject was Dr. JB Danquah.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  sir lucos,
  
  We generally do not spend our time critiquing essayists about spelling, or their writing style. It is always wasteful of our time on so many fronts.
  
  However, when someone attempts to show that we've said som ...
  read full comment

  sir lucos,
  
  We generally do not spend our time critiquing essayists about spelling, or their writing style. It is always wasteful of our time on so many fronts.
  
  However, when someone attempts to show that we've said something we have not said, or attempts to question our critical lens, we will devote some time to set the record straight, if we have time.
  
  Who says the writer is "wrong" with respect to the content in the essay?
  
  Where did you get that from?
  
  So, when Mr. Andoh came back to say Kem Anderson seems "to like Nkrumah a lot", we properly took him to task. That particular sentiment can't be discerned from Anderson's. Tell us where, if you disagree.
  
  And so, while we are at it, when Mr. Ando proclaims right from the second paragraph that "...This is how I felt when Hon. Alban Bagbin shared the truth about Dr JB Danquah to the admiration of his colleague MPs on both sides," you should know that that is not entirely "objective".
  
  THEN THIS: "... Personally, with the benefit from hindsight, I am of the view that gradual pursuit of independence would have benefited the country in the long-term than Nrumah’s radical approach that has led to the sorry of a nation we have now. However, with 5 coups, it is difficult to conclude if the timing of our independence is the result of where we are or military dictatorship has been the cause of our retrogression since independence....
  With Dr. JB Danquah’s approach, Ghana would have attained independence somewhere in the seventies or late sixties..."
  
  OUR QUESTION TO YOU: Whose statement's are those, that end with the conjecture?
  
  Is that Bagbin's.
  
  If Bagbin's, how are we supposed to know?
  
  And if it is Andoh's own statement, why are similar type statements interspersed throughout an essay that is supposed to be an account/report of a speech. Is it not remarkable for the odd absence of direct quotations?
  
  Even so, "Wrong" and "Right" would be on entirely different planes! It is, after all, a critical lens we've brought to the essay.
  
  There is a difference.

  reply
• soso 10 years ago

  Nonsense talk. How can you read such a beautiful article and respond with such a classless clumsy writeup

  Nonsense talk. How can you read such a beautiful article and respond with such a classless clumsy writeup

  reply