Leave Jake alone

Read Comments Comments (11)

• Abeeku Mensah 9 years ago

  Where in the Christian Bible does it instruct man to make saints of the dead or lie/shower praises on the dead? Yes it is cultural not to speak ill of the dead but it is equally wrong to not help thy neighbor/brethren or fami ...
  read full comment

  Where in the Christian Bible does it instruct man to make saints of the dead or lie/shower praises on the dead? Yes it is cultural not to speak ill of the dead but it is equally wrong to not help thy neighbor/brethren or family member while alive and in need or let them get away with evil and misdeeds because of political party affiliations or tribal preferences.
  
  Can anyone in Ghana truly be a bad person in death and who decides? J.J. Rawlings our former president has not seen any evil deed of man he could not commit against Ghanaians and yet is worshipped by NDC fanatics. J.J. sits on his throne and thinks the death of Atta-Mills was a blessing to the NDC this coming from a man incapable of any moral virtue. So when and where does culture and or the Christian Bible defer to politicians for acceptable community moral norms?

  reply
• kwasi 9 years ago

  Very true

  Very true

  reply
• sah kwabena Louis 9 years ago

  I really like this website

  I really like this website

  reply
• Abena 9 years ago

  Idiot. NPP deserted him now you are all singing his praises. Hypocrites.

  Idiot. NPP deserted him now you are all singing his praises. Hypocrites.

  reply
• Ben Bruce-Doe 9 years ago

  Give some further thought to how you malign the dead with these idiotic assertions:
  
  "He was not the worst example of politicians who perceptibly benefitted unfairly from state resources. In any case, the particular case in ...
  read full comment

  Give some further thought to how you malign the dead with these idiotic assertions:
  
  "He was not the worst example of politicians who perceptibly benefitted unfairly from state resources. In any case, the particular case in point – selling a state bungalow to himself at a giveaway price when he was a Minister of State – was adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction and was subsequently declared a victor.
  
  I admonish the family to take consolation in Psalm 90:10. They should not be distracted or dampened by the heartless in our society who will want to add insult to their injuries by resurrecting the few perceived negative aspects of his life while he served Ghana"
  
  Seriously inane spiel. Your moronic screed does not reflect well on your parents, who should have inculcated you with a modicum of common sense and social etiquette; so you do not propagate misruths about a deceased soul.
  
  He did not sell a bungalow to himself and at an unfair price, nor did he profit unfairly from state resources. That is the adjudicated fact.
  
  You are the epitome of the very cretins you describe as distracting a mourning family in a time of grief. What kind of heartless and mentally challenged person are you, to do exactly what you admonish against?
  
  Dumbass!! Get a f*king life!! !@#$%&!! For real!!

  reply
• Paapa 9 years ago

  What was the use of 'perceptibly' for? That should tell you that he was not saying that as a matter of fact. Or?

  What was the use of 'perceptibly' for? That should tell you that he was not saying that as a matter of fact. Or?

  reply
• Ben Bruce-Doe 9 years ago

  The innuendo suffices as a scurrilous action, so it is that unscrupulous deportment and comportment which I excoriate.. Got it?
  
  I reiterate nad recapitulate the assertion that "perceptibly", there is an allusive and obliqu ...
  read full comment

  The innuendo suffices as a scurrilous action, so it is that unscrupulous deportment and comportment which I excoriate.. Got it?
  
  I reiterate nad recapitulate the assertion that "perceptibly", there is an allusive and oblique remark, or hint; which, in a typically suggestive fashion, is disparaging of a dead person, who cannot defend against the veiled villification.

  reply
• Paapa 9 years ago

  Please let's agree to write English. You are sounding needlessly wordy.

  Please let's agree to write English. You are sounding needlessly wordy.

  reply
• Ben Bruce-Doe 9 years ago

  In what sort of infantile and jejune babble would you prefer that I engage in puerile flagellation of a dead horse?
  
  I have stated my opinion. If it rubs you the wrong way I take notice of that and will give it due consider ...
  read full comment

  In what sort of infantile and jejune babble would you prefer that I engage in puerile flagellation of a dead horse?
  
  I have stated my opinion. If it rubs you the wrong way I take notice of that and will give it due consideration. Can you move on? FOR REAL!!!!

  reply
• kojo nzo ekangaki 9 years ago

  Judges aren't angels,some judges were recently caught on tape receiving bribes courtesy Anas Aremiyao

  Judges aren't angels,some judges were recently caught on tape receiving bribes courtesy Anas Aremiyao

  reply
• Ben Bruce-Doe 9 years ago

  Culled passages from the 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court.
  
  CRONYISM, ARBITRARINESS, CAPRICIOUSNESS, DISCRIMINATION
  
  ln relief 3 of the amended writ filed on 30th July 2010, the plaintiffs claimed that:
  
  In proof of th ...
  read full comment

  Culled passages from the 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court.
  
  CRONYISM, ARBITRARINESS, CAPRICIOUSNESS, DISCRIMINATION
  
  ln relief 3 of the amended writ filed on 30th July 2010, the plaintiffs claimed that:
  
  In proof of the averments, all that happened was that the plaintiffs based their complaint on their bare allegations.
  
  No evidence whatsoever was led to substantiate those allegations. The plaintiffs know too well that this is a court...
  
  ..can only get this court to make ... if they are able to substantiate those law, conscience and equity. The plaintiff declarations against third parties allegations.
  
  This insistence on the substantiation will be in accordance with the rules of the court as already explained under the reference to the Evidence Act,1975 (NRCD 323), s 17(1) and (2).
  
  To allege that the action of any public officer smacks of cronyism, or is arbitrary,corruption, discrimination, capriciousness, conflict of interest and abuse of discretionary power is derogatory and vituperative.
  
  These are accusations. Every individual Ghanaian is entitled to form his/her own opinion on the actions of public officers like the allocation of the property in dispute.
  
  This is because freedom of speech and freedom of thought, conscience and belief are enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, by art. 21 (1) (a) and (b).
  
  The plaintiffs, like other Ghanaians, are entitled to believe that public actions are tainted with all manner of illegalities and improprieties.
  
  But if they want those illegalities and improprieties tagged on to specific public office... in the position to establish the facts which support that belief and the basis of that belief in the illegalities and improprieties on the one hand... connection with the specific public officers on the other... basis and nexus which will amount to proof and justification..
  
  The necessity to adduce proof becomes even more imperative where, as in the instant case, the accusers invite the court to declare the actions as tainted with cronyism, corruption, arbitrariness, capriciousness, conflict of interest and abuse of discretionary power vested in a public officer.
  
  They cannot establish that by mere averments or allegations which are unsubstantiated, as they have done in this case.
  
  There was no argument or evidence of any type adduced in support of any of those accusations.
  
  CORRUPTION:
  
  Cronyism, arbitrariness, capriciousness and discrimination amount to corruption. No evidence was adduced to establish any of these.
  
  There were no arguments canvassed in support of them either. The nearest that came close to attempting to justify, by implication, the accusations on corruption may be found in paragraph 7 of the plaintiffs statement of case which read as follows:
  
  “In 2001, when the 2nd defendant was the Chief of Staff at the office of the outgoing President, he allotted to himself the said government bungalow as his duty post. He resided at the said duty post at very huge costs to the State from 2001 to 2008."
  
  Most judges occupy government bungalows and so judicial notice can be taken of the way government bungalows are allocated. Since when did Chiefs of Staff start to allocate government bungalows?
  
  Government bungalows are allocated by the Bungalow Allocation committee which works under the Ministry of Works and Housing. It is not done by the Office of the Chief of Staff.
  
  Moreover, each government bungalow has a file. Government bungalows are allocated by written authority. The established rule is that where a person makes an allegation which is capable of proof by documentary evidence, he will not succeed in proving it by mere oral assertions or allegations:
  
  ..defendant disputed the fact that he allocated the property by himself to himself. If the plaintiffs were sure that what they allege were true,they could have supported their assertion with the written allocation document signed by the second defendant and addressed to the second defendant.
  
  That would have been definite proof of their allegation of corruption. The two plaintiffs produced no such evidence.
  
  The averments in that paragraph 7 were not made out and could not therefore be used to support the accusations which.... the plaintiffs referred to in their reliefs.
  
  It appears that what the plaintiffs had on their mind were encapsulated in their memoranda of issues. They stated that:
  
  1 .“Whether or not the purported alienation, sale, disposal or outright transferof Government Bungalow No. 2, located at St Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra situated on 1.04 acres of land compulsorily acquired by the State for public purpose to the 2nd Defendant by the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing in the Government of His Excellency, President J. A. Kuffour,as a sample of prime and prized public properties/bungalows at Ridge,Cantonment and Airport - all in Accra, the administrative capital of Ghana— to many of that Government’s Ministers, former Ministers, selected public officials, party officials and individuals, amounted to discrimination, lack of good exercise of discretionary power, smacked of corruption and conflict of interest, and so in gross violation of Articles 17(1), (2) & (3), 20(5), 23, 296,35(8) and 284 the 1992 Constitution and thus null and void..
  
  From these memoranda of issues, the plaintiffs stated that the grants of government lands“to many of that Government's Ministers, former Ministers, selected publi cofficials, party officials and individuals, amounted to discrimination, lack of good exercise of discretionary power, smacked of corruption and conflict ofinterest, and so in gross violation of Articles 17(1), (2) & (3),
  
  "It was granted to the 2nd defendant who was a former Chief of Staff and a former Minister. If the plaintiffs meant that there was some law or regulation which prevented former chief of Staff from being granted the type of property in dispute, they failed to show that.
  
  The second defendant was a former Chief of Staff. In 2008 when the grant was made to him, he was not a public officer, having left public service to contest the position of Presidential Candidate of the New Patriotic Party.
  
  That was stated by the 2nd defendant in his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ affidavit. Theplaintiffs did not dispute that. That meant that the grant was made to the 2nd defendant at a time when he was a private citizen.
  
  The plaintiffs did not point to any rule or law that forbade the grant of government land to a former public officer who had become a private individual.
  
  The plaintiffs referred to grants to “selected public officials, party officials” That reference was not made expressly to the 2nd defendant as one of the “selected public officials or party officials.”
  
  If they did, the obvious question they would have had to answer would be this:
  
  How did the plaintiffs arrive at the conclusion that the disputed property was allocated to the 2nd defendant in his capacity as a “selected public officer or party officer?"
  
  If those statements were made to form the basis for the declaration that the grant was discriminatory, that basis remained grossly not proved.
  
  That kind of statement should have been made by an affidavit or viva voce. It was clearly improper to have expected them as proved by mere unsubstantiated averments in memorandum of issues.
  
  The plaintiffs' reliefs failed in so far as they were based on cronyism, arbitrariness,capriciousness, discrimination or conflict of interest.
  
  I have had the benefit of reading in advance the opinion of the President of this panel. He dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in respect of conflict of interest,cronyism, discrimination, arbitrariness, capriciousness and corruption.
  
  What that implies is that this panel is unanimous in dismissing the claims of the plaintiffs based on cronyism, discrimination, arbitrariness, capriciousness and conflict of interest, vested in public officers.
  
  www.media.myjoyonline.com/docs/201205/Jake%20majority%20ruling%20.pdf.

  reply