![]() | |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() Last Friday, instead of sitting their bums down to do the work they have been elected to do MPs spent a lot of time moving from one dealer to another checking out the latest automobile models. “I want to get a VW Touareg or a Nissan,” one MP said. From his tone and the way he pronounced Nissan (“Nissain”, he said), you can tell he is an MP from the hinterland (not very exposed to the automobiles) and until that day, all he could do was dream of owning a luxurious 4-Wheel-drive. Now, his dream is about to become reality – thanks to government’s decision to approve an auto-loan of 50,000 dollars for each MP. The cash will not be drawn from the national kitty. What is going to happen is that government will guarantee the loans from a couple of banks, which will release the funds directly to the auto dealers after each MP had driven away the luxury sedan or SUV of his choice. Then over a period of four years, the MPs will repay the loans from their salaries. It sounds like a good plan, doesn’t it? But it’s not! We have seen this before. Under John Kufuor, MPs were given a similar facility. In fact, under Kufuor loans were much smaller at just 20,000 dollars. Yet a good number of them failed to pay back, leaving government with the burden of clearing their debts at the expense of the taxpayer. When this happened, President Mills was not helping with the repair works on the international space station. He hadn’t taken a vacation to the moon. Perhaps, he was somewhere receiving medical treatment but he was right here on this planet and he knows about the backlash that greeted Kufuor’s mistake of guaranteeing car loans to MPs. Most Ghanaians saw it as a scheme by our political leaders to fleece the nation. It was the issue of MPs car loans that made most Ghanaians realise politicians have the ability to bury their petty differences to act for their common good. President Mills’ decision to repeat the mistake of guaranteeing auto-loans for MPs (and grant them even more than Kufuor did) will only make sense to those who will benefit from it. Rumour has it that the President didn’t actually want to guarantee the loans but MPs from his own party wrung his hands and forced him to do it. If this is true, it only adds to the perception that the pair between his legs is as soft as dough. If he knows that the right thing to do is not to guarantee the loans, why will he bow to pressure and do what he knows to be wrong? As it was under Kufuor, this decision to guarantee loans for MPs should be condemned because it demonstrates once again that our politicians see themselves as better human beings than the rest of us. When teachers, police officers and civil servants do not get government guaranteed loans, it is unfair (even immoral) for MPs to be given such preferential treatment. We should not fall for the deception that this is just a loan and it will be paid back in due course. Realistically, few MPs can afford to repay this facility from their parliamentary salaries over the four-year period. The average MP earns about 3,000 dollars per month. Interest rates are hovering around 30 percent. By law, people (including MPs) are not allowed to spend more than 40% of their monthly earnings on servicing loans. So do the maths! And this is where the politicians pull a fast one on us. It is inevitable, therefore, that the taxpayer will eventually have to pick up the tab for clearing the MPs’ debts. According to the arrangements being worked out, MPs who fail to repay the loans will have monies deducted from their ex-gratia for the purpose. With the public outrage that greeted the publication of the ex-gratia awards for MPs and Kufuor, a good number of Ghanaians expected President Mills to bring this ex-gratia nonsense to an end. But since ex-gratia is being mentioned as an integral part of the auto-loan deal for MPs, we can assume that nothing has changed. We are going to be forced to dole out hefty sums of money as “gifts” – for that’s what ex-gratia means – for men and women who voluntarily opted to stand for election as MPs, supposedly to serve us. This is not the change Ghanaians voted for, is it? Here, once again, is proof that politics is the easiest road to privilege and wealth in this country. Our politicians are still determined to use their positions to enrich themselves and get all of life’s niceties whiles the rest of us struggle to even get water to drink. This idea of government guaranteeing loans for MPs is sickening. It doesn’t make sense that a government – proclaiming austerity – has taken on the extra financial burden of spending 11.5 million dollars on luxury cars for MPs. It’s a mistake. They are literally taking us for an expensive ride and most of us will not enjoy it. It’s a mistake for which we are going to pay dearly. |
![]() On one hand, the report stridently defends Mr. Mubarak. It even goes to the extent of asserting that a former director at the ministry, Emmanuel Owusu-Ansah, teamed up with Mr. Mubarak’s main accuser “to create problems for the minister”. “Mr. Adim Odoom [the accuser] typed his allegations on Dr. Owusu Ansah’s laptop in Dr. Owusu Ansah’s office,” the government statement says. On the other hand, the report confirms some of the allegations that were made against Mr. Mubarak. For example, he actually made claims for diapers and mouthwash and took more per diem than he was due. He also has in his possession a government vehicle – the one his accuser claimed he had allocated to his wife and he also charged the state for flying his family from Accra to Kumasi. On all of these, the minister’s wrongs are incredibly blamed on his accusers. On the issue of per diem for example, the presidency takes the untenable position that the “amount was authorized by the Chief Director, Mr. Albert Anthony Ampong, but the Minister had no knowledge of what his per diem for the travel was supposed to be.” On Mr. Mubarak’s decision to make the state pay for his family’s air fares from Accra to Kumasi the report states: “The Minister requested for he and his family to travel to Kumasi by air. The Chief Director endorsed the request by the Minister. The request was backed with a memo. The Chief Director did not advise the Minister that his family was not entitled to these tickets.” The government therefore has taken the position that by failing to advise the minister, the chief director engaged in some wrongdoing. This is utter rubbish. In any case, why would government take the minister’s word that he wasn’t advised (or he didn’t know)? What if he was actually advised and he failed to heed wise counsel? The reason is simple. Politicians have a way of covering their own. Government has been so embarrassed by this scandal it needed to make an example of someone. However, making an example of the man who should actually be punished will give fodder to the opposition and that’s the last thing the young administration needs. So they decided to pounce on the whistle blower (the hapless accountant) and the chief director of the ministry. They have been interdicted and the head of the civil service has been instructed to apply “appropriate sanctions against them”. Meanwhile, the (former) minister – who illegally made claims for mouthwash and diapers – walks away with a mere reprimand and an order to refund the monies he forced the government to spend on his girlfriend during a trip to Germany. “The President is dissatisfied with the conduct of the Minister in his decision to embark on the German trip with Ms. Edith Zinayela and in particular in his decision to apply for a visa for her in circumstances that amounted to a mis-description of her official position,” the government statement says. “The decision for the Ministry to pay for Ms. Zinayela’s visa fee was equally improper. It was an error of judgment on the part of the Minister from which it is hoped all other appointees will learn.” I think “mis-description” amounts to fraud and on this score alone, Mr. Mubarak deserves to be punished. He should have been pushed out of office but he has simply been helped to jump off – just to save his face and save the government from further embarrassment, his grave misdeeds watered down to “an error of judgment”. He should also be sanctioned for making those illegal expense claims – whether he knew or not. Last time I checked, innocence was not an excuse. Is it now an excuse under the NDC? So now anyone can take whatever they like and turn around to say that they were not aware of what they could or could not take? Mr. Mubarak unwittingly (and very foolishly) gave the president an opportunity to show us that he (the president) is more serious about dealing with corruption than his predecessor did. That opportunity has been squandered and now public officials have even been given a couple of extra excuses to indulge themselves. With “I didn’t know” and “I wasn’t advised” and they can practically do anything they want. The president has also silenced a good number of those who were getting ready to blow the whistle on corrupt officials by ordering that the (former) minister’s main accuser and the chief director of the ministry should be sanctioned. It is, indeed, “outrageous” – as the presidency says – that the “Chief Director and the Principal Accountant, if they are to be believed, paid out sums of money as large as $10,000 on two separate occasions without any documentation and without any evidence whatsoever.” But this should surprise no one. I am taking the position that Muntaka went to the ministry like a dictator, making demands left, right and centre without listening to anyone. It is possible that the monies were paid to him and he pompously refused to write receipts for them. If I make payment to my boss from the company kitty and he refuses to give me a receipt, what do I do? I either shut the hell up or report to his superior. In this case, the accountant reported the case to the (former) minister’s superior and this is a crime for which he is interdicted, with the sceptre of sanctions looming over his head? The chief director confirms the accountant’s claims that he took monies to be given to the minister. It’s the minister who claims that he took no such monies. Once again, his word against his accusers. Reading the investigative the report, I want to stand behind the accusers. The decision to sanction Mr. Odoom for not taking receipts from the minister sound absurd to me. It’s equally absurd that the president is annoyed with the chief director and the accountant for allowing the minister to make expense claims for monies he spent on mouthwash and diapers. “The Chief Director or the Principal Accountant should have vetted the receipt and exempted items which were not allowable,” the presidency says. “Items like baby oil, baby food and mouth wash should have been disallowed even though they formed a seemingly insignificant part of the bill. The Minister on discovering that this amount had been refunded demanded to withdraw the receipt but the Principal Accountant Mr. Adim Odoom assured him that everything was in order and that he had paid the refund from the imprest which was normal.” If I had been in the (former) minister’s shoes – as stupid as I am – I would have insisted on the right thing being done despite the accountant’s assurances that everything “was in order”. He didn’t do what he knew to be right. For this as well, he should have been punished and not let off the hook in such a manner. So Mr. Mubarak has gotten a white-wash and whistle-blowing in this country has been dealt a terrible blow. Government’s handling of this matter will effectively force a lot prospective whistle-blowers – in the public service, especially – to tuck their whistles in their pockets. You dare not bring that whistle anywhere near your mouth. Otherwise, the dogs of national security will be set loose on you. They will intimidate you and turn around to accuse you of wrongdoing – for failing to advise your boss on what he can or cannot take or do. They will take your boss’ words over yours and leave you to rot under interdiction. If this is “probity and accountability” then I will have none of it! |
![]() | ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() Minister of Foreign Affairs, Muhammed Mumuni disclosed this in Accra last week. He said the project initiated in 2003 is a harmonised smart passport (e-Passport) for ECOWAS citizens and will impel Ghana to join the likes of Nigeria, Senegal and Benin which have already 'begun using it. The electronic passport will have a chip to capture and store the bio-metric data (fingerprint information) of holders. The biometric identification serves as a security check to make it impossible for people who fraudulently apply for more than one passport to do so. Mr. William Awinador Kanwirige, Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained further in an interview that the adoption of the ECOWAS passport is progress made from the use of the ECOWAS Travel Certificate. "The ECOWAS passport does not only give you an ECOWAS citizen identity. Citizens will also use it when applying for international visas," he said. He made known that the new passport will have the inscription of ECOWAS as well as Ghana, to distinguish it from those held by other ECOWAS citizens. "Every applicant will be tied to the information he gives us. With that, we are optimistic that the new system will tackle passport thefts and multiple acquisitions. "We will be rolling-out sensitisation programmes nationwide to let Ghanaians know of the upcoming change and some new rules that come with the application for the new passport," he said. source: B&FT |
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | |||||||||||
|
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Soldiers ousted the democratically elected president of Honduras on Sunday and Congress named a successor, but the leftist ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavezdenounced what he called an illegal coup and vowed to stay in power.
The first military takeover of a Central American government in 16 years drew widespread condemnation from governments in Latin America and the world — including the U.S. — and Chavez vowed to overthrow the country's apparent new leader.
President Manuel Zelaya was awakened Sunday by gunfire and detained while still in his pajamas, hours before a constitutional referendum many saw as an attempt by him to stay in power beyond the one-term limit. An air force plane flew him into forced exile in Costa Rica as armored military vehicles with machine guns rolled through the streets of the Honduran capital and soldiers seized the national palace.
"I want to return to my country," Zelaya said in Costa Rica. "I am president of Honduras."
Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya's letter of resignation, with even Zelaya's former allies turning against him. Congressional leader Roberto Micheletti was sworn in to serve until Jan. 27 when Zelaya's term ends.
Micheletti belongs to Zelaya's Liberal Party, but opposed the president in the referendum.
Zelaya denied resigning and insisted he would serve out his term, even as the Supreme Court backed the military takeover and said it was a defense of democracy.
He left late Sunday on a plane provided by Chavez, bound for Nicaragua where he was to attend a scheduled meeting of Central American presidents the following day.
Zelaya called on Honduran soldiers to back him, urged citizens to take to the streets in peaceful protests, but only a few hundred turned out at the main protests in the capital.
Micheletti was sworn in at a ceremony inside the Congress building with cheers and chants from fellow legislators of "Honduras! Honduras!"
Outside of Congress, a group of about 150 people opposed to Zelaya's ouster stood well back from police lines and shook their fists, chanting "Out with the bourgeoisie!" and "Traitors!"
Within hours, Micheletti declared a nationwide, 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew for two days starting Sunday night. He told a news conference he had appointed a new foreign minister: lawyer and former Ambassador to the U.N. Enrique Ortez Colindres.
Micheletti insisted that he did not arrive at his new post "under the aegis of a coup d'etat."
"I have reached the presidency as the result of an absolutely legal transition process," he said.
He also defended the army, saying "the armed forces have complied with the constitution and the laws."
But he warned against outside interference after Chavez remarked that if Micheletti was appointed president, "We will overthrow him."
Some of Zelaya's Cabinet members had been detained by soldiers or police following his ouster, according to former government official Armando Sarmiento. And the rights group Freedom of Expression said leftist legislator Cesar Ham died in a shootout with soldiers trying to detain him.
A Security Department spokesman said he had no information on Ham.
Micheletti acknowledged that he had not spoken to any Latin American heads of state, but said, "I'm sure that 80 to 90 percent of the Honduran population is happy with what happened today."
He also announced that Zelaya would be welcome to return to Honduras as a private citizen on one condition: "Without the support of Mr. Hugo Chavez, we would be happy to take him back with open arms," he said.
Zelaya's overthrow came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that he was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the attorney general said it was illegal. The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term, they said.
Some businesses in the capital, Tegucigalpa, closed earlier this week amid the rising tension, and many speculated there would be a coup. Those who opposed the referendum warned against voting, fearing violence at the polls.
Countries throughout Latin America and the world condemned Zelaya's expulsion. Chavez said Venezuela "is at battle" and put his military on alert.
In Havana, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez vowed to work with allies to push for Zelaya's return to power. He said Cuban Ambassador Juan Carlos Hernandez was held briefly in Tegucigalpa after he and other foreign diplomats tried unsuccessfully to prevent soldiers from taking away Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas.
Chavez said troops in Honduras temporarily detained the Venezuelan and Cuban ambassadors and beat them.
President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Zelaya's arrest should be condemned.
"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter," Obama's statement read.
For those conditions to be met, Zelaya must be returned to power, U.S. officials said.
Two senior Obama administration officials told reporters that U.S. diplomats are working to ensure Zelaya's safety as they press for restoration of constitutional law and his presidency.
One of the officials said that the U.S. has been in touch with Zelaya since he was brought to Costa Rica, and has been trying to communicate with members of the Honduran Congress to insist that the new power structure step down.
The officials said that the Obama administration in recent days had warned Honduran power players, including the armed forces, that the U.S. would not support a coup, but Honduran military leaders stopped taking their calls.
The officials briefed reporters by phone Sunday on condition of anonymity, under ground rules set by the State Department.
The Organization of American States approved a resolution Sunday demanding "the immediate, safe and unconditional return of the constitutional president, Manuel Zelaya."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the coup and "urges the reinstatement of the democratically elected representatives of the country," said his spokeswoman, Michele Montas.
The Rio Group, which comprises 23 nations from the hemisphere, issued a statement condemning "the coup d'etat" and calling for Zelaya's "immediate and unconditional restoration to his duties."
Coups were common in Central America for four decades reaching back to the 1950s, but Sunday's ouster was the first military power grab in Latin America since a brief, failed 2002 coup against Chavez. It was the first in Central America since military officials forced President Jorge Serrano of Guatemala to step down in 1993 after he tried to dissolve Congress and suspend the constitution.
"We thought that the long night of military dictatorships in Central America was over," said Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who sat beside Zelaya at a news conference.
Zelaya told the Venezuela-based Telesur network that he was awoken by gunshots and the shouts of his security guards, who he said resisted troops for at least 20 minutes. Still in his pajamas, he jumped out of bed and ducked behind an air conditioner to avoid the bullets, he said.
He said eight to 10 soldiers in masks escorted him onto an air force plane that took him to Costa Rica.
About 100 supporters congregated in front of locked gates outside the national palace, where they hurled rocks at soldiers and shouted "Traitors! Traitors!" They hung a Honduran flag.
"They kidnapped him like cowards," screamed Melissa Gaitan. Tears streamed down the face of the 21-year-old, who works at the government television station. "We have to rally the people to defend our president."
Many union and farm groups supported Zelaya's push for the referendum — which he said was aimed at changing policies that have excluded the nearly three-quarters of Hondurans who live in poverty.
The vote did not take place on the referendum, which asked whether another vote should be held on convoking an assembly to rewrite the constitution.
In May 1997, the French Weekly Newspaper published these stolen assets of African rulers: General Sani Abaca of Nigeria, 120 billion FF (or $20 billion); former Ivorian President H. Boigny, 35 billion FF (or $ 6 billion); General Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, 30 billion FF (or $ 5 billion); the late President Mobutu of Zaire, 22 billion FF (or $ 4 billion); President Mousa Traore of Mali, 10.8 billion FF (or $ 2 billion).
A major shift in funding development in Africa is accelerating. Major donors have been urging African governments to eradicate corruption or face cuts in aid. (African Recovery, by Sam Chege)
Despite the country’s abundant natural resources, including copper, gold and diamonds, the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo continue to sink further into poverty. Meanwhile, Mobutu, the late president who died in 1997, amassed a personal fortune of $5 billion, which was deposited in Swiss banks. (CNN world news, September 7, 1997). After more than three years of legal wrangling, the Nigerian government has finally achieved a major breakthrough in it’s efforts to recoup a substantial amount of money looted by the former president, General Sani Abacha. The money was stored in Swiss bank accounts. Abacha, who died of an apparent heart attack in 1998, had been accused of stealing nearly $3 billion from state funds in a series of staggering revelations of how he and his immediate family personalized Nigeria’s treasury. (This DAY, May 30, 2002)
An excellent way to get rich quick is to be the ex-wife of an ex-president. This is what Mrs. Vera Chiluba is claiming from ex president Chiluba in her application to Ndola High Court: She wants US$2.5 billion in a lump sum, and claims she can prove he has the funds available. She also requires maintenance for their nine children, none of whom are in gainful employment. She also needs a share in 6 properties in Ndola and a commercial farm in Chi samba. Also she needs a new executive Mercedes Benz 500 (or 600), a new Land Cruiser, a new Nissan Patrol, drivers as well and a court order for the return of 400 cattle, sheep and goats which are still at State Lodge.This was taken from the Zambia Post and was also reported in The Zambia Society Newsletter compiled by the glamorous Maggie Currie. Are African presidents the only ones so clever in accumulating wealth so quickly? Even ex president Marcos of the Philippines didn’t get hold of such huge amounts in such a short time. (Elias Georgopoullos, Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 12:52:22 PDT)
The French journal, ‘L’Evenement du jeudi published an article stating that the president of Cameroon, Paul Biya, is worth more than $45 billion FCA, money gleaned from the sales of petroleum. Mr. Biya has not refuted these claims.(Post watch Fact File report by Ntemfac Ofeae, undated).
The late president Mobutu of the Democratic Republic of Congo holds the record for financial plunder and national ruin. It is estimated that he stole $4 billion, leaving the country poorer than he found it, with ruined infrastructure and no formal economy to speak of. A close second to Mobutu is the late dictator of Nigeria, Sani Abacha, whose rule left 70 percent of Nigeria’s 120 million people living on less than one dollar per day. In Kenya, the Daniel Arap Moi dictatorship must be given credit for the systematic destruction of what used to be Africa’s economic showcase from the 1960s through the 70s. The authoritative Africa Confidential put Moi’s external bank holdings at $3 billion. In the so-called Goldenberg scandal, the Moi regime bolted with an estimated $1 biliion from its own central bank (12 percent of the national’s GDP), setting off a spiral of inflation, economic stagnation, unemployment, crime, ruined agricultural sector and decaying public services. (Testimony on the social and political costs of the theft of public funds by African Dictators: US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services by Michael Chege, University of Florida, May 9, 2002)
Recent surveys carried out by the World Bank in a series of developing countries to compare budget allocations to actual spending at the facility level have confirmed that resources are not allocated according to underlying budget decision. In Uganda and Tanzania, large parts of funds were diverted elsewhere or for private gain. (U4 Utstein Anti corruption resource website) Peter Machungwa, Home Affairs Minister, Godden Mandandi, Works and supply Minister were arrested on Tuesday night in connection with the disappearance of $2 billion in government funds.(Business Day, October 24, 2002) Paul Tembo, former deputy minister of Finance, was shot dead in his home hours before testifying in corruption trial of three cabinet ministers. (BBC News, July 9, 2001). Zambian police and politicians have been identified to be the worst corrupt elements in the country. (AllAfrica.com, March 1, 2001)
SOURC :TRACEAIDFor example, in 1997, the French Weekly Newspaper published these stolen assets of African rulers: General Sani Abaca of Nigeria, 120 billion FF (or $20 billion); former Ivorian President H. Boigny, 35 billion FF (or $ 6 billion); General Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, 30 billion FF (or $ 5 billion); the late President Mobutu of Zaire, 22 billion FF (or $ 4 billion); President Mousa Traore of Mali, 10.8 billion FF (or $ 2 billion).
Other names mentioned by the French Weekly were President Henri Bedie of Ivory Coast, 2 billion FF (or 300 million); President Denis N'guesso of Congo, 1.2 billion FF (or 200 million); President Omar Bongo of Gabon, 0.5 billion FF (or $ $80 million); President Paul Biya of Cameroon, 450 million FF (or $70 million); President Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, 200 million FF (or $30 million); and President Hissene Habre of Chad, 20 million FF (or $3 million). Bear in mind that this list does not reflect the actual amount of money stolen out of Africa by these dictators. Factually, the mentioned figures had changed significantly since the French Weekly article was published in 1997. There are now new African billionaires and millionaires, including indicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor, President Gabassinga Eyadema of Togo, former Liberian Warlord Alhaji Kromah, former Ghanaian dictator Jerry J. Rawlings, and the late President Samuel Doe of Liberia; a host of African government ministers would make an updated list. While returning funds stolen out of Africa is the right thing to do, efforts must be made by the West and responsible African governments {i.e. the government of Botswana, etc.} to alter international banking laws that will make it difficult for Africa's government officials and corrupt business personalities to transfer huge funds into western banks. The measure was first proposed following the September 11, 2001 attacks but was rebuffed by western financial institutions. Again, we need to revisit this issue: the terrorists could use the thieves in Africa's government Ministries to transfer money into western bank accounts—the money could be used at a later time for terrorists' activities