The Fallacies of J. B. Danquah’s Heroic Legacy

Dr. J. B Danquah

By: Botwe-Asamoah, Kwame, (2006-06-04)

(Introduction)

It is one thing adoring one’s kin and/or mentor regardless of his or her nefarious deeds and treasonable acts, and it is another thing trying to impose such an individual on a nation as a hero. Every nationalist, seeker of truth, sincere scholar and student of Ghana’s political history should have been deeply startled and traumatized by the sudden public utterances by President Kufour and the Okyehene Amoatia Ofori Panyin in February 2005, and the subsequent articles by Dr. Kwame Okoampa Ahoofe in a desperate attempt to turn Dr. J. Danquah into a “compatriot saint of Ghana.” In fact, the arguments they advanced in support of their mendacious claims suffer from a severe historical amnesia.

Criteria of National Heroes

An inventory of history shows that people who build social movements to wage protracted national liberation struggles against colonial and imperialist governments, as well as settler regimes are the ones who attain the status of national heroes.

Out of the struggles emerge outstanding personalities who, by their visions, intellectual astuteness and exemplary personal sacrifices, effectively inspired and articulated the wishes and aspirations of the oppressed people. Such struggles in Africa after the Second Imperial War produced historical personalities as Eduardo Mondlane, Agostinho Neto, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Amilcar Cabral and, of course, Kwame Nkrumah.

Critical to their protracted non-violent and/or armed struggles was the active agency of the ordinary people—women and men alike. As such, they advanced nationalist agenda that embraced all people irrespective of their ethnicities, social classes, gender and religious beliefs. Furthermore, such historical personalities invariably committed revolutionary suicide towards the freedom of African people. T

hese are the criterion that J. B. Danquah’s place in Ghana’s political history ought to be investigated and judged. Otherwise, dirty politics, false claims and public pronouncements by President Kufour and the Okyehene, as well as Dr. Okoampa’s simple-minded articles regarding Danquah as a “great patriot” and his alleged “criticism” of Kwame Nkrumah can seriously lead to falsification of history to achieve a short-term gain, as has been the case of the traitor Emmanuel K. Kotoka.

Dr. J. B. Danquah: The Prime Minister Ghana Never Had?

What is shocking about the campaign was President Kufour’s ill-mannered rewriting of Ghana’s political history in order to adore, as well as honor his political ancestor, Dr. J. B. Danquah. The president’s melancholic statement that “Danquah was the best Prime Minister Ghana never had” was an insult to the dignity and integrity of Kwame Nkrumah who uncompromisingly championed the course of Ghana’s independence at his personal sacrifice (violent attacks).

Also, the claim that Danquah was a “pathfinder, who blazed the trail for the country's independence” is out of sync with the facts of history. In Governor Burns’ constitutional reform in the late 1930s, Danquah pressed for the creation of an Office of Minister of Home Affairs for himself. But his prospect was jeopardized by his involvement in the barbaric murder of Odikro Akyea Mensah of Apedwa (one of the Amantoo-mmiensa towns) in February 1944. Odikro Akyea Mensah was one of the (over 80) children of Ofori Atta I, and had served as his personal clerk and tribunal Registrar.

His murder was to supply blood for the “blackening” of the ceremonial stool of the deceased and providing companion for the Omanhene in his journey to the under world. This barbaric act brought Danquah into conflict with judicial and executive authorities, thereby making him a persona non grata with Governor Allen Burns.

Defending the convicted criminals (four) sons of the late Ofori Atta I and four other royal members to the hilt were J.B. Danquah and Edward Akuffo Addo. After repeated appeals before the Privy Council in London to overturn the guilty verdict, Danquah went to the extent of mobilizing his political connections in England to obtain stay execution of the death sentences.

Hereafter, any effort by Danquah to secure personal representation of the non-traditional groups (farmers, trade unions and the Youth Congress) in the Legislative Council was doomed to failure. What a compatriot saint!

On hindsight, President Kufour’s lamentation over J. B. Danquah’s rejection by the people in the electoral votes to become their “best Prime Minister” in the Gold Coast or Ghana is a serious indictment of the Danquah himself. After the birth and popularity of the CPP, the Working Committee of the UGCC meeting in Saltpond in 1949 passed a vote of no confidence of Dr. J. B. Danquah’s leadership. And shortly after the CPP victory in the 1951 election, the UGCC collapsed. The CPP won 34 out of the 38 seats. Even, Danquah’s election to the Legislative Assembly in 1951 was through the municipal election/electoral collage and not by popular vote. The 1950 Coussey Constitution, which Danquah wholeheartedly endorsed, was not designed for the Africans to take over the Government. It was formulated “as an adaptation of the principle of indirect rule,” whereby “change would come through and with the consent of the traditional authorities.”

Furthermore, the office of Leader of Government Business had been set aside for the Attorney-General, an office for a British official. But through pressures from Nkrumah, the Governor, on March 5, 1952, addressed the Legislative Assembly that “the Leader of Government Business should disappear from the Constitution and that the Office of Prime Minister should be formally recognized.” Dr. J. B. Danquah not only opposed it, but he also characterized it as window dressing.

In his September 1, 1955 proposal to the Akyem Abuakwa State Council, Ofori Atta II warned that any stool heir in the state and royal member of Kyebi dynasty who supported the CPP would be committing subversive activities against the “chiefs and “Chieftaincy.” In the process, the Akyem Abuakwa State resources were mobilized in support of Danquah. The Okyeman’s great oath was also administered to 140 chiefs to declare their allegiance to Danquah and the NLM. Yet still, Danquah was defeated in the 1956 general election by his nephew, Kofi Asante Ofori Atta of Tafo. So, how could Danquah have become the best Prime Minister after the electorate in his Akyem Abuakwa Central constituency rejected him in the 1954 and 1956 general elections, including losing the votes in his hometown, Kyebi? What a heroic legacy!

Danquah the Anti-Nationalist and Secessionist

Perhaps, the best way to show Danquah’s anti-nationalist and secessionist stance is to pose the following questions: First, aside from his loyalty and collusion with the unlawful British colonial government and imperial British crown, what drastic measures did J. B. Danquah take to end colonialism in the Gold Coast? Second, how was he a national hero when he collaborated with his brother “Sir” Nana Ofori Atta I and the colonial government to suppress the Aborigines Rights Protection Society (ARPS) and the National Congress of British West Africa?

Third, in view of his total contempt for the ordinary people in the country, especially the so-called immigrant Kwahu, Ga, Krobo, Ewe, Northern, Juaben and Akwapim people in Akyem Abuakwa, how was he a nationalist? Fourth, was he not the one who called for Nkrumah’s neck and also rejoiced over Nkrumah’s imprisonment in connection with the Positive Action campaign in 1950? Fifth, did not Danquah and his brother, Sir” Nana Ofori Atta 1 use their convivial relationship with the colonial government to deport Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe from the Gold Coast in 1936, characterizing him as a nuisance in the country?

Sixth, why would the “nationalist” Danquah form the Gold Coast Youth Congress, a loose organization of literary club to the exclusion of the radical Wallace Johnson’s Youth League, the coastal intelligentsia and ARPS under Kobina Sekyi? Seventh, how on earth would the “doyen of Gold Coast” politics weep in jail like a child in connection with the national uprising against colonial injustices, and then blame his comrade “Ako Adjei for his part in recommending” Nkrumah to the UGCC?

Eighth, what were Dr. J. B. Danquah and his brother Nana Ofori Attah II doing at the Ga State Council where Nkrumah had been summoned to be reprimanded for his planned Non-Violent Positive Action against the British colonial government in June 1950? Ninth, notwithstanding his systematic campaign to banish Kwame Nkrumah from Accra as a “stranger,” as well as his repeated violent campaigns and collaboration with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah between 1951 and 1964, how was Danquah a “compatriot saint?”

Finally, how did the “great patriot” Danquah end up on the CIA payroll? The fact is, Danquah and his comrades did not only oppose everything that Kwame Nkrumah and his government proposed, did or stood for, but they also sought every means possible to deport Nkrumah from Accra as well as eliminate him physically from the political scene. Therefore, Dr. J. B Danquah’s so-called criticism of Nkrumah is a sham.

As history shows us, the dreadful traditional ruler Nana Ofori Atta I was very instrumental in the creation and implementation of the draconian indirect rule system in the colony. And it was to legitimatize and entrench Ofori Atta’s despotic rule in the three Akyem states that he asked Danquah to write the “Akim Abuakwa Constitution.” In fact, all the political actions that Danquah took were at the behest of the Ofori Atta dynasty, for the benefit of few educated elite and his own selfish interest.

On March 14, 1956, for instance, Danquah and his brother Ofori Atta II told a visiting parliamentarian delegation to Kyebi that “Party politics was an alien political form which” had “created civil strife and violent dissension between father and son.” Accordingly, if the British showed no understanding, Akyem Abuakwa would secede from the country “as a sovereign and independent state with the only rival of the Ashanti country.” A compatriot saint indeed!

Naming the University of Ghana after Danquah?

The call by the Okyehene to rename the premier university of Ghana after Dr. J. B. Danquah is the most absurd of the public statements. In 1951, it was Danquah who vehemently and steadfastly opposed the 1951 Local Council Ordinance Bill and the establishment of Cocoa Marketing Board introduced by Nkrumah’s internal-self government.

Thus, if Danquah had won the debate, the Kwame Nkrumah government would not have generated the requisite revenue for the first five-year development plan, containing the construction of the Volta River Project, Tema Harbor and City, Adomi Bridge, Okomfo Anokye Hospital, democratization of education, the Medical School and the planning and construction of the University of Ghana at Legon. In fact, the prerogative to rename the premier university of Ghana after any Ghanaian of repute, if necessary, belongs to the people of Labadi via their king and the Ga State Council and NOT the Okyehene Nana Amoatia Ofori Panyin and his Chief of Staff of Akyem Abuakwa. It was the king of Labadi who gave the land, La Goon (La Hill) to Kwame Nkrumah’s Government to construct the University of Ghana at its current site. 

On my list of such great persons of national importance are: 1) Nii Ayi Kushi, the founder of the Ga State by 1500; 2) Nii Kwabena Bonne, (by tradition the Oyokohene of Takyiman) who, in 1948, organized a nationwide boycott of European goods and the colonial injustices; 3) Sgt. Adjetey, a martyr and the leader of the Ex-Servicemen, who marched in 1948 to the Castle to demand the promises given them by the British government before the Second Imperial War; 4) Nana Dr. Kobina Nketsia, the Omanhene of Asikado, who was jailed for his protest against the imprisonment of Kwame Nkrumah in connection with the 1950 Positive Action campaign.

Furthermore, he served as the first Vice-Chancellor of the newly restructured University of Ghana and its separation from the University of London; and 5) Nana Akumfi Ameyaw of Takyiman, the leader of the Bono-Kyempem. It was due to his fortitude that saved the country from a bloody civil war, which was manifested in the declaration of secessionism by the NLM and the Northern Peoples Party (NPP) on November 20, 1956. We must bear in mind that President Kufour’s competitor for the 2000 NPP presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo and J. B. Danquah, both MPs representing two Akyem Abuakwa constituencies are directly or indirectly related to Dr. J. B. Danquah.

 So, the sudden public adoration of Danquah at the beginning of President Kufour’s second term comes as no surprise to some of us. For instance, after the CIA inspired military coup that overthrew the government of Kwame Nkrumah on February 24, 1966, this same Danquah-Busia camp via the military junta named the uncompleted Ghana’s international airport after Africa’s traitor Col. Emmanuel Kotoka.

Later, honorary doctoral degrees were conferred upon Major Afrifa and the Police Commissioner Harley for their traitorous act on behalf of the NATO block (read John Stockwell, Opoku Agyeman works and Komer’s report for details). In addition, Obetsebi Lamptey (partly responsible for the rapid bomb explosions in Accra between 1961 and 1962 that killed over three hundred children) and J.B. Danquah were named after two circles constructed by Kwame Nkrumah. What an Irony?

Indeed, imposing Dr. J. B. Danquah on the nation “as a compatriot saint” is a mockery of Ghana’s unitary government that Kwame Nkrumah fought so hard to achieve.

▲Dr. Botwe-Asamoah is the author of the Cheikh Anta Diop Award for excellence in scholarship book, Kwame Nkrumah’s Politico-Cultural Thought and Policies, published by Routledge.

Kwame Botwe-Asamoah, Ph.D.
Professor of African/African American History
University of Pittsburgh, PA 15260

ELECTION PETITION

WHO IS TALKING WHAT JUSTICE?

Dr Kojo 

By Ekow Mensah.

The 1992 constitution is very clear on who dispenses justice and what it is.

In article Chapter 1, Article (1) the constitution states inter alia “The sovereignty of Ghana resides in the People of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in the constitution”.

In article 125 (1) the constitution is emphatic that “Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this constitution.”

 Article 127 deepens the independence of the judiciary when it stipulates that “In the exercise of the judicial powers of Ghana, the judiciary, in both its judicial and administrative functions, including financial administration , is subject only to this constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority”.

The implications of these provisions are obvious, Justice is what the Supreme Court says it is and there cannot be any justice beyond the Supreme Court.

 It is indeed from this perspective that political leaders who are screaming that there can be no peace without justice in relation to the election petition before the Supreme Court ought to be seen.

 In reality what these politicians are saying is that they would only accept a verdict which favour them and that is blatantly subversive of the constitution.

 This is so because the constitution says without a doubt that justice can only be found in the judiciary and the ultimate power of the judiciary lies in the Supreme Court.

 Indeed, those who say that if the Supreme Court does not give them justice, then they will resort to other means of obtaining justice only betray their contempt for the 1992 constitution and their preference for anarchy and mayhem.

Perhaps, it is time to tell those blazing anarchists that the law enforcement agencies are ready for them.

The Supreme Court will make a determination in the case and it will be binding on all citizens of Ghana unless or until that decision is reviewed by the Supreme Court itself.

The doomsayers and anarchists are by their words and deeds exposing themselves.

Pope Francis

Francis' Message to Muslims for End of Ramadan

Promoting Mutual Respect Through Education

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices.

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced.

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you.
Happy Feast to you all!
From the Vatican, 10 July 2013

FRANCISCUS

(August 02, 2013) © Innovative Media Inc.

The Story of South African Farms

President Jacob Zuma

By Christopher Webb

In 2011 an investigation by Human Rights Watch into working conditions on South Africa’s wine and fruit farms drew international attention. The report documented numerous instances of human rights and labour abuses, including instances where workers faced physical abuse from farmers and were exposed to toxic chemicals. While the report was criticized by many in the agricultural sector for unfairly tarring all farmers with one brush, it played a crucial role in highlighting the prevalence of farm worker abuse in rural areas. It is clear that this violent facet of rural life has not disappeared.

The recent brutal assault of Flip Engelbrecht and his son, Flippie, by a farmer in Robertson in the Western Cape is illustration of this fact. In a Youtube video made and distributed by the family’s lawyer, Engelbrecht’s wife alleges that a wine farmer assaulted Flip and his son on two separate occasions. The brutal assault resulted in the son going deaf and developing epilepsy. During a seizure the son fell into a fire and was badly burned. Both of his hands had to be amputated.

Labour conditions in South Africa’s wine industry have received significant attention in recent years, largely due to the rise in wine exports and grower certification schemes. Many of these are aimed at improving working conditions for farm workers (particularly those with fair trade accreditation), although some have also been criticized as marketing opportunities preventing greater transformation. Labour groups in Sweden, a major importer of South African wine, have recently called attention to labour abuses on farms and have called on the state monopoly wine agent (Systembolaget) to tighten its purchasing guidelines. The following article by Mikael Delin appeared in the daily newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" (which was translated for us and kindly reprinted here):

Sweden’s Favorite Wines Made Under Poor Conditions

Some of Sweden’s favorite wines are made under lousy conditions on South African wine farms. Sweden has already consumed 16 million liters of South African wine this year, but workers may not taste the proceeds of the sale. Despite Systembolaget's ethical guidelines there are continuing problems of low pay and poor working conditions on wine farms in South Africa’s Western Cape province.

Just last year Swedes consumed nearly 34 million liters of South African wine. South Africa is the second largest wine exporter to Sweden, beaten only by Italy.

The working conditions of those South African workers supplying thirsty Swedes with wine have long been abysmal. According to Mr. Karel Swart of the Commercial, Stevedoring, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union (CSAAWU), farm worker’s salaries are not enough to live on, there are long working hours, and union members are threatened and persecuted. While the white vineyard owners drive expensive cars and live in luxury villas the workers are forced to work like slaves and live in leaky shack, he said.

The problem with the South African suppliers is not new for Systembolaget. To improve working conditions on South African farms, Systembolaget adopted a code of conduct on January 1, 2012 along with other Nordic alcohol monopolies. The code includes demands that suppliers comply with minimum wage laws, decent working hours, and have the right to join trade unions.

But the work has been slow. This year Systembolaget followed up with nine South African producers and found numerous deviations from the Code of Conduct. Improper overtime and a noncompliance with health and safety regulations were common.

Lena Rogeman, head of Systembolaget's sustainability efforts, is still positive. It shows that the guidelines make a difference, as we discover shortcomings. But we also see that it means very hard work. South Africa has had these problems for a long time, there is no quickfix, she says.

Union man Karel Swart says he sees no difference at all: The only major change in South Africa is raising the minimum wage, an increase of 52%. The increase came after months of strikes and violent protests. But the South African workers could not rejoice for long. While wages were raised farmers began to restructure their labour force and began to evict workers. For many workers rent increased, electricity costs tripled and free transportation was canceled. Increased wages was a great victory, a victory farm owners now are stealing from us, says Karel Swart.

Although employers control the living conditions of permanent farm workers almost as much as their working conditions, living conditions are not covered in the Systembolaget purchasing guidelines. But that may change, says Lena Rogeman. The employer raising the cost of living is a real problem that we think it is a severe problem, she says. We are involved in a project to update the code. Among other things, we are looking at including living conditions.

Those suppliers who get caught paying and treating their workers poorly risk much. This is a process of development, we are not trying to trap anyone. It is clear that if there is no sign of improvements, then we can remove the wine from the shelf. But we have never done that, it has not been needed, said Rogeman.

Is there God for test tube people?

By Yuri Nosovsky

How do religious morality and achievements of science coexist? Can we consider godly, for example, a scientific goal to achieve immortality by depriving an individual of the right to life after death? How is artificial fertilization, an analogue of Immaculate Conception, regarded from a religious point of view? Answers to these questions are sought not only by theologians.

There is no point in denying the influence of religion on certain social norms and scientific and technical progress. However, definitive conclusions should not be made either. The attitude of various religions to certain phenomena depends on many factors. First, it depends on a varying level of influence of the different views within the community, and second, changes from a historical perspective.

For example, in "good old England" where the Inquisition was eliminated along with the Catholic Church back in the 16^th century, up to the 19^th century there was a law demanding that those who attempted suicide and were saved at the last moment were to be executed based on a court sentence.  

Secret theft of corpses from graves by medical students who wanted to study the anatomy has long been a talk of the town. Now, however, Christianity is much more tolerant when it comes to the use of corpses as a teaching tool, and does not object organ transplantation. However, under Sharia law, autopsy even in forensic medicine is perceived extremely negatively.

Muslim jurists seem to be more progressive on the "in vitro fertilization" in case of infertility. For example, recently a fatwa (an Islamic version of a court decision) was adopted by the Islamic Center of Tajikistan about artificial fertilization for Tajik Muslims. It states that IVF is permitted, provided only husband and wife's embryonic cells are used. This is understandable, as the use of someone else's (or donor's) sperm for the procedure can be regarded as adultery not permissible under Shariah. In such cases, an alternative would be either a divorce (not welcomed by religions) or adoption.

This progressive for religious thinkers decision was due to the Islamic norm that the soul permeates a human fetus not immediately, but sometime after conception. Not all agree with this, because in the course of IVF several embryos are fertilized 'in vitro,' and in the event of failure of the first attempt, what should be done with the rest embryos? In Islam, by virtue of the above provision, there are no special ethical issues.

Christianity considers that the soul enters the embryo at the very moment of conception. While Russian Orthodox Church is fairly liberal with regard to "family planning" (in comparison with Catholicism, where all contraceptives are strictly forbidden) there is a negative attitude towards certain types of contraceptives. For example, "Intrauterine" that does not allow an already fertilized egg to penetrate the wall of the uterus.

The same principle lies in the basis of a negative attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards IVF. They say that leaving "leftover" embryos unused constitutes murder, therefore, this method of dealing with infertility cannot be used by devout believers.

Perhaps for these reasons, the birth rate in Tajikistan, and in general in the Islamic world, is very high, while Europe and Russia are simply dying out. Should some religious canons be brought in line with the objective reality and the desire of the congregation to have children conceived with the help of science?

It is clear that we have to be careful about any innovations in this highly sensitive area of ​​religion. Otherwise, it can take you too far. For example, now there is a popular idea of ​​"churching" of homosexuality among American Catholics, including the attempts to adjust the Scriptures in order to mitigate the terrible promises for the fans of "sodomy."

But what if they manage to recognize sodomy and prevalent in modern Western society hedonism as acceptable from a religious point of view? The retribution in this case will not even be tar and sulfur from the sky, as in the case of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, but simple extinction of the population over reasonable time periods, as it was in the case with the Serbs in Kosovo simply overtaken by Muslim Albanians in terms of growth in less than a century.

What was the result of "modernizing" of the religious attitude towards progress in the military sector? In the Middle Ages the Roman Pope published a special document prohibiting use of crossbows that greatly improved the accuracy and lethal outcome of shooting. Today, Hindus in Delhi, Muslims in Karachi and Tehran, Jews in Tel Aviv, not to mention the Judeo-Christians in Washington who were the first to drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations in Japan, are quite tolerant to nuclear weapons.  

It is hard to deny that only the remnants of a religious worldview do not allow modern Western society to use bare rational in the most sensitive areas. Execution of the failed victims of suicide like in medieval England is wrong. But what makes the modern society hospitalize survivors of suicide in "crisis units" of psychiatric hospitals, and not follow the increasingly popular trend in the secular civilization of the "human right to free choice," including the right to suicide? The answer would be the eternal religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life.

In some countries euthanasia is legal. So far, however, it is a legalized murder hidden under non-binding clauses like "severe suffering," which can be bypassed by any competent lawyer if we are talking about an inheritance from a long-living grandfather.

Although often religious norms may look archaic, their deep moral sense is even in a greater demand and relevant in our time of the collapse of moral standards. After all, faith is not only a mystical revelation, but the millennial experience of our ancestors. As a saying goes, we should not be shooting at the past so the future does not shot at us.

An economy is sustainable only when it respects the principles of ecology

It was the market that formed the current devastating economic model that, because it sustains itself on a scale of increasing production to "meet" exaggerated consumption levels, it squanders the main ecosystem services, depleting environmental resources above the regeneration capacity of the ecological system.

Marcus Eduardo de Oliveira (*)

Even this level of consumption is not being extended to all, it is seen to be concentrated in a few hands, and injures natural heritage substantially. The numbers that make this argument are illustrative: Just over 250 people, with assets exceeding $1 billion each, together have more than the combined gross product of the 40 poorest countries, where 600 million people live. The wealthiest 16% of the world are responsible for 78% of total world consumption. And 92,000 people accumulate in tax havens over $20 trillion. The 500 million richest people on the planet are responsible for 50% of the emission of carbon dioxide, exacerbating the greenhouse effect.

According to the report "The State of the World" (elaborated by the Worldwatch Institute) in 2008 68 million vehicles, 85 million refrigerators, 297 million PCs and 1.2 billion mobile phones were sold worldwide. The consumption in goods and services rose from U.S. $4.9 trillion in 1960 (calculated in USD at 2008 values), to U.S. $23.9 trillion (1996), reaching $30 trillion (2006), and $41 trillion, in 2012.

The sumptuous consumption, conspicuous in the " Economese language " rages apace, "consuming" the planet's natural capital. Spending on cosmetics annually in the U.S.  alone reaches the importance of U.S. $9 billion. Europe (with 740 million inhabitants) spends on cigarettes, also yearly, more than $50 billion and a further $105 billion is spent on alcoholic beverages. The annual global expenditure on armaments and military equipment is approaching $900 billion, while only $9 billion (so 1% of the sum that the major powers spend to kill innocent people) would be enough to bring water and sanitation for all the world's population.

This economic model of high production "fed" with exaggerated consumption, as we said, is destructive of the ecosystem's services. It is enough to see the widespread damage in the four ecosystems that provide our food - forests, grasslands, fisheries and farmland. Specifically, in these last two, the economic activity has manifested itself over time as being very invasive. Of the 17 known ocean fish stocks worldwide, 11 of them have withdrawal rates greater than the capacity to restock. Four billion hectares of the world's land surface are damaged. The last 50 years of economic activity account for 60% of the damage to ecosystems.

Related to this, population growth and hence their "needs", present at a faster rate than nature can bear. Excluding the deaths, every day 220,000 new people are born in the world - that  is, 80 million per year. Over the past 112 years, the population has grown more than 350%, from 1.5 billion in the year 1900 to the current 7 billion. Therefore, from 1980 until now, the global consumption of resources has increased 50% - each year 60 billion tons of resources are extracted.

When the material consumption exceeds the required level, well-being consequently declines. Perhaps this explains the need to create a new economy, a new economic model designed for the Earth - not for the market - and one which is considered sustainable, within the meaning of the term, only, and necessarily, if ecological principles are respected. Reaching this new stage of economic model it is necessary, beforehand, to change the modus operandi of the economic system.

It is unacceptable to keep it the way it is, creating increasing futile needs. That's how this model is supported, not worrying about fully meeting the needs of the population, but in continuing to create new productions to feed consumerism in general, of futility, while maintaining a high level in these "needs". For this, economic output is stimulated at a breakneck pace, "offering", as a sort of "reward", to the biosphere more pollution, more ecological degradation.

Programmed obsolescence (mechanism to shorten the life of the products thus forcing new sales) occupies considerable space in this dynamic. Just to illustrate: only in 2012, the Brazilian population discarded (threw in the trash) 200 million mobile phones.

Together with the insidious advertising industry (the second largest world budget, second only to military spending) the capitalist dynamics "surfs" that consumerist wave more and more. The one who suffers from it is the planet whose surface is scratched by the claws of this voracious consumption, albeit restricted to just a few hands.

Cardinal Appiah Turkson

CATHOLIC BISHOPS SPEAK

A STATEMENT ISSUED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN ACCRA

GREETINGS

"May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).

Fellow Ghanaians, our dear brothers and sisters In Christ Jesus and all men and women of good will, we, your Bishops, bring you greetings of peace and blessing.

At our extraordinary Plenary held in Accra, from August 6 to 8, 2013 to discuss issues relating to Church and State, we deem it important, necessary and urgent to address this message to you,our fellow countrymen and women, at this time when our nation is preparing to receive the verdict of the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the 2012 Presidential election results.

GRATITUDE TO GOD

God has been gracious to our nation, Ghana, and has blessed our country with peace and stability. For many years we have enjoyed peace in the midst of violent conflicts in neighbouring countries occasioned mostly by ethnic and electoral disputes, We thank God for the peace we enjoy and pray that He will continue to bless our nation with peace even as we the citizens, work to promote peaceful co-existence.

ELECTIONS AND ELECTION PETITION HEARING

Since the Fourth Republic began in 1992, Ghana has gone to the polls six times and on each occasion we have acquitted ourselves creditably earning the respect and admiration of the international community.

Today, Ghana is perceived as a functional African democracy and a model stable State. While we take individual and collective credit for this feat and seek ways of consolidating Ghana's democratic gains, the time has come for us to guard against political complacency which can derail the gains we have so far made.

For the first time in our electoral history, the election of a sitting President has been challenged in the Supreme Court, the highest court of our land. Having heard the petition, the Supreme Court is preparing to give its verdict and the nation is waiting.

As Shepherds of God's people, we believe that we have a divine duty imposed on us by our Lord and Master to be the prophetic voice and an instrument of peace in our country and to work with all stakeholders to ensure that Ghana develops in a peaceful environment. We have accomplished this duty over the years.

To this end, we wish to call on all citizens to continue to pray, work and champion the cause of peace before and after the verdict of the Supreme Court.
We, on our part, assure all citizens that we are praying for our country and all its citizens.

PEACE - INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

We believe that each one of us can and must contribute to greater justice and peace by reflecting seriously on our personal and collective responsibility in the current state of uneasy calm in our country.

We know that justice and peace go together. Indeed, there can be no peace without justice. In our democratic system of government, justice is dispensed through the judicial system. We are confident that our nine Justices of the Supreme Court will offer justice to the nation in their judgment. It is our prayer that in discharging this all-important duty, they will be guided by the Holy Spirit and that God will endow them with the necessary strength and courage to give the right verdict without fear or favour.

As we await the Court's decision, we encourage all Ghanaians to prepare their minds and hearts to receive the judgment that the Supreme Court will give in good faith and to see it as a victory for Ghana's democracy.

We wish to appeal to all Ghanaians not to celebrate or join any celebration after the verdict of the Court but to continue their normal daily duties to develop our country.

We call on the leadership of all political parties, particularly, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP), to accept the Court's verdict in good faith and to encourage their supporters to do the same.

We appeal to all Ghanaians to be calm before and after the verdict and refrain from provocative actions and utterances that can lead to violence and conflicts.

In this way, we will succeed in sending out a clear message to the world that our nation is at peace with itself and that it is a nation whose citizens live together and work together in spite of their differences.

We appeal to all media houses and social commentators to be circumspect in their commentaries on the case and to use their media platform, after the verdict, to encourage reconciliation and peaceful co-existence among all Ghanaians.

We trust in the ability of Ghanaians to remain calm in all circumstances especially in moments such as this and the ability of our security agencies to maintain peace and order at all times.

THE WAY FORWARD AFTER THE VERDICT

We wish to make a humble and passionate appeal to all Ghanaians that in whatever we do, we must always THINK GHANA FIRST. Our forebears sacrificed to bring our country to this position and it is now our turn to work together to safeguard the unity and stability that our country is enjoying.

In this regard, we encourage the eventual winner(s) to seek ways of building consensus and shared responsibility in tackling the core problems of our nation, namely, unemployment, corruption, polarization etc. This will eliminate the winner-takes-all syndrome in our body politic and unite all Ghanaians as one people.

We need not remind ourselves that we have only one nation called Ghana and we owe it a sacred duty to preserve It In peace and develop It for today and for posterity.

CONCLUSION

Fellow countrymen and women, brothers and sisters, peace is not just a gift to be received; it is also something to be worked for. Therefore, peace must be cultivated and people must be educated to work for it. We call on all Ghanaians and residents of our country to be involved in preaching, educating and advocating the cause of peace now and at all times. From now on, we call on all Catholics and all people of goodwill to continue to pray and make the Peace Prayer of st. Francis of ASSlSl their own:

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

Where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union;

Where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope;

Where there is darkness, light and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not seek so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal life. "

With st. Paul, we your Bishops say, "Brothers and sisters, be happy; try to grow perfect; help one another. Be united; Live in peace and the God of Love and peace will be with you" (2 Cor. 13:11).

God bless our homeland Ghana and make our nation great and strong. Thank you and God bless you all.

MOST REV. JOSEPH OSEI-BONSU

BISHOP OF KONONGO-MAMPONG & PRESIDENT, GHANA CATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE