Achimota Forest To Go

Achimota Forest

By Ekow Mensah

The Achimota Forest as it is known today may soon disappear.

It is to be replaced by what officials call an Amusement Park which will have restaurants, zones for general advertising, parking lots, drive safari and commercial enclaves.

Strangely, officials describe this transformation of the forest as environmentally friendly.

It is estimated to cost US$322, 434 million and implementation will last three years.

The question is how can the cutting down of the only forest belt in Accra to make way for hotels, shopping malls and restaurants be environmentally friendly?

Ms Barbara Serwaa Asamoah Deputy Minister of Lands and Natural Resources swears that “the project is financially viable, economically sound and environmentally sustainable”.

The snag is that the environmental assessment test for the project has not been completed.

According to issue number 17 of “The Insider” newsletter of the Forestry Commission “After the project has passed the environmental assessment test, most of the developments within the eco-tourism park would be financed through public- private partnership”.

The question arises who may the private partners be?

Ms Asamoah is more than flowery when she talks about the benefits of this project “it will contribute towards the creation of jobs, business development and enhance tourism and the hospitality industry in Ghana”.

Minister of Lands and Natural Resources Alhaji Inusah  Fuseini is himself over awed  by the project.

He says the Achimota Forest “will be developed into an eco-tourism show piece, taking into consideration the environmental impact assessment of the situation”.

This is incredible. Isn’t it?

Thoughts Of A Mysterious Man

With Ebow Duncan

NPP Chairman Jake Obetsebi Lamptey

FUN TIME FOR NPP

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) is having the fun of its life and believing that 2016 is already a done deal.

In their moments of total  the party leaders have completely forgotten their own petty squabbles over ethnicity and party funds.

They can’t even remember that their days in power were riddles with serious allegations of corruption, nepotism and flagrant abuse of power.

The then National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Haruna Esseku, voluntarily made stunning revelations about how the party was funded from the seat of Government and in the end he was prevented from chairing the national delegates congress in Legon.

There was also the case of presidential staffers grabbing the letter heads of the office of the President and using them to load their pockets in a most brazen way.

How can anybody forget  the award contracts for the supply of pre-paid metres to one of the first sons of the time and how the matter landed in court.

One of the witnesses in the case gave evidence of how the President himself sat in a meeting to resolve a conflict over how the booty from the deal needed to be shared.

 The scandals were just too many and it could not surprise anybody that the NPP eventually landed in opposition where it has remained and may remain for sometime.

All of these scandals have now been comfortably relegated to the background of history and Bagbin’s salvos at President Mahama are being relished.

Bagbin says that the President has not made himself available to receive his wise counsel and that the fight against corruption is not being pursued with vigor.

May we ask?

Has Bagbin reported any cases of corruption which have come to his notice to the Commission On Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)?

Has he ever been to the offices of the Economic And Organized Crime Organization with any complaints?

Doesn’t he know the road to the police station if he is aware of any cases of corruption?

Why does Bagbin need to speak to the President before he joins in the struggle against corruption?

Then there is the case of the “Citizen Vigilante” Mr Martin Amidu who has spent close to three years drawing attention to the allegation against Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

 Yes, Martin has done well and has won the admiration of many Ghanaians but is the Woyome case the only allegations of corruption in Ghana?

The NPP is behaving like a scavenger feeding fat on the rotten meat of an NDC which is confused at its very centre. An NDC in which the battle for turf is the only game in town.

 Before Bagbin opened his mouth and shouted at Flagstaff House, the heat was on in the NPP. The talk was about whether to elect Sir John on Kwabena Agyapong as General Secretary.

Some believe very strongly that the strange utterances of Sir John helped to confine the elephant to the bush and they hope that the election of a more refined guy or doll as General Secretary will pull the elephant into the Flagstaff House.

Well, you can imagine an elephant at the seat of government couldn’t it be worse than a bull in a China shop?

The NPP is having a lot of fun at the expense of the NDC simply because it appears that the NDC itself is missing the opposition.

 NPP’s fun-time is now because Alban Bagbin has worn his gloves and is teasing President Mahama into the ring in the belief that he can bloody his nose.

The fun also springs from the readiness of Martin Amidu to throw so much mud at his own party and its leader.

The truth is that by the end of its fun games, the NPP may still be saddled with a 72 year old presidential candidate who has tried three times to become President.

The fun games are on but they will come to an end.

INTERESTING HIGH COURT DECISION ON AFTERMATH OF DIVORCE

Chief Justice Georgina Woods

 NANA YAA KONADU }PETITIONER

VRS  

ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID } RESPONDENT

RULING

This ruling in respect of motion on Notice filed on behalf of the Petitioner Applicant; praying the Court for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondent/respondent herein or his agents, privies , assigns and whomsoever from bringing into the matrimonial house, House No. 233, Airport West, Dzorwulu, Accra and an of the building listed as being in dispute in this matter, the woman the respondent has recently married, or any other woman to cohabit or live therein or for any purpose and from harassing and intimidating the petitioner pending the final determination of the suit.

The gravamen of the petitioner/ applicant’s plea as contained in her affidavits in support is as follows:

“4 That on the 23^rd day of September, 2009 the marriage between us was dissolved by the Honourable Court, leaving the ancillary relief to be determined.

7. that I am reliably informed that the respondent has remarried and is about to bring the said new bride into house number 233, Airport West Dzorwulu, Accra which used to be our matrimonial home and where we are both still living and which is my property exclusively.

8. That even thought the marriage has been dissolved and he respondent is at liberty to remarry, since we are both still living together in what used to be our matrimonial home it is unfair for the respondent to bring in his new wife especially so since it is my contention and rightly so that this house is my personal property an does not belong to us jointly.

11. That the respondent has resorted to very unorthodox means of harassment, intimidation and threats to cow me into submission in order for him to bring in his new wife.

13. That unless restrained by this honourable Court, the respondent will bring in his new wife and will intensify the harassment and intimidation which would cause irreparable and irremediable traumatic hardship to me.

14. That extreme and untold hardship will be visited on me if the respondent is no restrained.”

In her paragraph 3 and 11 of her affidavit filed on 9/8/13 she denied paragraph 3 of the respondents affidavit in opposition quoted below. She reiterated the fact that H/No. 233, Airport West Dzorwulu, Accra was their matrimonial home during the subsistence of the marriage. But the said house belongs to her. She denied being a nagging wife and that the respondent’s claim to the said property is an afterthought .  She admitted she temporarily left the matrimonial home but this was due to the respondent’s violent conduct, constant intimidation, harassment and threats of death and attached Police Medical Forms, Court proceedings from the La District Court and the High Court to buttress her assertion that respondent constantly harassed and intimidated her, forcing her to temporarily leave the house. But since she has been ejected from where she sought temporary shelter she has to come back to the house she exclusively acquired. She again attached processes to that effect.

The Respondent opposed this application and per his affidavits in opposition filed on 9/7/13 and 31/7/13 averred as follows:

“3. That the depositions in the supporting affidavit consist mainly of fabrications and blatant untruths.

 5. That it is true that the marriage between us has been dissolved since September 2009 and determination of ancillary reliefs are still pending.

6. That although H/ No. 233, Airport West Dzorwulu, Accra is in the name of the Petitioner, it was the matrimonial home of the parties herein and that the petitioner only holds it in trust for both parties.

13. That the petitioner left the matrimonial home with her belongings immediately after issuing the Petition in 2009, and I have lived there alone ever since.

16. That it is truth that I have just married and I have indeed brought my new wife home to live with me because that is where I live.

18. That on 4^th July, 2013, at about 9:30 am the petitioner came to the house with about 12 macho men and a big cargo truck.

 21. That they off loaded petitioner’s belongings which were in the cargo truck into one room”

The Court has power under Order 25 rule 1 to grant an order of injunction when it is just and convenient to do so and the purpose is to protect asserted rights until the merits of the dispute can be determined.  In the case before us it is a fact that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved leaving the ancillary matters to be determined. It is again a fact that the petitioner applicant left the matrimonial home for a season due to what she alleges as intimidation, harassment and the violet behaviour of the respondent towards her. It is again a fact that she has returned to the house after she was ejected from where she sought shelter. Per the affidavit evidence, it is a fact that the respondent has remarried and wants the wife to join him in the house.

It is again a fact that the legal documents are in the name of the applicant, and on the face of the documents tended she owns the matrimonial home since at now no pronouncement or order has been made by the Court in respect of the properties acquired during the subsistence of the marriage.

Exhibit NK1 is an Indenture dated 1985 executed between on Kofi Addo Manukure as the assignor and the petitioner applicant as the assignee in respect of the property known as H/No.233 Airport West Residential Area. Again Exhibit NK2 dated 16/8/2002 shows that the respondent at a point in time relinquished all his interest in the property (if any)  to the Applicant. For emphasis I reproduce below extract of the said document, it is headed:

“PROPERTY DECLARATION BY ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID”

I Alhaji Abdul Rashid wish to declares as follows:

1.       That I have ceded all ownership interest of building number 233 airport West, another  building at airport west.... al to Nana Yaa KONADU....”

The above establishes the fact that the applicant has both legal and equitable right over the property. In Owusu Vrs Owusu-Ansah (2007-2008) SCGLR 870 at holding 1 the Supreme Court held that

“The fundamental principle in application for interim injunction is whether the applicant has a legal right at law or in equity, which the Court ought to protect by maintain the status quo until the final determination of the action on its merit...”

This means that the applicant herein has satisfied this criterion because she has the legal right at law and in equity. She has demonstrated that her plea for an order of injunction is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

In the American Cyanamid Co Vrs Ethicon Ltd (1975) 1 All ER 504 at 510, Lord Diplock stated some of the important principles of interim injunction as follows:

“....the governing principles is that the Court should first consider whether if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant’s continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial.”

Applying this to the case before us no amount of damages can compensate the applicant who is having the legal and equitable right to the property, to be locked out whilst her ex husband enjoys the property with his newly married wife. This is so “since the object of interlocutory injunction to protect the plaintiff against injury  by violation of her right which cannot be adequately compensated in damages.’

 On the hardship that could be caused, the Applicant stated as follows:

“14. That extreme and untold hardship will be visited on me if the respondent is not restrained.”

The applicant stated per affidavit evidence how the respondent had threatened her and sometimes assaulted her.  Exhibit YK1 is a police medical form issued to her when she was assaulted. It is dated 26^th October 2009, signed by a senior medical officer of the 37^th Military Hospital.  It stated among others that the applicant “reported about a third  episode of an alleged physical assault... Upon examination she looked shaken, the right middle finger was swollen and tender” ... and her blood pressure had shot up.

In exhibit YK2 the respondent was charged and put before the La District Court committing acts with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. He was warned by the Court to refrain from going to the applicant personally. The High Court Judge in Kumasi stated on 3^rd June 2011 of having seen the respondent chasing the applicant in an attempt to assault her so she had to be hidden by staff of the Court. Exhibit YK6 is also a medical report duly signed by another Medical Officer at 37 Military Hospital on 5/9/13 where the applicant was assaulted by the respondent. If the respondent is not restrained serious consequences will be occasioned and the applicant will suffer both physical and emotional hardships.

On the balance of convenience, From Exhibit NK2 dated 16/8/2002 signed by the respondent, portrays the applicant as a woman of substance. She will therefore be able to execute an undertaking which will serve as security. The Court appreciates the fact the grant or refusal of an order of injunction is discretionary, which should be exercise judiciously; having looked at the circumstance of this case the Court concludes that the applicant has a right which the respondent is using unlawful, unwarranted, lack of respect to intimidate, threatened and to sometimes use brute force on her to take and enjoy what lawfully belongs to her. It appears just and convenient to grant this order. The Court hereby restrain the Respondent/ respondent herein, his agents, privies, assigns and whomsoever from brining into the matrimonial house, House No. 233, Airport West, Dzorwulu, Accra and any of the building listed as being in dispute in this matter, the woman the respondent has recent married, or any other woman to cohabit or live therein or for any purpose and from harassing and intimidation the petitioner pending he final determination of the suit. In line with order 25 rule 9 the applicant is to execute an undertaken to indemnify the respondent. I find it incredible that a marriage that was dissolved as far back as September 2009 has not been completed, giving rise to all kinds of motions and applications.

The commander of the Airport Police is to offer the Petitioner /Applicant maximum protection against the unwarranted attacks of the Respondent/ Respondent.

Cost of GHȻ1,000.00 against respondent/ respondent

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER/APPLANT: G N K FIXION OWOO FOR CHRISTOPHER K KOKA

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT: EDWAR ANOKYE (ABSENT)

SGD. JUSTICE ELIZABETH ANKUMAH (MRS)

HIGH COURT

ACCRA

Grenada paid for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam

Morris Bishop

By Dalia González Delgado

What could lead the most powerful country in the world to invade a nation of only 110,000 inhabitants? Three decades ago, some 7,000 U.S. marines and parachutists occupied Grenada, in an operation labeled Urgent Fury. The capital of this Caribbean island was bombarded by aircraft, helicopters and warships.

The United Nations condemned the aggression. Ronald Reagan, who occupied the White House at the time, responded, "100 nations in the United Nations have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them where we are involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all."

This was the same President who when asked about the possibility of invading Nicaragua in 1986 said, " You're looking at an individual that is the last one in the world that would ever want to put American troops into Latin America, because the memory of the Great Colossus of the North is so widespread in Latin America, we'd lose all our friends if we did anything of that kind."

The events of October 1983 took place within the framework of an effort by Reagan, elected in 1981, to reestablish what in the view of neoconservatives was "the needed recovery of the U.S. military's ability to coerce," according to Cuban political scientist and researcher Dr. Carlos Alzugaray.

"In the perception of this group, there existed what they described as a growing danger, evidenced by revolutions in Iran, Nicaragua and Grenada; Cuba's support to struggles in Angola and Ethiopia; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and other international events," the expert told Granma.

"They believed that all of this was due to the weak image projected by the United States after the defeat in Vietnam and the policy they described as pacifist which President Carter had implemented: a canal agreement with Panama, tolerance of the Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan support for revolutions in Central America, the Camp David Accords between Israel and Palestine, a pacifist policy in Europe, to give just a few examples."

Thus the current debate about the relative loss of power on the part of the United States - exacerbated by developments in Syria - has a precedent in the 1970's. 1979, when Maurice Bishop and his revolutionary New Jewel Movement came to power, was also the year of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. This was compounded by a decade of economic crisis.

The U.S. needed a show of force to make clear that the country still had the resources, and the will, to protect its strategic interests wherever they might be challenged, Alzugaray said.

"The Caribbean Basin was, for many, the perfect site, a location in which the relationship of forces favored the U.S. given the closeness and overwhelming military advantage.

"Both Nicaragua and Grenada were considered vulnerable," Alzugaray continued, "but different strategies were followed in the two countries: a covert war against the first, with support to reactionary regimes in the area, and an open invasion of the latter, once propitious conditions existed."

Grenada's revolutionary process fell victim to internal contradictions. The new government had disarmed the police, created a Popular Assembly with representation and participation by all social layers; began the redistribution of land; supported access to health care and education. More than 2,500 people had learned to read and write by 1981. Nevertheless, one segment of the leadership questioned Bishop's politics and demanded more radical positions. This led to his destitution, arrest and assassination on October 19, 1983. These were the conditions under which the U.S. mounted the invasion.

The most powerful country in the world is today experiencing the erosion of its hegemony. When faced with a similar situation in the past, the U.S reacted by attacking a small country. How might it respond today?

There were and are two possible reactions, then and now, said Ernesto Domínguez, from the University of Havana's Center for Hemispheric and U.S. Studies (CEHSEU), speaking with Granma: "Assume the decline and attempt to manage it in such a way to preserve a privileged position, or try to detain the process by resorting to the use of force, with several concrete objectives, such as giving a show of power, reaffirming geo-strategic positions, controlling key resources or stimulating the economy with military spending."

However, Dr. Domínguez commented that there are important differences between that historical moment and the present. "In the first place, at that time we were still in the middle of the bi-polarism of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This added a factor which does not currently exist, one of an identified rival with which to compete, and a relationship of understandable confrontation-equilibrium," the professor asserted.

"At that time the decline was more apparent than real, given that the rival in question was in the process of internal disintegration which was not evident until a few years later, but which was already having serious effects, while the United States was far from this. The movements in Latin America and the Third World in general were strongly connected to the USSR in many ways.

"Currently, the relative decline appears more real, since multi-polarity is an emerging process, albeit with still a long way to go. Latin American movements do not depend on a socialist camp or on a power counterpoised to the United States. The current leftist and revolutionary movements have their roots more openly and solidly established in national and regional realities and contradictions, and they themselves are attempting to construct alternatives of integration," Alzugaray said.