Monday 21 December 2015

TAKE OVER OF KETA LAGOON FOR $30,000



7000 acres of Keta Lagoon given to Kensington Industries limited
By Duke Nii Amartey Tagoe
It has happened again! The pillage goes on and on. The Keta Lagoon in the Volta Region has been handed over to a salt mining company for $30,000 (Thirty Thousand Dollars).

The deal between the Ghana Minerals Commission and Kensington Industries Limited of India, will enable the company grab 7000 acres of the entire lagoon whilst 300metres at the periphery representing 3 percent (3%) of the lagoon will be left for the local salt miners.
What is worse, the company has departed from the agreement it signed with the Minerals Commission to use sea brine for salt production and has resorted to the use of surface water and underground pool by means of pipes and very huge pumping machines.

It has also emerged that long before Kensington Industries Limited was granted a licence to mine salt in the Adina-Denu area, it had already encroached on lands belonging to the neighboring communities in flagrant violation of the Mineral and Minning Act.

Babulal Goud, New MD, Kensington Industries Limited
In a letter dated 18th November 2009 addressed to the elders of the Dogbekope Community , Rajesh Mehte, a director of the company, “acknowledged having encroached on their lands unlawfully without having been granted a licence. We  apologise and withdraw immediately.”

Janet Aglodo, a salt miner said “the fresh water, that used to flow from Togo into the lagoon, bringing in fish in the rainy season has been blocked by roads and dams constructed by the company. As a result the annual fishing and salt winning seasons that used to bring relief to the people have become a thing of the past since the lagoon dries up prematurely.”

An immovable fishing input on which fish traps were laid in the lagoon and which served as roosts and breeding grounds for water birds has been destroyed.

“It is highly unthinkable and we would have thought that by now the government, which we massively support and rally behind, would have made a statement. How can this government apportion the Keta Lagoon to foreigners to the neglect of his own subjects and indigenes who derive their entire livelihood and very existence from the lagoon” said Cynthia Gali of the of the Ketu-Keta Salt Winners Association.

Mr Pascal Lamptey, MCE, Ketu-South
Pascal Lamptey, Municipal Chief Executive (MCE) of the Ketu South Municipal Assembly has confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to undertake a proper environmental impact assessment before the license was granted to the company. 

He revealed that Kensington Industries Limited reneged on its promises to provide some infrastructure for the area as part of its corporate social responsibility and that has led to mistrust between the two parties.

Mr Lamptey said as a representative of the President of Ghana in the area, his most crucial obligation is to ensure that investment was brought to the area and jobs are created for the teeming youths. 

According to him the government seeks to relegate under-development to the past by encouraging foreign investment in places that production was low for rapid growth. He said he has set up a sensitization committee to help the community and the company co-habitate with each other, leading to what be believes would bring about “peaceful development.”

That assertion by the Municipal Chief Executive has however  been challenged by the National Coalition on Mining of the Third World Network (TWN). The coalition has expressed shock at the displacement and the destruction of the livelihood of more than three thousand eight hundred and ninety eight people (3898) in one single swoop.

The TWN contends that the major task and expectation of the Kensington Industries Limited is to make super profits for its shareholders back home by the use of cheap labour and wondered how the local people will benefit from this deal.

In a letter dated 25th January 2010 and addressed the Managing Director of the Kensington Industries Limited, Kofi Tetteh, Principal Sectoral Planning and Policy Officer of the Ghana Minerals Commission stated that the Commission has “favourably recommended to the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources to grant you a fifteen year licence to mine salt in the Keta Laggon”

ASP Naa Atolgo Agbogne
ASP Naa Atolgo Agbogne at the Agbozome District Police Command has confirmed the arrest of some sixteen people in the recent clashes between the company and the youths of the area on the 2nd of December 2015.

According to him, such disturbances by the youths had halted operations of the company and had rendered it incapable of producing for a very long time. He wondered how the company could meet its corporate responsibilities in the area when they were being prevented from doing business.

The sixteen local salt miners are languishing in jail at the Keta Divisional Divisional Command whilst another receiving treatment for bullet wounds at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital has been chained to his bed to avoid escape as he awaits prosecution.

Editorial
Something Is Wrong
The Afienya Youth Leadership Training Centre was perhaps the first of its kind
It was established as a collaboration between the National Youth Council (NYC) and the Frederich Neumann Foundation of the then West Germany.

The centre was to train young people in animal husbandry, crop farming, blacksmithing, building construction and other areas of interest.

After graduation, the products of the centre were to be encouraged to form cooperatives around the country to provide employment for themselves and young people in their communities.

The graduates were also seen as stimuli to accelerated rural development.
So far about nine of such institutions have been established throughout the country over a period of about 42 years.

The sad thing is that these centres are collapsing as a direct result of lack of funding.
However, how can we say that we have a serious commitment to fighting youth unemployment when we allow these institutions to collapse?

Who will save the Youth Leadership Training Centres?

Something is definitely wrong!

BOAKYE DJAN UPS HIS GAME


Osahene Boakye Djan

By Ekow Mensah
Major Kojo Boakye Djan , spokesperson of the erstwhile Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) is most certainly moving up the ladder in the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

Last month he stunned many loyalists of former President Jerry John Rawlings when he comfortably won elections to become the party’s parliamentary candidate in the Jaman constituency in the Brong Ahafo region.

Boakye Djan who has had “political and ideological” problems with Mr Rawlings since the heady days of the AFRC surprisingly joined the NDC on his return from exile.

This is in spite of the fact that Mr Rawlings is widely acknowledged as the founder of the NDC and continues to retain substantial influence in the party.

It is difficult to predict what Boakye Djan’s next step would be after this victory.
He first contested and won election to become the Chairman of the NDC in the constituency on his return from exile.

Boaky Djan is confident that he will become the next Member of Parliament for Jaman insisting that “nothing can stop me now.”

FOOD POISONING
420,000 People Die Every Year


By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
For the first time in history the World Health Organization has produced estimates on how wide-reaching are the effects of food poisoning. Namely, one in ten people are affected each and every year and up to half a million people die from this - a third of these children.

The World Health Organization has completed the most comprehensive report on food borne diseases in history: "Estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases". This report reveals the shocking statistics that ten per cent of people every year fall ill with food borne diseases, 420,000 people die of these and among these are 125,000 children.
Africa and South-East Asia, as always

The worst-affected regions are Africa and South-East Asia and according to the report, the main causes of food borne diseases are 31 agents, among them bacteria, viruses, parasites and toxins. And also, chemicals. So if a packet of cigarettes has a health warning, why don't packs of food?

600,000,000 people fall ill each and every year to food borne diseases, this being translated into around one tenth of the world's population, or one in ten people. Over 550,000,000 people fall ill to diarrheal diseases every year, resulting in 230,000 deaths. Among these, children account for 220,000,000 patients, and 96,000 deaths yearly.

According to the WHO report, the main causes of diarrheal diseases are eating raw or undercooked meat, eggs, dairy products or fresh products contaminated by norovirus, Campylobacter, Salmonella, typhoid fever, hepatitis A, Taenia solium, aflatoxin, foodborne cholera and E.coli.

Campylobacter, a pathogen prevalent in high-income countries
The report identifies Campylobacter as a pathogen prevalent in high-income countries and typhoid fever, E.coli and cholera as being more prevalent in low-income countries. The countries most at risk are those in the middle and low-income brackets and the vectors involved are unsafe water, deficient hygienic conditions, bad storage and production practices, deficient literacy skills and education levels and an absence or lack of proper legislation.

The report identifies food poisoning as short-term (vomiting and diarrhea) and long-term (cancer, kidney failure, liver failure, brain and neural disorders). Evidently, children, the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems are most at risk, and children who have been contaminated with food borne diseases can suffer from impaired development and long-term impacts on their lives.

Firstly, we need to know what is in the food we buy. If there are potentially or actually harmful elements, while a small dosage might not be dangerous, prolonged exposure might be, in which case we need a health warning as we see on packs of cigarettes. If genetically modified products are present in the food, we also need to know because science has not yet produced any conclusive evidence as to the safety of consuming such elements.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru 

Editorial
Speaking Clearly
As we move towards the end of 2015, our newsstands and airwaves have become very busy with number of claims and counter claims.

Such diversity should ordinary help the readers or the audience to make sense of what is going on. Unfortunately in our context, this is not the case as the various accounts appear to have no common basis.

Information and allegations are provided without any attempt to provide context and present alternatives so readers can make their own appreciation is whether the course followed was sensible or not.

With regard to finding solutions the current power crisis for instance, it is obvious that the number of options is many but not all are wise or practical, therefore the assumption is that whatever we choose will take into consideration what would give us the quickest, most cost effective and most sustainable relief.

Obtaining such a solution is neither simple nor easy and whatever decision is taken will have advantages and disadvantages. It is in order to ensure that one individual or party does not take advantage of excuses to take bad decisions that we have other bodies and processes to ensure that no one is taking advantage for private gain.

This is why in the matter of the AMERI Energy Deal, it now sounds very odd to hear that although the Parliamentary sub-committee on Energy deliberated on it before passing it on for the full Parliament to either endorse or reject, which it endorsed, we are now being told that something was amiss because some journalists in Norway have made allegations against the agreement.

Are we therefore saying that those Norwegian journalists are somehow better at understanding the agreement than our Parliamentarians with representatives from the two major parties?

We do not think so that simply because accusations are coming from foreign sources they are automatically more solid that the work of our representatives.

Whatever the case we still have a duty to understand what is going on so we can fight for the best for the country.

One way of doing this however is to diligently and comprehensively obtain all the relevant facts so we speak to it or not around it.

Friday 18 December 2015

KWAME NKRUMAH VS. DANQUAH-BUSIA: THE STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF GHANA IN AN ERA OF SUBTERFUGE


JB Danguah (L) Abrefa Busia (R)

By Morpheus
I preface my initial comments with the fascinating observation that, for the entirety of her life as an independent country, Ghana has contended with the cream of its thought leaders in a permanent division as to Nkrumah’s merits. Too many of his admirers, he could do no wrong, he was a saint, saviour and messiah rolled into one; too many of his detractors, Nkrumah was the worst thing to have happened to Ghana and all her ills, past and present are attributable to him.

It is not difficult to conclude that with so much energy dissipated by both sides on the late leader, there has been little room for constructive engagement with the real facts of our recent history and the causes of our hitherto disappointing performance as a budding nation. The hope and promise encapsulated in the nascent Ghana, as a beacon of light that helped bring the rest of sub-Saharan Africa out of the long darkness of slavery and colonial exploitation has been squandered, at the altar of internecine bickering and petty self-seeking.

Dr Kwame Nkrumah
I hasten to add here that apart from sharing the same nationality, race and common humanity with him, I have no special credentials for wanting to pronounce on this remarkable man. It is probably sufficient to say that entirely on the back of some of the appalling efforts that have been made by previous writers on the man, I have concluded that I am as entitled to write about Kwame Nkrumah as anybody else out there; who knows, it may even be that something of what I say here might help one objective person make some sense of the plethora of information available on the man. If I achieve just that, I would be happy to walk away in the knowledge that I had succeeded in shedding a little light where all too often, there has been an excess of heat. So here goes.

Quite apart from reading some of Nkrumah’s own writings to help gain some insight into the man and his mind, it has been a revelation to explore some of the literature out there on Nkrumah. Much of it was skewed too far one way or the other, reflecting the enduring polarisation that characterises any discussion on the man. Far more useful to me were those tomes that exhibited real objectivity and some academic rigour.

Of these, I would recommend the following: (1) Ghana 1957-1966, Ben Amonoo, Allen & Unwin pub, 1981 (this book was a revision and enhancement of the author’s doctoral thesis presented to the University of Exeter in 1973), (2) Kwame Nkrumah, The Political Kingdom in the Third World, David Rooney, IB Tauris pub. 1988, (for his book, the author, a specialist on Ghana from Cambridge University, unearthed unpublished material in Ghana, Britain & the U.S., where he had accessed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) papers; and (3) By Nkrumah’s Side, The Labour and the Wounds, Tawiah Adamafio, Rex Collings, London pub, 1982.

Dr Nkrumah in his mid-ages
By design, I have chosen to write on an aspect of Nkrumah that seems to me, pivotal to any real understanding of his failures and achievements as the Gold Coast’s and Ghana’s first indigenous leader. This was his relationship with J B Danquah, who led the opposition to Nkrumah’s leadership up to and after independence, until his incarceration and death in prison.

The competing narratives on Kwame Nkrumah have run something approximating to the following; from the Danquah/Busia camp, an assertion that the former was a usurper who snatched power from those more suited and entitled to it, hogged the same and thereafter became a tyrant who had to be removed by any means, fair or foul. The version from the Nkrumahist camp runs that, having been bested in fair political contest, the Danquah/Busiah camp refused to accept the democratic decision of the people, fought tooth and nail from the pre-independence era, until they finally succeeded with external assistance in substituting their will for that of the people.

The history books abound with enough information for a credible academic treatise to be written on the subject; I do not intend to undertake that exercise myself and I doubt that any competent scholar will be looking to me to provide them with the sources for such an enterprise here. What I propose to do is set out my own interpretation of the salient points concerning the issue, based on my analysis of the data that I deemed credible. Hopefully, this will trigger a reasoned conversation, devoid of histrionics or hyperbole to our mutual edification.

J.B Danquah
Any attempt to disparage the contribution made by J B Danquah to Ghana’s independence movement would be counter-productive, the simple reason being, an abundance of objective evidence that his exertions to that effort were substantial both in scope and depth. The problem only arises when his acolytes insist that his efforts were exceptional, because they were not. Now, it may be that, if Danquah had had the opportunity to lead the country as he clearly wanted to, he might have led us into prosperity, peace and harmony. We will never know this, however, because he failed to jump the first hurdle for any true democrat, in pursuit of legitimate political power – that of persuading his people that he had a vision of a future that reflected their aspirations.

Both in the general elections of 1954 and 1956, his vision of the future for Ghana and its people were thoroughly rejected at the ballot box, the people exercising their preference for the vision proffered by Nkrumah instead. In any credible analysis of the Nkrumah/Danquah question this should be the starting point for any reckoning of right or wrong on either side. This failure by the Danquah/Busia camp, to obtain the mandate to govern was even more remarkable because, both elections were held under the auspices of the British colonial government, who had a clear preference for the United Party (UP), as its leadership comprised many with “royal” pretensions, merchants, “intellectuals” and petit bourgeoisie, most of whom had bought into the British system of government by patronage, legalised coercion and subterfuge.

Short of physically putting Danquah into power, the British did everything they could to assist Danquah and his cohorts in their quest to succeed them. This included arresting and locking up members of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) leadership, including Nkrumah himself, in the process.

Notwithstanding the covert assistance given to the Danquah/Busia camp at both elections, they singularly failed to persuade the people of Ghana to vote them into power. Indeed, in the final election before independence, the verdict was so overwhelming, that out of 37 seats in competition, the CPP won all but 2 of them!

To add insult to injury, Danquah himself failed to win the seat he contested! What is instructive about Danquah and his conduct at the time is that, on each rejection by the people he claimed he wished to serve, his reaction was neither noble nor democratic. Refusing to accept the will of the people, he went to the ‘mattresses’ with his allies, just like common mafia hoodlums, orchestrating the destruction of property, the killing and maiming of innocent citizens and generally disrupting the conduct of government business.

It has always seemed a bit rich when Danquah’s supporters seek to make out that their man was a law-abiding advocate of democratic principles, even as all the objective evidence suggests that his reputedly formidable intellect notwithstanding, he was merely a power-hungry megalomaniac, with an overblown sense of entitlement and a distinct inability to deploy what cerebral skills he possessed, to achieving a better understanding of the people’s aspirations. A misconceived sense of infallibility meant that, in spite of the clear rejection of his message by the very people he sought to lead, he was prepared to use any and all non-democratic means to frustrate the will of the people; these included terror, separatism, tribalism and any other bit of subterfuge that came to his undoubtedly fecund mind.

JB Danquah
It was most revealing to discover in my reading, that when he realised he could not lead the country as it was constituted, Danquah and his lot, had been prepared to fight not only for federalism in that tiny country but, when even that eluded them, he was prepared to have the country dismembered so that he could lead a new off-shoot nation from the debris, comprising the “Akyim Abuakwa kingdom”! Indeed, when it appeared to him at a point that independence would be achieved with Nkrumah at the helm and not him, he saw nothing wrong with arranging delegations to the very colonizers who had appropriated our country and its people for their own ends, to plead that we were not yet ready for independence.

There is much in our history that is shameful, but I can think of few more shameful, than an educated Black man, appearing in the hallways of power in the citadels of the white man, arguing that they should continue to retain the forced ownership of our country, its people and resources because unlike all other men, we were not yet ready to look after our own destiny!

So this was the man at the head of the opposition to the government that Nkrumah led from 1954, when he became Head of Government Business until the dawn of independence. On the one hand, Nkrumah, hedged about by the constraints of laws, many of which had been legislated by an exploitative foreign invader, on the other, Danquah, a thoroughly ruthless operator, unencumbered by any concept of respect for the rule of law, any law.

The question then is how, with such damning evidence against him, a myth has taken hold that Danquah was the democrat, law abiding nationalist, who was hounded to his death by the tyrannical, anti-democratic, power-hungry Nkrumah? This is where one has to acknowledge the creative genius of the Danquah/Busia “conspiracy”, as I refer to it. Taking a leaf from the play book of the Washington/London axis, they constructed a new, sanitised narrative, entirely false of course, but kept hammering it home so often, that inevitably, it took hold in the consciousness of at least, some of the people. Once this had been achieved, it was time to enlist the help of their external benefactors in Washington and London, who brought to bear their formidable array of weapons of intrigue. These included to start with, engineering a subtle external credit drought, manipulation of cocoa prices and other obstructive devises geared towards wearing down Nkrumah’s regime in its desire to achieve the objectives for which it had obtained the people’s mandate.

Abrefa Busia
That Nkrumah was able to achieve anything at all in his relatively short tenure in office, is a tribute to the man’s tenacity and refusal to bow to malevolent pressure from within and without. The deck was quite simply, stacked against his project from the start, with any hope of success of his policies sandwiched between the crushing counterforces of a disloyal, seditious and violent political opposition, allied to a hostile parallel government comprising the senior civil service at home, underpinned by a virulent external campaign waged mainly from London and Washington. In the case of the civil service, the systematic sabotage to the implementation of government policy is more lucidly detailed in Benjamin Amonoo’s erudite book cited above and I urge the reader to invest in a copy for their own enlightenment.

Further testament to Nkrumah’s democratic credentials is set out in a book also cited above, by the socialist lawyer, Tawiah Adamafio, famously imprisoned by Nkrumah during the frenzied period of assassination and treason attempts. Adamafio paints a picture of an incredibly fastidious democrat, who was at all times, concerned about working within the law and where the law needed changing, doing so in accordance with the existing rules. His frustration with Nkrumah for not going far enough in changing the system is palpable. The irony of Adamafio’s incarceration by his own side and subsequent release by the Danquah/Busia-sponsored junta only makes it more remarkable that, writing nearly two decades after the event, he was prepared to concede Nkrumah’s basic decency and adherence to lawful democratic precepts.

Even as I observe with horror, the travesty that passes for “multi” party politics as manifest in the U.S. over the last few years, the straightjacket of a one-party state is one I would not wish even on my worst enemy. The ferment and competition in ideas is the stuff of human progress and any system that restricts that process, in effect, curtails human progress. No prize is worth that diminution in freedom of thought and if I make any criticism of Nkrumah, it is that he ever resorted to that desperate measure.

However, I entirely appreciate the desperation under which he operated at the time; at home, he had no partners in democracy, as the opposition from the onset was disloyal to the country itself (CIA papers now available include a note written by Danquah to his CIA handler, enquiring about delay in a payment to his wife, during his incarceration and we now know how much Lieutenant General Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka (1926–1967) and Brigadier Akwasi Amankwaa Afrifa (1936 –1979) received from the Americans to stage the coup that ultimately put Kofi Abrefa Busia (1913 –1978) in power; the civil service, exposed the myth of impartiality by running a parallel government dedicated to frustrating the elected government’s policies which, they were professionally and legally obliged to implement; to enhance this toxic brew further, abroad, Nkrumah faced the implacable, active enmity of the Brits and the Americans. It might have been possible to endure British hostility and survive, for after all, its power and influence had long been on the wane, but even now, what country on earth has what it takes to survive active hostility from the U.S. and still prosper?

It is instructive to note that, Nkrumah was really only in full control of the levers of political power for merely 6 years of his time in office, before he was undemocratically removed from office. Prior to that, he had operated under the constraints imposed by the British government from 1954 -1957 and from 1957- 1960, the pre-republican constitution. The advances in development that the country achieved during those 6 years were breath-taking in their own right, considering the British had been in charge for over 100 years and, save for a few roads and an anaemic railway, built specifically to help them extract the gold and other resources that were of interest to them, left the territory essentially in stone-age condition, with a measly “endowment” of some £300m, to build a whole new country; when it is considered that it was all achieved in the teeth of the internal treachery briefly described above and constant threats from powerful external forces, it is almost a miracle in human terms.

Since Nkrumah’s departure, the Danquah/Busia camp has had power for 14 years, in 3 of which they had absolute power under the junta – it would be interesting to put side by side, Nkrumah’s achievements in his 6 years, and their achievements over the 14 but that would be for another discussion. On this occasion, my contention is that as between Danquah and Nkrumah, the facts unequivocally indicate the latter was the democrat and the former was anything but.

Undefeated, Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah
I’d also recommend that if you never read any other of Nkrumah’s books, do yourself a favour and read “Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism”. Even today, stripped of some of the Marxist jargon that was popular with liberation practitioners of the day, the book is an amazing analysis of exploitative capitalism, how it works, its’ various tentacles, from financial institutions to the extractive conglomerates and how it protects itself from legitimate censure. What is even more impressive is that, Nkrumah wrote this book while in the thick of literally fighting for his very life, at the same time as struggling, against formidable odds to realise the vision he had sold to his people to rid them of the scourge of centuries of humiliation, tens of decades of servitude and colonial exploitation. In his last years in office end, no man was more hounded than Nkrumah, yet he maintained his dignity right to the very end.

It is a source of considerable personal pride that, in spite of a herculean effort over the years, mounted by the U.S. and Britain in their propaganda, and by the Danquah/Busia establishment, including costly probe after probe, not one penny of asset has been found stashed anywhere that would support any claim that Nkrumah was personally corrupt. Contrast that with the documented accounts of corruption from Danquah/Busia to the present incarnation of that tradition and Nkrumah’s reputation begin to look even healthier even as the years move on.


My final comment at this stage of what I hope will be a lively discussion is that, Nkrumah was an exceptional individual, uniquely qualified to serve the purpose, which he chose for himself, of facilitating the emancipation of his people. He possessed the intellectual heft to understand the true situation of the Black man, leading him to conclude that the independence of Ghana would be meaningless, unless it was aligned with that of the rest of Africa. All that has occurred since he uttered those sentiments indicate the enduring veracity within those words. They are as true today as they were when he said them. That is why the world over, his reputation continues to grow amongst Africans, people of African descent and the fair minded. History will vindicate him with recognition of his true worth. In respect of his key historical antagonists, there is no indication of any growing interest in the life and achievements of either Danquah or Busia; given the dearth of any meaningful achievements other than the personal in that regard, perhaps that is understandable.

The Author:Morpheus is a Scribe at Grandmother Africa. He has been practicing and teaching law in England and Canada since 1995 and dabbling in the study of history and the political economy that guarantees the perpetuation of the current iniquitous order. Whatever Morpheus may be, he is certain he is neither a practitioner of the dismal 'science' of economics nor of political science, which he considers to be an oxymoron. There is no science to politics!


Editorial
Ethnic Politics
Every Ghanaian who wants to see Ghana’s democratic experiment, thrive must be seriously worried about the incitement of Konkombas by Mr Daniel Bugri Naaba, Northern Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) against President John Mahama and his government.

Mr Bugri Naabu has urged Konkombas to vote against President Mahama and the NDC because he has failed to appoint a Konkomba as a Minister.

It is unfortunate that Mr Bugri Naabu believes that the appointment of one Konkomba as a Minister regardless of his class or social interest will resolve problems facing the country.

He does not see that the problem of underdevelopment in Ghana as a challenge for all Ghanaian people irrespective of their ethnic origin.

People like Mr Bugri Naabu only poison the political atmosphere and should be discouraged by their political parties from sowing seeds of ethnic strife.