Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Do You Support War or You Don't?

*



Feature Article | by Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro*



"To make it worse, they say they don’t want war, they are fighting the

president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don’t want, and

at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which

includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New

Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the

position is...



"Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they would have accepted

the advice of the Military High Command, and President Mills has accepted

the advice of the same Military High Command, where is the problem?"

*



*-* Kwesi Pratt Jnr., Speaking on Radio Gold’s *Alhaji and Alhaji* on

Saturday, 22nd January 2011



*

*



**

Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Troops are sent for war, not to dance *“Abele”,

**Myjoyonline.com,

Monday, 24 January 2011, 10:32 GMT*

*

*

Notes:

Transcription by the "Office of The Odikro", based upon audio recording

available on-line, see: Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Troops are sent for war, not to

dance *“Abele”, **Myjoyonline.com, Monday, 24 January 2011, 10:32 GMT*

*Host: **Alhassan Suhuyini*



Guests: Kwesi Pratt Jnr., CPP, CJA, Accra Freedom Centre, Managing Editor,

The Insight Newspaper; Dr. Tony Aidoo, NDC, Head of Presidential Monitoring

Unit, of the Mills Administration; Samuel *Abu Jinapo*r, NPP, Special Aide

to NPP Presidential Candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo.



BEGIN QUOTE*:*



Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Frankly, I don’t know what the New Patriotic Party is

about. It is extremely difficult for me to say, what the point is, in the

numerous statements that the New Patriotic Party has been making over the

last couple of weeks.



Now listen, the New Patriotic Party, and its flag-bearer, make the point

that they are not for war in La Côte d'Ivoire. That war in La Côte d'Ivoire,

will have dangerous consequences for the people of Ghana. And yet, the same

people are opposed to the president declaring that he would not commit

troops to a war that they disagree with! Eh? This is incredible!



To make it worse, they say they don’t want war, they are fighting the

president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don’t want, and

at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which

includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New

Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the

position is.





Do They Support War or They Don’t?



And if they don’t support war, why would the president commit troops to

La Côte d'Ivoire? Would those troops be sent to La Côte d'Ivoire to go and

dance Tango? To go and dance *Abele,* *Abele*? Troops are sent to wage war!

And that is the only reason why the president would commit troops to La Cote

d’Ivoire. And that point needs to be made very, very clear.



Now Suhuyini, you know, this whole discussion about La Côte d'Ivoire, has

been encased in ignorant noise-making. Nobody is talking about the facts.

There is so much noise based on just complete ignorance, and we are

misleading everybody with these ignorant noises!



I think it is important to set the records straight. The impression has been

created that our President is betraying the so-called international

community, and yet the facts on the ground increasingly suggest that the

positions of Ghana and our President, are indeed too mild, compared to the

positions that other heads of state and other organisations are taking.



Right now, in front of me is a statement which was issued by the President

of Angola, when he met the Diplomatic Community in Luanda. President of

Angola, a key member of the African Union! Now listen to what he said:





"His Excellency, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, The President Of Angola, Says:



We express however, our concern when military solutions are proposed to

resolve crisis such as the one in Côte d'Ivoire. Ignoring the rules of

international and domestic law and sometimes, the very evidence presented by

the facts. The facts specifically tell us the following;



One: The president of the Electoral Commission released the results of the

second round of the presidential election, when it was out of his competence

to do so, since his time, for purposes defined by law, was expired and since

the issue had been transferred to the Constitutional Council for due

consideration and treatment.



Two: The United Nations representative in Côte d'Ivoire in a hastened move,

certified and announced those results when the relevant UN resolution states

that the certification should focus on election results validated by the

Constitutional Council, which had not yet made a pronouncement.



Three: The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole

international community."



And Listen very carefully,. The President of Angola says:



"The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole

international community, since the Constitutional Council had not validated

the provisional results released by the president of the Electoral

Commission as a result of having accepted objections and complaints of

serious irregularities and fraud which undermined these results.



Four: The Constitutional Council is in fact the only organ with the legal

competence to validate and publish the final results of the elections.



Five: Under the law, The Constitutional Council should recommend the holding

of new elections within 45 days, but it did not proceed in this manner and

instead reported results that attributed the victory to another candidate.



Considering the above facts, it is difficult for Angola to accept that there

is an elected president in La Côte d'Ivoire.



We believe however, that there is a constitutional president...,"



And this is very important, listen to the Angolan position:



"We believe however, that there is a constitutional president, the current

president of the republic, who happens to be Laurent Gbagbo, who must remain

in power until the new election as established by the electoral law of that

country. The greatest difficulty now is that the 45 days are not enough to

create a favourable climate for elections, and the current crisis

complicates the matter further.



We are therefore of the opinion that any military intervention in the

particular case of Côte d'Ivoire would have an adverse effect, with serious

consequences beyond its borders.



The Angolan Executive supports and encourages dialogue and negotiations to

overcome the crisis in this brother country, and believes that by

demonstrating political will, wisdom, and realism, it is possible to find a

solution that focuses, first and foremost, on the legitimate interests of

all the people of Côte d'Ivoire.



Through the competent institutions of the African Union, Africa must prove

its maturity, experience, and ability to solve problems on our own

continent, even the most complex and delicate, in lieu of waiting for

inadequate solutions imposed from outside."



This is the president of Angola! Eh? Jose Eduardo dos Santos!.



Compare this position to the position of President Mills, and it is clear

that President Mills is a dove by any standard! You understand?





Now What Are The Essential Points That The Angolans Are Making?



One, that Ouattara did not win the elections; that the election results were

so fraught with violence and so on, that you cannot use that election result

to declare a President of La Côte d'Ivoire. What the Angolans are telling

all of us Africans, is that, look, we should be guided by law and

constitutionality. And that you cannot have democracy outside the ambit of

the constitution. What is democracy if you ignore what is provided for in

the constitution? What is democracy if it is in violation of the law of the

country and so on? This is the point that the Angolans are making.



But you see, before anybody comes to the conclusion that this one President

in Africa, hold on!



Yesterday, the Central African Republic made a very clear statement on the

situation in La Côte d'Ivoire. Their position is that the whole world is

being misled by foreign interventionist forces in La Côte d'Ivoire. And that

it is now time for Africans to resolve their own problems. The Central

African Republic has made it clear that it would not support military

intervention in La Côte d'Ivoire, especially one that is dictated by

neo-colonial imperialist forces, forces outside Africa, and that is clear.



The Gambia has even gone further. And Gambia is a West African country. Two

days ago, the Gambian President despatched his Foreign Minister to Abidjan

to declare solidarity with Laurent Gbagbo. As we speak, the Russians have

blocked a UN vote on La Côte d'Ivoire because it fails to recognize the

realities in La Côte d'Ivoire.



But you see, it is not just politicians who are seeing the light and who are

speaking out publicly and speaking to the facts in La Côte d'Ivoire. You

know, more than fifty Trade Union leaders from Africa have just met. More

than fifty, have just met. And they come from countries such as Niger,

Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Senegal,

Rwanda, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Angola, Algeria,

Botswana, Burkina Faso,

Ghana, and so on. More than fifty countries represented in this conference.



Now, what is even more significant is that the final position adopted by

African Trade Unionists was read by our own Kwesi Adu-Amankwaa, who was

Secretary-General of the Trade Unions Congress of Ghana. It is a very long

resolution, and I am not going to read all of it. And in fact, for those of

you who want to read all these things, we will publish them on Monday.





But Listen To The African Trade Union Leaders!



Listen to them very carefully. This is what they said. And I am reading only

a part of it. They say:



"Already, most of our leaders are compromised by the dubious ways in which

they got themselves into power or secured their continued stay there. The

military option is a dangerous one that can plunge the whole West African

sub-region into an unprecedented crisis and should not be encouraged.



African leaders, particularly West African ones, need to think outside the

box, to devise a resolution that ensures peace and stability, as well as

promotes democracy in the long run. Everything should be done to prevent the

situation in La Côte d'Ivoire from degenerating into a situation of

full-scale conflict and civil war."



These are African Trade Union leaders! This is their position. Now, you

know, in this discussion, and indeed in all discussions about La Côte

d'Ivoire, I think it is absolutely important that we respect the facts. Now

if you are going to respect the facts, what are the facts?



The African Union, which has joined ECOWAS and the UN in insisting on the

military option, and insisting that Ouattara won the elections in La Côte

d'Ivoire, sent an observer team to La Côte d'Ivoire to observe both the

first round and the second round of the elections. The African Union Team

was led by Koku Koffigoh, former Prime Minister of Togo.



At the end of the elections, Koku Kofigoh, made a public statement in

Abidjan to the effect that the results of the elections were not credible.

They were not credible! And that they were vitiated by extreme violence,

stuffing of ballot boxes and so on. Indeed it is interesting that two of the

AU observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and it took the intervention

of the United Nations to secure their release.



So today, if the AU tells us that Ouatarra has won an election, or that we

should wage war against La Côte d'Ivoire, what is the basis of the AU's

position? Having regard to the fact that their own observers concluded that

the elections could not be free and fair? Having regard to the fact that

their own observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and were not able to

perform their duties?



You understand? This is the problem with the analysis! This is the clear

problem with the analysis! AU sends an Observer Mission, the Observer

Mission says the elections are not credible, and yet the AU declares a

winner! And insists that we should go to war in order to make the "winner"

the President, when its own Observer Mission, headed by a former Prime

Minister, says that the elections were not credible! I mean Suhuyini, can

you believe this?





Now Let Us Come Back To The Facts.



I have taken the trouble to look at the election results. And the paper that

I edit, has taken the trouble to publish the election results. The question

I am posing to all these political parties in Ghana, and all of these

African leaders, and ECOWAS leaders, is simply this: which one of them would

accept election results such as the one which has been released in La Côte

d'Ivoire?



You know, some of the facts I have repeated so many times over, I don't know

why they are not sinking! You know, take the Vallée du Bandama region in

La Côte d'Ivoire, the Electoral Commission comes up with votes, you

understand, votes, for Ouattara, you add those votes, they come to one

hundred and forty nine thousand votes, and yet the declaration of results

gives Ouatarra two hundred and forty four thousand votes! Who would accept

this? You go to some other constituencies, turn-out, eh? Is two hundred and

fifty per cent of registered voters! Two hundred and fifty per cent of

registered voters! Who would accept those results?



Indeed, I asked my colleague and friend, Comrade Kwesi Adu, to do an

analysis of the election results, because he does these things. He was an

election observer in Guinea and so on, so he is so good at it. And I asked

him to do an analysis. In one constituency, Gbagbo won one hundred and

eighty per cent of all the registered voters. In the same constituency

Ouattara won one hundred and something per cent of registered voters. How do

you accept these results? How can you say that these results represent the

will of the Ivorian people? By what magic?



So, either people are deliberately lying, or they don't know the facts, or

they are being insincere in the discussion of the Ivorian crisis. You

understand? Now you put that aside.







What Does The Law Of La Côte d'Ivoire Say?



The law of La Côte d'Ivoire says it very clearly that the Electoral

Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire declares provisional results. That those

provisional results ought to be validated by the Constitutional Council.

That is what the law says. So, the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire,

does not declare who a winner is. It only declares provisional results. It

is only the Constitutional Council of La Côte d'Ivoire, which can declare a

winner in an election.



Then you have some apologists of Ouattara, they come up and they say, look,

the legal position is that that provision of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution

was suspended because an agreement was reached under UN auspices! My

brother, this is a joke! Is anybody telling me that the UN, ECOWAS, AU, or

any International organisation, can amend the constitution of a country,

without reference to the people of that country? Does it make sense?



And yet, we are pushing this position that by virtue of an agreement which

was reached under UN auspices, parts of the Ivorian constitution are no

longer valid. Let us assume that even is true, eh? Let us assume that that

position is true. Now, if you assume that that position is true, it would

have meant that in the first round of elections, those provisions in the

constitution of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution, still remained suspended.



And yet in the first round of the elections, the Electoral Commission

declared Provisional Results, they were validated by the Constitutional

Council, before the UN endorsed them. Why didn't we apply the same formula

which was applied in the first round in the second round of the election?

Does it make sense? You understand what I am saying very clearly?



Now, there is also this problem. A lot of people assume that the Electoral

Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is the same as the Electoral Commission in

Ghana Ghana. It is not true! The Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire,

is made up of thirty two members. Those thirty two members, represent

political parties, to the extent that the government of La Côte d'Ivoire has

only five representatives on a thirty two-member Electoral Commission.



The Opposition has twenty seven members of the Electoral Commission. If you

want to compare the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire with the

Electoral Commission of Ghana, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission of

La Côte d'Ivoire is the IPAC [Inter-Party Advisory Committee] in Ghana! You

understand, it is the IPAC in Ghana.



So when people say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte

d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When they say, that the "Independent Electoral

Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When twenty seven

members of that thirty-two member Commission is from the Opposition? And

indeed, when the President of the Electoral Commission is from the

Opposition and his deputy is also from the Opposition?



In any case, people should stop to consider the circumstances under which

the election results were declared. The election result was not declared by

the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire. It was declared by one member

of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, in *Hôtel du Golf*, which

is the Headquarters of the Opposition. He was accompanied to do that

declaration by the Ambassador of France and the Ambassador of the United

States of America.



Indeed, the declaration was not done before the Ivorian media. The

declaration was done, exclusively before the French media. No Ivorian

journalist was present when the declaration was made. And it was made in the

Headquarters of the Opposition.



Now, all our friends from the NPP, NDC and so on, which one of them would

have accepted election results, declared solely by Afari-Gyan? Even

Afari-Gyan has the right, the Electoral Commission of Ghana has the right to

declare final results! Now let us just imagine a situation in which

Afari-Gyan, alone, without other members of his Commission, accompanied by

the French Ambassador, the US Ambassador, goes to the NDC Headquarters to

announce results, what would happen?



Now the President of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire

was interviewed on Radio France International, and he was asked this

question: "How come that you went and declared the results in the

Headquarters of the Opposition?" His first answer was that, look, the

conditions in the Electoral Commission offices were not conducive to him

announcing the election results there.



The questioner then said, "But did you know you were were announcing the

results in the headquarters of the Opposition?" He says, "No, I don't know"!

Then he said, "But everybody in La Côte d'Ivoire knows that that is the

headquarters of the Opposition?" Then he says "I am not supposed to know

what everybody knows"! Suhuyini, can you believe this? He says he is not

supposed to know what everybody else knows in La Côte d'Ivoire! You

understand? You put that aside.



Even if you accept that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is an

independent Commission, and you accept that the final constitutional

authority for declaring results is the Constitutional Council, what you do

have in La Côte d'Ivoire is a situation where the electoral Commission has

declared one result, and the Constitutional Council has declared another

result. What you do have is a political crisis! It is an issue of the

legitimacy of two state institutions.





Do You Resolve That By Going To War?



Do you resolve this situation by declaring that Ouattara is the Head of

State? Does it make sense? My goodness! I don't know what is happening to

all of us! African leaders! West African leaders! UN, and so on! What is

happening to us?



So, we have a political crisis resulting from the contestations over

electoral results. Is La Côte d'Ivoire the only country in the world to have

this situation? We just had elections in Belarus. You remember? The election

was heavily disputed. The Opposition was on the streets. There was mayhem.

The Head of State's reaction was to was to arrest two hundred members of the

Opposition, including his opponents, and lock them up. They are still in

jail.



That is in the heart of Europe! Europe is quiet! Nobody is talking about

military intervention! But when it comes to West Africa, they say our

leaders should gather troops and go and kill themselves! We should send our

soldiers to go and die! Why are they not sending their soldiers to go and

die in Belarus?



Look at what has happened with the Egyptian elections! Who is talking about

military intervention there? Who is talking about sanctions against Hussein

Mubarak? They are not doing so because of vested interests in Egypt! Because

of their support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the key role that

Egypt is playing in that area!



So they are acting clearly from a self-interest point of view! And we say,

that our self-interest does not matter! So when the President says "Dzi wo

fie asem", then there is a problem! But all of them, every one of them,

France, the United States, Britain, all of them they are "dzing their fie

asem"! All of them!



None of them is doing what they are doing because they love West Africans

more than themselves! They are doing it because of their interests in the

strategic resources of La Côte d'Ivoire! They are doing it because they

don't want the example of Gbagbo to spread through the African continent.

That is what they are doing!



And that is why it is important for us to wake up to that reality and to

begin to raise the fundamental questions of law and constitutionality. To

begin to raise the moral question and so on. Now for those of you who have

been shouting about war and so on,





I Have Some Interesting News For You!



You know, Suhuyini, I'd like to start with some definitions first. And then

you will see how ridiculous the proposition to go to war is. Listen to me

very carefully. I just checked, I am not a military man, so yesterday, I

spent some time to go on the internet. And these are the definitions I got

from the internet:



A platoon, a platoon, and fortunately Dr. Tony Aidoo is in the studio,

having been Deputy Minister of Defence before, he may understand these

things better than me.



Dr. Tony Aidoo: It is a small unit.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: A platoon is twenty six to fifty five men. You

understand? I will relate it to what I am going to say very soon. A platoon

is twenty six to fifty five men. A company is eighty to two hundred and

twenty five men. A battalion is three hundred to thousand three hundred men.

And a regiment or brigade, is between three thousand and five thousand men

and so on.



Now we are saying that the Ghana government is not committed to war. Other

nations are committed to war. What is their concrete commitments? Look,

ECOWAS chiefs of staff met in Abuja on the 28th of December last year, to

consider the military option. So they said, everybody, bring what you have

and let's go to war. Look at what they brought, Suhuyini, it is very

interesting!



Liberia..., Liberia, Liberia committed one infantry platoon. To go to war in

La Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia contributed twenty six men!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: Hm hm hm! [chuckling]



Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Sierra Leone committed one infantry company. That is all

they committed. One infantry company! Senegal, Senegal which is leading the

charge, Senegal and Burkina Faso which are leading the charge listen to what

they contributed. Senegal is contributing one commando company, one

motorised infantry company, and one battalion headquarters, take note,

headquarters, not a battalion, one battalion headquarters with level two

hospital. Benin decided to contribute only one mechanised company!

One mechanised company!



It is getting more and more interesting. Now you can see the point I am

making. Togo, Togo decided to commit one motorised company, and a possible

commando company. A "possible", it is not definite, commando company. Mali

decided to contribute one transport company, one engineer company, and one

motorised company.



Burkina Faso, Blaise Campoore's Burkina Faso. Blaise Campoore who is touring

the world to make the case for military intervention. He has been to

Britain, he's been to France, he is all over the place! Look at his

contribution and you would laugh! Blaise Campoore's contribution, Burkina

Faso's contribution is one mechanised infantry company, one commando

company, and one engineer company. These are the contributions they are

making.



This is a reflection of the commitment of West African leaders to war

in La Côte

d'Ivoire!



Abu Jinapor: What about Nigeria? A lot of troops!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Yes, I haven't come to that.



Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Hold on, hold on! Nigeria's contribution is here.



Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Nigeria's contribution is this. One motorised or

mechanised battalion. One! One F-17 Fighter Squadron,



Dr. Tony Aidoo: A squadron is five people.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.; Yeah. One M-135 squadron, one single company

and battalion headquarters. Headquarters-ooh? Sea assets, and additional one

or two infantry companies, as may be required. And indeed, Nigeria is making

the highest contribution.



Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You don't know what you are talking about! You don't know

what you are talking about!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: They don't even reach two thousand!



Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops! Combined

with the New Forces.

Dr. Tony Aidoo: In total, they don't reach two thousand.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Abu, you don't know what you are talking about! Now

listen, this force...



Abu Jinapor: Combined with the New Forces...



Host: Let's finish that.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Master, this force is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage

war against a regular professional army of eleven thousand men! This is the

force that is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage war against a regular

professional army of eleven thousand men!



We are not talking about irregular forces and so on. They are in La Côte

d'Ivoire, eleven thousand men! And you are sending less than two thousand

men to go, defeat them, capture their President, and install your President!

What recklessness can this be? This is irresponsibility at its highest

level! And indeed, if I were a soldier in any of these countries, I would

rebel!



Do you know why? Because this is their death warrant being signed!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: Suicide mission.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr..: This is a suicide mission! Suicide mission! My brother,

listen to me very carefully. If you have been to Abidjan before, Abidjan is

a densely populated city, with high rise buildings and so on To be able to

take Abidjan, you need have total air domination. You need to have troops

which would take complete control of the ground and so on. In fact, the

estimates to be able to do that, the interventionist force needs not less

than twenty thousand men, to be able to do this effectively and to do it

quickly.



And yet, our leaders in Africa think that with less than two thousand men,

and outdated equipment and so on, they will be able to do it! God bless

them! They are only sentencing their soldiers to death, painful death on the

streets of La Côte d'Ivoire.



I am happy that our Commander-In-Chief, and President, has taken the wise

decision not push Ghanaian soldiers into this reckless adventure! The lives

of Ghanaian soldiers are important to us! The fact that they are soldiers

doesn't mean that when there is any foolish thing, you go and push them

inside there to go and die! So I am very happy with the decision which has

been taken by the President.



But Most importantly, Suhuyini, listen, I heard our Defence Minister say

that the decision of the Government of Ghana, was based on advice by the

Military High Command. The Military High Command decided that they could not

participate in this war. Now the Opposition leaders who are saying that the

President should have done otherwise, what are they saying?



They are telling you that if indeed they were in power, they would ignore

the advice of the Military High Command.



Abu Jinapor: No, no, we haven't said so!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: That is the implication!



Abu Jinapor: No! No! We have never said so!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem then?



Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo said it clearly. He said that he was going to

heed to the advice of the Military High Command!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem?



Abu Jinapor: And our argument is not about committing troops. That has never

been the case. We have no quarrel about that!



Host: Abu, Abu, you don't like being interrupted. You Protested seriously

and dramatized your protest! I hope you understand.



Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo was very clear on this!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: Let Kwesi Pratt finish!



Host: Please, please! Allow Kwesi to finish.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr: Master, I am happy about the intervention of Abu. I am not

disturbed at all about his intervention. You know the reason why I am not

disturbed at all by the intervention? Because it makes it possible now, for

our listeners to know what the issue is about!



They are saying that they would have accepted the advice of the Military

High Command.



Abu Jinapor: Sure!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they

would have accepted the advice of the Military High Command, and President

Mills has accepted the advice of the same Military High Command, where is

the problem?



Abu Jinapor: I will tell you when you are finished.



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You can say it any time! But you understand, where is the

problem? You are saying that you would have accepted the same advice that

President Mills has accepted, and yet you are complaining about him

accepting advice that you would have accepted! I mean, where is the logic?

You know, where is the logic?



As for the claim, as for the claim that because Ghana signed a certain

resolution and so on, we are bound to do everything that the resolution

imposes on us, the answer lies in the statement that Nana Akufo-Addo himself

has made! Nana Akufo-Addo says that in the case of Liberia and Seirra Leone,

all the Heads of State agreed to military intervention, and yet in the final

analysis, only two countries committed troops!



Dr. Tony Aidoo: Huh! huh! huh!



Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: What does that mean? That means it is possible to sign on

to a declaration of war and not contribute troops! And that comes from Nana

Akufo-Addo himself!



END QUOTE.



Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!



Cheers!



Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro

*Give me a follow and let's exchange views on what I call "a grammar of

Pan-Africanism and its manners of articulation in an ever-changing world"!

E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro