Suppose all the methods Anas used is "out of date, wrong, obsolete, or whatever one may deem it. Now, my simple question to you is, how and with what method can we bring these people who have sold their conscience for peanuts ... read full comment
Suppose all the methods Anas used is "out of date, wrong, obsolete, or whatever one may deem it. Now, my simple question to you is, how and with what method can we bring these people who have sold their conscience for peanuts, to justice?
These judges know more than us and they are the ones in whose hands justice has been entrusted so, why do you think that someone can trick them to "strip themselves naked" without realizing their foolishness, silliness or idiocy?
Anytime we cry about corruption, the first question that comes to mind is, "where is the evidence"? So, how can we present the evidence without devising some genius method to expose those who are knee deep into it?
Right now, the judges are trying to use "technicalities" to hoodwink us but that will not work.
If you are related to any of the affected judges, I will not say sorry because you have benefited from that rot for years so, it is time to pay up.
Kofi Amenyo 8 years ago
It looks like you're missing my point, Pelicles. I am NOT saying:
1. that Anas' methods are wrong and he shouldn't use them. I have even indicated that I don't know what all those methods are and cannot pronounce on them, ... read full comment
It looks like you're missing my point, Pelicles. I am NOT saying:
1. that Anas' methods are wrong and he shouldn't use them. I have even indicated that I don't know what all those methods are and cannot pronounce on them,
2. that we don't have an urgent need to catch offenders and bring them to book,
3. that the fallen justices are innocent or that they have done nothing wrong...
I haven't made any of these assertions, Pelicles.
The question is where do we draw the line between what is an acceptable method to catch these guys and which methods can we not accept? For instance, if Anas' boys are caught breaking into someone's house in the dead of night, not to steal anything or beat up anybody, but to recover evidence of wrongdoing which they need to present in court, shall we make an exception for them before the law because they are doing a good thing for society?
Your last sentence is a bit unfortunate. It suggests that I want the judges to be set free. But I don't! I am NOT defending them in any way at all!!! And why would you think any of them are my relatives and I benefited from the bribes they got (like I was also given a special massage or ate pepper soup made from the legs of a goat given as bribe, lol)? What makes you come to that conclusion, Pelicles?
Luther King 8 years ago
I don't get your argument in your post it response to Pelicles. Why are u saying and assuming things that have not happened? At least Anas has not broken into anyone's home to look for evidence. When we get there, we will cro ... read full comment
I don't get your argument in your post it response to Pelicles. Why are u saying and assuming things that have not happened? At least Anas has not broken into anyone's home to look for evidence. When we get there, we will cross the bridge. Right now lets concentrate on the facts he has abt the judges for which he obtained without breaking into any home or holding a gun or knife to anyone.
Jona 8 years ago
Anas is a coward in the first place for covering his face all the time! .
Secondly,his method is unreasonably "crude" by all standards.My white friend told me that we don't have smart men of the law in Ghana! .He said if we ... read full comment
Anas is a coward in the first place for covering his face all the time! .
Secondly,his method is unreasonably "crude" by all standards.My white friend told me that we don't have smart men of the law in Ghana! .He said if we really do,Anas himself could end up in jail for enticing & for that matter "luring" people into an act which is unacceptable! .
He asked me whether Ghana had a president who said "corruption is as old as Adam "?.I answered IN the affirmative! .Then,he asked further: "What was public reaction to his statement as a president? .
It was swept under the carpet,I answered. .He said "you see,that's what I am talking about ".He could have been impeached in any civilized democracy coupled with smart men of the law,he added! .
Kofi 8 years ago
Attention:
His Excellency Mr. J.A. Kufuor
President
Republic of Ghana Accra Ghana
Re: Judge Kobena Adoe Acquaye: A Purveyor of Injustice in the Nation?s Court A Matter Between Nana Amma Obenewaa Richard Osae-Duodu: C ... read full comment
Attention:
His Excellency Mr. J.A. Kufuor
President
Republic of Ghana Accra Ghana
Re: Judge Kobena Adoe Acquaye: A Purveyor of Injustice in the Nation?s Court A Matter Between Nana Amma Obenewaa Richard Osae-Duodu: Court File # BL637/04
Judge Kobena Adoe Acquaye's behaviour, untypical of an impartial judge, is eating away my confidence in the nation?s justice system. Mr. President, personal feistiness is not a resource I deploy with a light heart. However, it becomes a weapon of necessity when, amid piles of material evidence, Judge Acquaye allows his courtroom to become a circus with endless adjournments. Previously, the judge was quick to stop the case in order that I bring Mr. Carl J. Reindorf from the United Kingdom to submit signature samples. He stated that until his directive was honoured, the case would not proceed. As a matter of fact, I arranged for Carl Reindorf to travel to Ghana to honour Judge Acquaye?s request.
Judge Acquaye?s partiality towards the plaintiff, is evident by his silence on the plaintiff?s absence from his court since November 2004. How does Judge Acquaye justify the plaintiff?s recent amendment to his affidavit that he (plaintiff) should be absolved from perjury because he did not know the full history of a land, which he fraudulently acquired and immediately developed? What were the motivations behind Judge Acquaye allowing the plaintiff?s lawyer to schedule long adjournments (i.e. January 14th to March 17th to April 25th), knowing that the two last dates were scheduled for forensic testimony? Judges Acquaye's obvious lack of jurisprudential ethics and perversion of universal social justice is unparalleled.
Judge Acquaye has lost my respect and his actions have spurred my claim of extortion against him; a statement which was corroborated by the court clerk in my presence and before the investigative panel of Public Complaint Unit, which was constituted on the directives of the Chief Justice to investigate my claims against Judge Kobena Acquaye. I challenge Judge Kobena Acquaye to contest my claim, if he so chooses. I am also surprised by the Chief Justice?s silence, despite my written submission(s) that Kobena Acquaye be recused from the case. I humbly request that the Chief Justice make public the transcripts of the Complaint Unit's investigation and his recommendations in addressing my claim.
Judge Acquaye should not underestimate my resolve to fight to the bitter end and see justice served. While Judge Acquaye may think that he is above the law, I am resolved to seek and apply every asset under the law to reclaim what is rightfully mine. I have no kind words for Judge Acquaye, only utter contempt for his underhandedness. He allowed the plaintiff to abstain from court proceedings for reasons only known to him. From his years of legal training, Judge Acquaye must know the legal definition of fraud. In the case herein, fraud means him allowing the plaintiff to submit falsified documents with the intent not only to deceive the court, but to suborn fraud. He allowed the plaintiff to convert the value of my property to his (the plaintiff?s) own personal use by deceit.
The difficulty Judge Acquaye faces in reversing one of his most preposterous judgements and allowing Osae-Duodu to build on my land is by his own making. He knew that the plaintiff?s documents were false and was humbly advised by my counsel to enforce the court order until all the facts were presented and examined to establish rightful owner of the land. By any standards, a fair-minded judge would carefully have analyzed every piece of evidence before formulating a verdict. In the case herein, Judge Acquaye breached the rudimentary principles of common sense. Against submissions, he granted Osae-Duodu?s interlocutory injunction knowing that the document, which the plaintiff tendered as evidence of ownership, was doctored by Roger Emmanuel Amudzi, the plaintiff?s partner-in-crime and a notorious land fraudster and land guard. Under Judge Kobena Acquaye?s system of justice, bribery takes precedence over ethics and justice.
I have nowhere close to the size of plaintiff?s wealth. But material acquisition should not be the determining factor in dispensing justice. In one of his unguarded statements on the phone, Judge Acquaye admitted that the plaintiff was his friend. I challenge Judge Acquaye to either confirm or deny my claims and admit that he is the subscriber of phone numbers: 021-774572 and 0208187876. Judge Acquaye cannot profess justice in a public space when in fact his actions suborn injustice (i.e. selling justice to the highest bidder). The independence of the judiciary is an insurance to prevent judicial fraud and does not preclude the rights of the public to know the truth.
I am not seeking the destruction of the courts; this is a trait which is not part of my persona. However to be silent when personalized intransigence and sexism collude against social justice is an injustice in itself. I am poised to pulverize any backroom dealings by the nation?s judges to misapply the fundamentality of justice and Judge Acquaye's benaviour is the beginning of my crusade. He has the power to prolong my case, frustrate me and make me spend my resources to reclaim what is rightfully mine, but he cannot deny me justice and what is rightfully mine. Mr. President, there will be much more to follow.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely.
Nana Amma Obenewaa.
cc:
World Bank
Office of Economic Development and Investigations Washington DC
IMF, Ghana Representative
Dr. Huguette Labelle
Chair, Transparency International, Deutschland
Dr. Hansjorg Elshort
Transparency International, Deutschland
Ms. Dagmar Schroeder
Managing Director Transparency International, Deutschland
Mr. David Nussbaum
Chief Executive Transparency International, United Kingdom
Mr. Chandrashekar Krishan
Executive Director Transparency International, United Kingdom
Department of International Development London, England
Tamara Kamhawi
Programme Co-ordinator
Transparency International Middle East & North Africa
Overseas Development Institute
Westminster, England
Africa Live, BBC Africa
Bush House London, England
Mr. Gordon Wetherell
British High Commission Accra, Ghana
Mr. Peter Harrold
World Bank Representative Accra, Ghana
The Inspector General
USAID Accra, Ghana
Dr. Audrey Gadzekpo
Ghana Integrity Initiative Accra, Ghana
Media House Accra, Ghana
Abeku Quansah Ativorgbe. 8 years ago
This is only in the judiciary, the worst may be in the legislative and executive arms of gov. If you add all these up, you would understand why we are making no progress. Now that Anas has set the ball rolling, we must put as ... read full comment
This is only in the judiciary, the worst may be in the legislative and executive arms of gov. If you add all these up, you would understand why we are making no progress. Now that Anas has set the ball rolling, we must put aside our party and tribal sentiments and speak with one voice against corruption because we need better governance. At the moment, we do not have a government in Ghana, we only have a gang of thieves, and that has been the plight of Ghana since the days of Kwame Nkrumah. The colonial thieves handed over power to local thieves who have been a thorn in our fresh with Kwame being the only exception.
Dziko Kwame 8 years ago
Efo Kofi
You are on it. Right on top.
Very much exciting and of deep thought. In 1986, Chairman JJR simply dismissed the Judges (corruption, drunkenness etc).
I do repeat it here and again, that I Dziko Kwame, I ab ... read full comment
Efo Kofi
You are on it. Right on top.
Very much exciting and of deep thought. In 1986, Chairman JJR simply dismissed the Judges (corruption, drunkenness etc).
I do repeat it here and again, that I Dziko Kwame, I abhor the method used by Anas. It is IMPROPER, and until he goes for the whereabouts of the MV Benjamin Cocaine, nothing of his that is even backed by CJ the very same Georgina Wood will receive my support.
Anas' intent is good, but mode is WRONG.
Long live Ghana
Kwabena Yeboah 8 years ago
How do you suggest Anas does his work? Give me your views as to a better approach. As I have said many times on this forum, this country is at war with corruption. Desperate times call for desperate action, and in this case ... read full comment
How do you suggest Anas does his work? Give me your views as to a better approach. As I have said many times on this forum, this country is at war with corruption. Desperate times call for desperate action, and in this case the end justifies the means. Anas' method is PROPER and necessary in our circumstance.
If something as sacred as justice is auctioned off to the highest bidder in the market place, then who is safe. Justice is the bedrock of our fledgling democracy and every effort must be taken by those in authority to protect it. As I have said before, most advanced western civilization would declare a state of emergency and deal with a threat of this magnitude to their democracies, but not in Ghana.
Jasmine 8 years ago
Title:
How An Anonynous Spy With A Video Camera Infiltrated Planned Parenthood and Reignited THE ABORTION DEBATE.
"The young man's real name is David Daleiden. He is an antiabortion activiest, adn for 2 and half years, ... read full comment
Title:
How An Anonynous Spy With A Video Camera Infiltrated Planned Parenthood and Reignited THE ABORTION DEBATE.
"The young man's real name is David Daleiden. He is an antiabortion activiest, adn for 2 and half years, he was an undercover agend in one of the elaborate exploits in recent political history.
"...He acquired a fake IDs, launched an extensive website and proffered business cards adorned with the logo of a bubbling beaker...
"Secretly posing as a representative of a fetal-tissue-procurement company, David Daleiden wangled private meetings with Planned Parenthood officials. His secretly recorded videos spurred a new GOP push to defund the women's health organization, one that could result in a government shut down." - Time Magazine.
Just asking, how is this different from what Anas did? And we're talking about the US of A!
Please spare us all the nibblings of those in the country who fail to see how the ills of those crooked judges are ditching us as a country. We others don't care what they think of Anas's methods. He did it before, he should continue doing it so long as there is going to be corrupt officials.
Awasoni 8 years ago
Who is watching Anas? you ask. The question is irrelevant. Whoever Anas is, whatever his methods, has he produced EVIDENCE that will make a normal person accept that some judges and judicial officials have illegally accepted ... read full comment
Who is watching Anas? you ask. The question is irrelevant. Whoever Anas is, whatever his methods, has he produced EVIDENCE that will make a normal person accept that some judges and judicial officials have illegally accepted bribe? That is the only issue the public is interested in.
If you think Anas should be watched, then go and watch him? What do you want the public to do? If the police have reason to believe that Anas took a bribe to finger some particular judges, do you think they won't follow it up?
Nobody can do everything at the same time. Now, Anas has caught the judges. Let's deal with that. When we have finished, we can think of something else.Judges are trained to detect prima facie evidence; inadmissible evidence; credibility of witnesses etc. So your concerns are ill-motivated. I think that you would much rather Anas hadn't done what he'd done? If that's so, you don't need to be insulted -- you need to go and hide in a corner. Do you want to go to court and be punished unjustly by a judge who has taken a bribe?
Have a look 8 years ago
European court backs journalist"s rights to use hidden cameras.
We need to catch the crooks.Mr Amenyo please read on!
The convictions of four journalists who secretly filmed an insurance broker for a w ... read full comment
European court backs journalist"s rights to use hidden cameras.
We need to catch the crooks.Mr Amenyo please read on!
The convictions of four journalists who secretly filmed an insurance broker for a weekly consumer protection television series were a breach of their rights to freedom of expression, the European Court of
Human Rights held today.
The case was the first in which the court had dealt with the use by journalists of hidden cameras to provide public information on a subject of general interest, when the person filmed was targeted not in any personal capacity but as a representative of a particular professional category.
The Second Chamber of the Strasbourg Court said the interference in the private life of the broker, who had turned down an opportunity to express his views on the interview in question, was not serious enough to override the public interest in information on malpractice in the field of insurance brokerage.
The case was taken to Strasbourg by Swiss journalists Ulrich Haldimann, Hansjorg Utz, Monika Balmer and Fiona Strebel.
In February 2003 Balmer, the editor of the weekly consumer protection programme "Kassensturz", which has been a regular feature on Swiss German television (SF DRS) for many years, produced a documentary on sales of life insurance products, against a background of public discontent with the practices used by insurance brokers.
She agreed with the editor responsible for the programme, Utz, and Haldimann, the editor-in chief of SF DRS, to record interviews between customers and brokers, using a hidden camera to highlight insurance broker malpractice.
Strebel, an SF DRS journalist, posed as a customer and met an insurance broker from a company on 26 February 2003.
There were two hidden cameras in the room in which the interview took place, transmitting the recording of the conversation to a neighbouring room, where Balmer and an insurance specialist were.
At the end of the interview Balmer entered the interview room, introduced herself and told the broker that he had been filmed. The broker said that he had suspected as much, and refused to comment when invited to do so by the editor.
On 25 March 2003 sequences from the recording were broadcast on the "Kassensturz" programme, with the broker's face and voice disguised.
On 5 November 2007 Haldimann, Utz and Balmer were convicted of having made a recording using a hidden camera and given penalties of 15 day-fines of varying amounts. Strebel was given five lower day-fines.
The journalists appealed to the Federal Court, which ruled that, while acknowledging the major public interest of securing information on practices in the insurance field, which was liable to be weightier than the individual interests at issue, the journalists could have used a different approach less damaging to the broker's private interests.
On 24 February 2009, the High Court of the Canton of Zurich acquitted the applicants of the charge of violating the secret or private domain by means of a film camera, and reduced their penalties slightly.
The journalists lodged their application with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 April 2009.
The Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) was authorised to intervene in the written proceedings as a third party.
The Court reiterated its case-law on attacks on the personal reputations of public figures and the six criteria which it had established in order to weigh freedom of expression against the right to private life: contributing to a debate of general interest, ascertaining how well-known the person being reported on is and the subject of the report/documentary, that person's prior conduct, the method of obtaining the information, the veracity, content, form and repercussions of the report/documentary, and the penalty imposed.
The Court applied those criteria to the present case, but noted that the insurance broker was not a well-known public figure, and the documentary in question was not geared to criticising him personally but to denouncing specific commercial practices.
The Court said the subject of the documentary - the low-quality advice offered by private insurance brokers, and therefore the inadequate protection of consumers' rights - was part of an interesting public debate.
It noted that, even if the broker might reasonably have believed that the interview was strictly private, the documentary in question had focused not on him personally but on specific commercial practices used within a particular professional category.
It also asserted that the applicants deserved the benefit of the doubt in relation to their desire to observe the ethics of journalism as defined by Swiss law, citing the example of their limited use of the hidden camera.
The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest was subject to the proviso that they were acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provided "reliable and precise" information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.
The Court noted in this respect that the veracity of the facts as presented by the applicants was not contested.
On the manner in which the documentary was broadcast and the broker presented, the Court observed that the recording was broadcast in the form of a report which was particularly negative in as far as the broker was concerned, using an audio-visual media which was often much more immediate and powerful in effect than the written press.
But a decisive factor was that the applicants had disguised the broker's face and voice and that the interview had not taken place on his usual business premises - so the interference in the private life of the broker, who had decided against expressing an opinion on the interview, had not been serious enough to override the public interest in receiving information on the alleged malpractice in the field of insurance brokerage.
Lastly, the Court considered that despite the relative leniency of the penalties the criminal court sentence was liable to discourage the media from expressing criticism, even though the applicants had not been prevented from broadcasting their documentary.
There had been a violation of Article 10.
The judgment is available only in French. This report is based on a press release issued by the court's Registry.
Media law specialist Mark Stephens, a partner with law firm Howard Kennedy - who wrote the MLDI's representation for its intervention in the case - said the judgment had very wide-ranging implications for European Union law, which now had to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"There is still a place for hidden cameras, and accountability," he said.
"One thinks of the wrongdoing we have seen involving vulnerable old people, in funeral homes, and in places caring for people with mental health issues - these have all been exposed through the responsible use of hidden cameras."
MORE ON THIS STORY :
European Court fast-tracks decision on challenge to state surveillance of journalists
The International Federation of Journalists has called for an apology and explanation from European Union officials after a five-year investigation into a journalist was finally dropped yesterday.
In 2004, Hans-Martin Tillack, a Brussels-based investigative reporter for the German news magazine Stern, was accused by the EU's anti-fraud office, Olaf, of bribing a civil servant for information two years earlier.
Tillack had published several reports on alleged financial irregularities involving European Parliament members' expenses and the EU statistics agency Eurostat.
Police raided his home and office and 17 boxes of his papers were seized and examined, but no evidence was recovered to substantiate Olaf's allegations.
At the time, International Federation of Journalists general secretary Aidan White called the case 'a shocking denial of justice to journalists and their sources".
In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights decided that Tillack's freedom of expression had been violated.
The court ordered Belgium to award him €10,000 in moral damages and €30,000 in costs. His papers were returned to him.
Ernest Sagaga, human rights and information officer at the International Federation of Journalists, said the group was demanding an apology and an enquiry into the case.
He told Press Gazette: "After so many years of waiting, we've got the outcome we knew would come: that this was a baseless complaint and a waste of time and money.
"Someone has to take responsibility. Mr Tillack suffered in his professional and personal life. It was the harassment and persecution of an innocent journalist."
Speaking at a press conference in Brussels yesterday, Tillack said he hoped the European Commission would take more care with journalists' rights in future.
He said: 'Perhaps now is the time for the commission to look at the way Olaf was handling this case.
"There are many questions that have to be still solved regarding the behaviour of OLAF and the European Commission."
Tillack has always maintained that the investigations were aimed at silencing him and exposing his sources.
Suppose all the methods Anas used is "out of date, wrong, obsolete, or whatever one may deem it. Now, my simple question to you is, how and with what method can we bring these people who have sold their conscience for peanuts ...
read full comment
It looks like you're missing my point, Pelicles. I am NOT saying:
1. that Anas' methods are wrong and he shouldn't use them. I have even indicated that I don't know what all those methods are and cannot pronounce on them, ...
read full comment
I don't get your argument in your post it response to Pelicles. Why are u saying and assuming things that have not happened? At least Anas has not broken into anyone's home to look for evidence. When we get there, we will cro ...
read full comment
Anas is a coward in the first place for covering his face all the time! .
Secondly,his method is unreasonably "crude" by all standards.My white friend told me that we don't have smart men of the law in Ghana! .He said if we ...
read full comment
Attention:
His Excellency Mr. J.A. Kufuor
President
Republic of Ghana Accra Ghana
Re: Judge Kobena Adoe Acquaye: A Purveyor of Injustice in the Nation?s Court A Matter Between Nana Amma Obenewaa Richard Osae-Duodu: C ...
read full comment
This is only in the judiciary, the worst may be in the legislative and executive arms of gov. If you add all these up, you would understand why we are making no progress. Now that Anas has set the ball rolling, we must put as ...
read full comment
Efo Kofi
You are on it. Right on top.
Very much exciting and of deep thought. In 1986, Chairman JJR simply dismissed the Judges (corruption, drunkenness etc).
I do repeat it here and again, that I Dziko Kwame, I ab ...
read full comment
How do you suggest Anas does his work? Give me your views as to a better approach. As I have said many times on this forum, this country is at war with corruption. Desperate times call for desperate action, and in this case ...
read full comment
Title:
How An Anonynous Spy With A Video Camera Infiltrated Planned Parenthood and Reignited THE ABORTION DEBATE.
"The young man's real name is David Daleiden. He is an antiabortion activiest, adn for 2 and half years, ...
read full comment
Who is watching Anas? you ask. The question is irrelevant. Whoever Anas is, whatever his methods, has he produced EVIDENCE that will make a normal person accept that some judges and judicial officials have illegally accepted ...
read full comment
European court backs journalist"s rights to use hidden cameras.
We need to catch the crooks.Mr Amenyo please read on!
The convictions of four journalists who secretly filmed an insurance broker for a w ...
read full comment