Saturday, May 26, 2012


This is war against injustice!
I had planned to post more about the nonsensical nature of Ghana's judiciary and law in general but some circumstances have tickled and driven me on a tangent to seek #justice4novisi on twitter.

I'd return to the subject of the nonsensical character of the judiciary in Ghana hopefully soon.

Meanwhile pal, I'm one who is ready to take my own mother on and debate her on any issue (and she knows it). I'm not one blinded by relations or associations. If you are my whatever and you play the mess I'd point it out to you.

so what happened? I took to twitter in my lazy-Saturday mode (as usual) while listening to political talk shows on radio.  tweeted asking to know if anyone was listening to joyfm's newsfile and that there was some passion (whatever she meant particularly I don't know) and I replied I was and pointed out that NPP's Nana Addo's communication director Nana Akomea just lied that prez Mills got land from govt as govt appointee. Such a blatant lie which should be condemned by any sane minded person. Yet this was Abena's reply to me " What about the other govt functionaries that benefited from the programme? You refuse to see that the value is the same"

She did not hail the lie as truth and neither did she condemn it. But in Twe-de-ampon's name, Abena could have been fair to say she wasn't interested in the lie and that we should rather talk about her 'others' and I'd have welcomed that diversion wholeheartedly. Alas Abena without any basis decided to accuse me of refusing to see what she calls 'value is the same'! so Hail Abena, full of 'same value'! which value too she does not tell what she means.

This was all about the discussion on joyfm on NPP Chairman Jake O. L's loot of govt property in the name of the law. So well I insisted that the lie must be pointed out. And Abena replied " So did he LIE about the other beneficiaries of this land chop chop scheme?". In the name of Twe-de-ampon again, whether Akomea lied about the rest or not, does that change anything about the particular lie Akomea told about the prez? Answer is NO. I replied that I pointed out a particular lie and that I did not talk about 'others'. Abena said 'okay'. but next tweeted to ask: "So has this land scheme CONTINUED since the change in govt in Jan 2009???These are the kind of blinders I'm talking about. ..." 

What blinders in the name of 'value is the same'? Christo! But before I could even answer she continued: " Novisi, at some point you have to remove the blinders when it comes to one particular party over the other." funny one this! First why at 'some point' and not 'all points'? if blinders are not good then they should be removed at all points and not only at 'some point'. In any case let me tell prove I have some blinders blocking my sight before being said to have that. So I made a demand for us to define what this whole charge of blindness is: I said: " Then we have to define the blindness. I say it's a lie that Mills got land as govt appointee. is that being blind?" And yet Abena who knows about blindness refused to confirm whether stating that lie constitutes blindness. She just did not answer. Why? Could Abena not answer this simple question after professing to know about blinders? I believe she could. But she didn't and the question is why? 

Yet Abena went on further to accuse me of cherry picking saying "Cherry hear some things and have issues with them but ignore others.." Very interesting. now it's NOT 'REFUSE' but 'IGNORE'. Yet here was Abena who was quick to tweet amidst it all: " Oh and another thing Novisi, the constant shifting of goal posts to move away from the substantive issues & onto semantics". I was being said to be shifting posts to semantics and yet here was Abena moving from 'REFUSE TO SEE' to 'IGNORE OTHERS'. Ebeiii. Many accusations flying there at me but Abena who accused me of 'cherry picking' failed totally to tell a single issue which I had ignored or refused to see. Pal, BIZARRE is an understatement at this point. What we have is sheer recklessness in the name of 'value is the same' by whatever motivation on the part of Abena.

And this recklessness is emphasized in a subsequent sweet tongue-in-cheek tweet: " Of course...Nana Akomea's "lie" is the substantive issue of course.." after I stated my hope that the NDC's George Nartey would expose the lie. So I replied to Abena thus " No. it's not the substantive issue. It's just a needless and poisoning lie to fudge the issues.". Why? If you want us to discuss substantive issue you must make that known. You don't make it look as if me pointing out some particular issue means I'm saying that is the substantive issue. I'm not an idiot to do that. At least it's just fair and respectful so. And guess what next. Abena had this to say: " Well I hope he tackles the "lie" that the VP benefited from this scheme". My badness. forget the fact that Abena at this point did not accuse herself of refusing to see 'others' but the VP. My goodness, I did not say it's a lie that the VP benefited. I don't know who told Abena that it's a lie that the VP benefited but she chose to say that. The lie I pointed to was about prez Mills and not the VP which Abena failed to comment on. Anyway, I told her it was not a lie that the VP benefited. and yet even this response to her "lie" did not make her reply to say I was right or wrong. And yet I still stood accused by Abena full of 'same value'. eiiiii Yesu Christo!

Well lo and behold in came @kayodei who asked whether this whole purchase was illegal and Abena replied to say she'd leave that to me to deal with and that she had to head out and that I was the expert! Interesting times beckoned me. So I watched and there came in Nana Yaw Sarpong (Abena's partner in crime) with some question to us: "  why not pass a regulation that prohibits sale of state houses and lands after occupation?". good question. no problem. But before I could even wrap my brains around this question Abena who claimed she was heading out made a U-turn and came back saying " That is what I've been trying to ask  since such acquisitions are still going on." CHAOS! HORRIBLE CHAOS!! How could it be that all those baseless accusations leveled against me were all means by which Abena was 'trying' to ask me this same question from @osarpong? Then what would have happened if she wasn't 'trying'? In any case didn't I reply Abena when she asked and I repeat: " So has this land scheme CONTINUED since the change in govt in Jan 2009???These are the kind of blinders I'm talking about. ..." Didn't I tell her the scheme had continued and added that the court case however was not about having the scheme declared as bad? And did she acknowledge this response? answer is NO. So what 'trying' is Abena who has eyes to see blinders talking about?

But more was to follow apparently from @osarpong while I turned my attention elsewhere. In response to Abena's bizarre and CHAOTIC claim of 'trying' @sarpong tweeted: " oh he's interested in Kufour and Jake nothing else lol.". This is a sad-laughing matter from @osarpong. You tell such a lie about your fellow human and laugh lol! I would even laugh myself kwakwakwa at the foolish lie but such a lie should not be told of any human being. It's dehumanizing to say the least. If for nothing at all I responded to the case of the VP. If for nothing at all I responded to the case of whether or not the scheme had continued under the new administration. So why tell such a foolish lie about a human being for us to laugh lol and kwakwakwa? O! Nyame ba Yesu!  

Well, I'm not one who runs away from issues so I pursued them to substantiate their claims. I asked Abena to tell me why she accused me of cherry picking and her answer was the question "  Why do you think I accused you of cherry picking?". eiiiiii Well I did not give up and pursued them still. And the same Abena who suggested I was shifting goal posts to semantics tweeted: "  I'm tired of the selectivity of ALL sides...." clearly moving away from the specific accusation on my person to 'ALL SIDES'. Abena for Christo's sake I didn't ask you about 'ALL SIDES' but about 'my side'. So I said "  You'd have to point out what is SELECTIVITY. you are sweeping the issues. there are differences." and Abena's response to that was "  If there are "differences" as you say then there will always be selectivity..." at this point I noticed the discussion shifting into theory and a bit away from the specific accusation on my person but I wanted to follow to see what would happen. So I responded thus "  Then selectivity is not bad. and really selectivity is not necessarily bad. that's why not good to sweep issues." 

And I thought Abena would admit these facts so I could pin herfurther to prove her case against me or confess her falsehood but hey! I was wrong! Abena rather found that an escape route for the fastest run that even Usain Bolt would dred. And this is how she waved me goodbye: "  Novisi, I totally do not understand your tweet or its logic so alas I must end here." 

Wow! Pal, even a class 5 pupil should understand that tweet. That tweet is in English language and not Greek or some strange language for Abena. That tweet clearly dissects selectivity and states a basic fact that not all selectivity is bad as Abena was otherwise loosely portraying to the detriment of logic. But Abena who has eyes to see me blind says she 'TOTALLY' does not understand that tweet and runs away leaving behind her falsehood. What can I say? I can't force her to understand even a fraction of it. But I'd demand #justice4novisi in this matter as clearly these two individuals Nana Yaw Sarpong and Abena have gone on a reckless charging spree accusing me of things they themselves have failed to prove.

As for @sarpon what he had to say on my persistent demand for #justice4novisi is that and I quote:  " he has nothing to do. he hasn't realised that the way twitter works, there's not enough time &space  ". How? this man finds enough time and space to accuse me without basis but can't find time and space to prove his accusation to be right and blames twitter for that? How so bad a flatulence!

Pal, you see, I've laid this out because these are people like me who sit wherever they find themselves or stand and pontificate about real or percieved wrongs about so called politicians and make themselves look as if they are different from politicians. Yet this interaction I've laid out here points out how bogus these same individuals would be in their utterances if not in their actions too if you were to make them occupy the positions of the politicians. 

Pal, I'm seeking #justice4novisi now and right now and i'd be trying (not Abena's kind of trying) to post all the tweets concerning this matter on twitter with the tag #justice4novisi. It may seem a funny or hilarious or sad or even stupid project but some little things do matter for the records.

Pal, may you not go about accusing people recklessly. best wishes!


Jerome said...

Lol. He who accuses must prove. To the extent that NO shred of evidence could be produced to prove your selectivity, and that your acceptance of the VP's acquisition was disregarded as evidence of your objectivity, and that your attempt to expose Akomea's mischief in order to better inform listeners was not seen as a necessary venture but was interpreted as your sole objective, and that you were accused of being only interested in Jake & Kuffour's grabbing although there was glaring evidence to the contrary, and that the plaintiff refused to respond to some of your questions, and that your admission of the policy still being in existence was deliberately overlooked, my brother, you have suffered injustice.

I therefore officially join the campaign today. #justice4novisi

novisi said...

That's a good summary you have made of the interaction.
Thanks for your support. But I hope you don't lose any of these guys as friends for supporting my demand. I've already lost @abena_serwaa as a 'friend' on twitter after posting this blog and I don't want similar for you (I thought about that possibility before posting this anyway and I don't think it's my fault).

After observing what has gone on after this post I'm resigned to the fact that my accusers would not respond directly to this issue but resort to subtle or masked reactions and I've seen some of those and I'm still happy for them. it's their choice. I respect their choices even though I stand by my demand.