Wednesday, April 3, 2013

which tv in which Ghana court?

Sometimes I just think people willingly use their nether to think and then let out all manner of fart into the atmosphere for us to consume.

Kenya allowed live TV cameras into the hearing of Odinga's nonsensical case and so Ghana must do same for Nana's even more-than-nonsensical election petition?

No problem. But who are those calling for it and what reasons are they giving for their call?

As a child I always wondered why news broadcasts of court proceedings on TV did not include showing the courtroom with the judge in his wig presiding over arguments. What I got and still get are faces and commentary of the wig wearing lawyers; mostly flamboyant arrant nonsense outside the court. The best picture I get are those by artists in newspapers: artist's impressions!

So I wondered why all the mystification of the law if the law is to serve society really? I recently got to know that Ghanaians decided to copy the donning of those wigs by their colonial masters so that the judges could not be identified in public for fear of being beating well well or maimed or killed by aggrieved persons who don't accept their judgements to the extent of unleashing their own on the judges. Ah well... so they say, but really, it's neither here nor there. We are in Ghana now where there's the very ripe recent history of some of these very disguised judges being kidnapped and murdered into a national scar. If the wigs helped them to escape such death those judges would not have died there way they did. So what's the point hanging on to that useless reason?

So there must be reasons for positions/decisions and the reasons, most importantly, must breathe sanity.

So what is the reason being given for the demand of TV cameras to transmit live audiovisuals into homes, ghettos, the streets, offices, akpeteshie kiosks, etc.? The proponents led by Nana's associates claim that the case in court has heightened tension and so live broadcast would help bring down the tension. I say to them: foolish. very foolish. Who took this very animal case to the courts for the taxpayer's money to be expended on it in the first place? Are they not the ones? Since when did they realize such a case by it's mere nature, and not by their 'all die be die' animal talk, is what would bring tension and what proof of this have they got to show us? What tension if you don't go inciting your people to use catapults or bombs or whatever they can find to kill or cause damage in the name of this animal case?

Pal, we were in Ghana when Afari-Djan the EC boss declared the results of the presidential elections on LIVE TV for all who have eyes and ears to see and hear. Indeed, before Afari-Djan mounted his seat to do his constitutionally mandated duty, we had votes counted in the full glare of the public at polling stations with the public participating. The media with their radio and tv carried these things across the nation for all to experience and we all saw the direction of the results which made Afari-Djan's announcement a telling of what was already known. 

Yet after all these Nana and his associates decided to tell us they disagreed with the results. And not just so, they instigated supporters to pour on the streets, visiting mayhem on fellow citizens so that all the LIVE RADIO AND LIVE TV broadcasts did nothing to these Nana's animal band of nonsensical lot led by Nana himself with his charges of "win at all cost" and "all die be die". Indeed, they have formed a so called 'Let My Vote Count' sidekick to this whole animal petition drama and they mount theatres where members scream out that they want to use bombs to show the world how serious they are already. They tell us of one of them who so slapped a fellow citizen in Kumasi leaving the observer in wonder! Such Things! So how the hell they come telling us live broadcast of the court proceedings is what would reduce or remove tension? What the hell? What the bloody hell!

Having realized long ago that those wigs the judges wear does not give them any extra-protection from lunatics after their taxpayer-assigned bodyguards, I have been wanting real still pictures, even, and not artists' impressions alone from courtrooms. So I want tv in all the court rooms at any time all over the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. But I want tv for sense and not nonsense. If the tv would not make me learn then I don't want.

Pal, I don't like those Spanish or Mexican soap operas shown on television in Ghana. They only pollute the heads of our people with those. I hardly watch TV. Put a TV in front of me and I could have my eyes fixed on to it alright to your delight but my brain would be searching myriads of territories faraway even beyond the subconscious. So if you want me to watch TV then it better be something I'd learn from: news, discussions on science, theories on humanities, the arts, etc. Else let it be some football match I find important enough for amusement in the absence of akpeteshie.

Pal, I don't see how Nana being cross-examined in court would teach me anything useful. That man does not speak sense. He speaks too much non-sense and this particular petition of his is nothing but an animal whining that at best must be thrown out with retrospective effect to save the taxpayer's money or else he must be charged for all the expenses made.

Pal, I know some people have argued that Nana's case would help us advance our democracy but I vehemently disagree with that position. This petition is a dehumanizing petition. It is an animal petition. Ghana has been on the path of electoral reforms since, at least, 1992: From opaque ballot boxes to transparent ones, etc. Indeed, all those CIs introduced in 2012 were for electoral reforms with intentions for the better. So we don't need any champion Nana from anywhere to take a foolish case to court before we know we ought to have electoral reforms. As we speak the Electoral Commission is going round the country meeting stake holders to learn from the 2012 elections for betterment. So Nana cannot be THE (capital letters) champion of Ghana's electoral reforms. The challenges experienced with the biometric system introduced for the first time in 2012 must be well documented to learn from. That is the way forward. Not this idiotic court case.

Pal, let it be clear that it is no favour Nana is doing us. Our taxpayer's money is being expended on his adventure. So let us have sense. If Nana was minded by sanity or 'no tension', he'd have done the honourable thing of conceding defeat and congratulating the winner on LIVE TV for all to see the very night Afari-Djan declared the results on LIVE TV.

Pal, enough said for now.

No comments: