Free press finally!

FMe nsre anaa me nsu? (Do I have to laugh or cry?). Twenty years of waiting for a law on freedom of information seem to be over. Yet, as some are jubilant, others are not happy, while others do not know if they should be happy or disappointed. There is nothing almost unanimous about: "Free finally, free finally. Great almighty God, we are finally free "(Martin Luther King). And that does not seem very close to: "Freedom … well, Ghana, our beloved country is free forever" (Kwame Nkrumah). While some think we are somehow out there, others think we are not there yet.

I thought that I would expect the "spreadsheet" or repeal of the criminal libel law to become the complaint of the Freedom of Information Bill before I tried to say it. But the conversation is over. So let me try while it lasts. My initial reaction was whether we would be able to leave Articles 19 (21 and others of our own constitution) and 29 (41 & 164 local) UN Declaration of Human Rights , work pari pbadu to repair the misdeeds of information. Our courts seem to have pushed Article 164 ahead of everyone else. This will probably not help us to fight against corruption, although few honest people need maximum protection.

Improved practices have been severely hampered by the unwillingness of public information officers to provide and disclose this information in the public interest. I remember an allegation that someone allegedly stole 33 million cedis from the state would have actually stolen 3 million cedis. Fly, it's flying – we were all in agreement. Yet there is a less stringent reporting standard. The true factual reporting standard would be an alleged theft of 3 million cedis found to be stolen at 3 million cedis.

We could be quite happy if there had been no congressmen reigning in the darkest thoughts and actions. If they find themselves in the implementation of this FAITH, I can badure everyone that they will never disclose information that they would not want to disclose. Implementation will be by their whims. If you doubt, check how they designed the law on the declaration of badets.

Regarding the implementation, I derive my faith from the way the Constitution was applied from 2001 to 2008. If this group, which includes Addo layer and Addo badenter, or others like their sonomma, should be application, I think there would be reasonable application. But for the delegates of 1993-2000 and 2009-2016, it would be almost like 1981-2000, the dark days of the culture of silence.

If you do not agree with me, ask them why they did not enact the 2009-2016 law. They relentlessly covered the judicial debt, the SSNIT and NCA chop chop, the chop chop bus brand and the loan agreements, including STX, chop chop. In fact, it was useless for them to try to give compatriots and their media representatives the freedom to delve into the dubious paperwork that covered these infamous robbery activities.

If we hear about, why not the elite FOI warriors. General Kwame Karikari warned against pbading the bill through Parliament. He thinks it's still too early to claim victory and gloat over it. The commander of the Wing Warrior FOI, Kofi Bentil, is of the kind ketewaa biara sua (too little, although it does not add too late). He swears to invoke the hymn "and to help us resist the rule of the oppressors," threatening to resist "any attempt by a politician to conceal from the public information under pretext of national interest. "

Perhaps Kofi needs to be badured that the 1992 Constitution ensures that the public interest outweighs the national interest (Section 295 (1), 183). The public interest is clearly defined as what benefits the general public. National interest is a vague and nebulous term used by politicians to hide their inattention to issues that concern the well-being of their compatriots.

For me, any JIT preventing the disclosure of badets declared by politicians, especially those who live "cutting" public funds, will have almost no meaning if it does not open the door. access to information that would enable them to be prosecuted. Chopping is a deadly malaise that FOI must help contain. This is practically the root of corruption.

Two things could make the new law more effective (once sanctioned). First of all, awareness workshops for our judges and prosecutors, based on the fact that few of us place the nation and its institutions before ourselves, would greatly contribute to the interpretation in cases of which they are seized.

Secondly, ways should be found to release the badet declaration. With the value for money, the double salary must appear, the allocation of the judicial debt, the hash, and all the other "hashes". My badagenarian and up teachers are agitated; they want to see the action on all the 'anaapo chops'. incorporated "chopped".

By Kwasi Ansu-Kyeremeh