THE New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are again at their joking best. This time it is whether Nana Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP, indeed met United Kingdom Prime Minister, David Cameron, at the Number 10 Downing Street, the official resident of the UK government, during the former’s visit to the UK.
DIRECTOR of Communications at the presidency, Koku Anyidoho, first fired the salvo insisting that he did not believe Nana Akufo-Addo met with the UK Premier. He even dared Akufo-Addo and the NPP to tell Ghanaians what transpired at the supposed meeting.
OBVIOUSLY Koku’s subtle taunt was premised on the hard-line rebuff by President Mills of Premier Cameron’s threat that Commonwealth countries including Ghana which fails to recognise rights of homosexuals stand the risk of losing out on United Kingdom aid and believes Akufo-Addo could not be as brave as the president in parrying off Cameron’s threat.
DESPITE the danger of losing out on British aid, the Ghanaian president was bold in telling David Cameron that he cannot compel Ghana into accepting the practice of homosexuality which is against Ghanaian norms and decency.
PRESIDENT Mills’ position has shored up his ratings both at the local and international front and it has offered many NDC folks a certain bragging right that they would not want any other person to share with the president. If there would be anybody at all to share in the glory, it should not be the number one nemesis of the president, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
SO for the past week the national attention has been shifted to the supposed Nana Addo meeting with David Cameron, which NPP commentators are professing that their candidate, like Professor Mills, also made a strong point against Cameron’s order. It must be stressed however that Nana Akufo-Addo’s party- the New Patriotic Party- has stated its position against Cameron’s directive.
WE on Today therefore wonder if Nana Akufo-Addo would have stated anything on the contrary to the party’s position when he met David Cameron. Again if Nana Akufo-Addo had previously met Cameron on three occasions since the UK Prime Minister assumed power, then what is all these fuss about their fourth meeting?
TODAY believes, typical with the two parties (the NDC and the NPP), they are only engaged in such trivialities to score populist points at the expense of more serious national issues. Today is not the least surprised because it has been the forte of the two political parties to dabble in cheap politicking as a way of warding off the minds of Ghanaians from what tangible and achievable targets they have for the good people of this country.
BUT let us state clearly that rebuffing or meeting Cameron personally to register protest against the UK Prime Minister’s directive is not the crux that is required to deal permanently with Ghana’s position against homosexuality. It must be stated that the positions by the two parties and their leaders although are acceptable to majority of Ghanaians, it remains a temporary political toughness that cannot stand the test of time.
WE believe political positions are often wished away just as the way political parties also lose power. In event that the NDC loses power, what is the guarantee that the next party that comes to power will continue with the president’s position?
WHAT we require is an amendment in the country’s criminal code that would explicitly state our position on homosexuality. As it stands now, there is no clear definition and a prescribed punishment for homosexuals.
AND until we amend the law to cement the president’s position on homosexuality, we should not be carried away by what we see as political gimmicks to score political points rather than to stand the test of time. Today believes this is what should engage our attention and not which one of the two leaders scored the most points in rebuffing David Cameron and his cronies.