In the aftermath of the meeting between ex president John Mahama and the ‘diplomatic corps’ at which he showed them ‘absolute evidence’ of the violence by purported NPP hoodlums at the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election, many have been the voices that have spoken for and against what the ex president did.
Council to the president Mr. Kow Essuman, has spoken on the issue, describing Mahama’s use of ‘absolute proof’ as borne of ignorance since he (Mahama) didn’t really understand the legal meaning of the statement.
“I’ve seen the video of the former President showing certain videos, purportedly related to the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election, to alleged members of the diplomatic corps. And I’ve also seen the reactions from well-meaning Ghanaians to the foregoing step by the former President.
I know most of us are concerned that the former President, in that capacity, should not be subjecting himself to international ridicule. But honestly, why should we bothered if he wants to continue embarrassing himself so effortlessly.
He used the words “absolute proof that this was a partisan deployment” and I just cringed and held my head. Forget the partisan deployment part, and focus of the categorical statement, “absolute proof”. Does the man know what “absolute proof” means?
I have learnt that the first video of some security personnel dancing was not at the funeral of the late Agyarko, as alleged by the former President. Proof of that has been provided. But that aside, assuming the former President was right, where is the proof that these same persons dancing were the same persons involved in the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election events? No facial recognition. Nothing. Just a loose statement that they were camped somewhere and then used for what happened during the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election. The location of their alleged camping is not provided; there is no evidence that the exact persons in the video are the same ones involved in the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election events, and you say this is “absolute proof”? No, Mr. Former President, that cannot be “absolute proof” or even proof at all.
The second video has some vehicles and I heard the former President make a categorical statement that those vehicles belonged to the Hon. Lydia Seyram Alhassan and that she was escorted from polling station to polling station by a police vehicle with security personnel. At this point, the cringing was intense. How could he say that? How could he make that categorical assertion? How? How? How? The Hon. Lydia is nowhere in the video. At least, a clear video of her entering one of the vehicles would create a reasonable assumption of that fact but that does not exist.
We don’t see the number plates of the vehicles. Nothing. Just two black vehicles and the former President alleged that they belonged to Hon. Lydia. And then when he made the claim that she was escorted from one polling station to another, I expected to see the second polling station that she arrived, especially from the alleged polling station from which she was allegedly escorted. There was nothing. And he called this “absolute proof”? No, Mr. Former President, this is not “absolute proof” and cannot be proof at all, of the facts you alleged.
If the former President wants to know what it takes to prove an alleged fact on video, he should watch how Anas does it. You don’t get up one morning and curate a bunch of online videos, and show to certain people and expect them to take you seriously. All throughout his Presidency, he succeeded in making Ghana a laughing stock on the international scene; the most unforgettable of them all was the World Cup in Brazil.
One would have thought that having been retired from the Presidency compulsorily, he would have used the opportunity to rise to the highest and enviable position of Statesman, but alas, here we have him throwing around words that he has no understanding of, to the international community, who already see him as a “joke”.
So why should we bothered if the former President wants to continue embarrassing himself before persons, who are discerning and can make reasonable assumptions? As a citizen of this great Republic, perhaps I should be concerned but I can see that the former President can, and is doing bad all by himself. Let’s leave him to make a mockery of himself. For all we know, that may be another legacy that he intends to add to the incompetence and corruption legacies he has.” Kow Essuman wrote.