An Associate Professor of Law at the University of Ghana, Legon, has said comments by a spokesperson for the Education Ministry on Saturday, confirms his fears that the proposed Public Universities Bill will spell doom for higher education in the country.
Prof Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua said Saturday, May 30, 2020, on a news analysis programme on Accra-based Joy FM that the defence mounted by Ekow Vincent Assafuah for the government-sponsored Bill is evident that he lacks understanding of how higher institutions of learning are governed.
“He seems to display a complete ignorance of the university government system,” Prof Appiagyei-Atua said about Mr Assafuah’s submissions on the programme.
The PRO for the Education Ministry had said apart from the standardisation of Ghana’s universities that the Bill seeks to establish, it will also ensure financial accountability for managers of the universities’ coffers.
“If the University of Ghana, for instance, so decides that as part of its management mandate, they can secure a loan for the university, without recourse to the government…in stances that there is a default or a problem, the University of Ghana will now rush to the Ministry of Education or government that government should come to their aid,” he said.
According to Mr Assafuah, there is no denying that the Ministry of Education will always have a role to play in the administration of the universities in Ghana, hence the need for the Bill to be passed to streamline the nature of this role by government.
But reacting to Mr Assafuah’s comments, Prof Appiagyei-Atua said the university governance system operates on self-governance and institutional autonomy and for that to work, the university is given adequate space that should not be encroached upon.
“That space is for a specific purpose. It is to promote functional necessity of the university. Academic freedom has two dimensions – freedom from and freedom to. The freedom is for government to respect the university space so that if there are certain rights that are there, it shouldn’t seek to violate them.
“The governance is also to protect the university against violations by a third party and if it so happens it ensures that space is closed,” the Associate Professor of Law stated.
He added that the government has a duty to fulfil some obligations towards the universities such as the provision of infrastructure and so on, explaining that it is at this point that the accountability issue comes in.
According to him, there are existing laws that are adequate to regulate the accountability issue between government and universities.
Public Universities Bill
According to government, the Bill seeks to harmonise the governance, administration and accountability structures of public universities, but the academic community has mounted a fierce resistance.
Since the Bill was laid in Parliament in January last year, academicians have said the Bill will greatly stifle academic freedom.
When passed, the Bill will give the government the power to appoint majority of members of the University Council.
The Council will have the power to appoint and fire public university officials, including a Chancellor.
The Bill also gives the President the power to dissolve the University Council.
It also gives effect to the University Council to control the finances of the university and determine the allocation of funds.
In addition, there is a proposal to rename four public universities after various personalities.
The Ghana Education Service (GES) has released a notice on an upcoming online global conference for all Teachers scheduled for 30th May 2020.
The theme of the conference is ”THE NEW NORMAL, EDUCATION POST COVID-19”
The conference is in partnership with T4 global Education.
With the present ongoing engagement between the various stakeholders – Ministry of Education, Ghana Education Service, Teacher Unions, NCPTA, etc, to find a possible pathway towards the reopening of schools whiles ensuring the safety of Teachers, students and other working staff.
The conference is focused on providing detailed discussion on four key areas under the ‘New normal’ that are necessary for working under the new normal whiles ensuring your safety as a teacher and that of the students. The four main areas the conference will address are:
Teacher well being
Teacher leadership
Teacher collaboration
Teacher tech.
All teachers are expected to register freely to get a pass for the conference HERE or visit www.T4.EDUCATION
The requirements for the registration are
Active email address
Name and Country
Answer the question of whether or not you are a teacher.
After completion of the registration, a confirmation email will be sent to you and a pass later to enable you to participate in the conference come 30th May 2020.
Participants will have to check the time zone to choose the local time of the event since it is an international program.
After the confirmation email is sent to you, you have an option to create a free page on Google to table in any questions.
Given the prevailing new circumstances under which the teachers are expected to provide continuing education whiles ensuring safety and that of the students, the conference is time to prepare oneself towards the reopening of schools.
Formers to President John Dramani Mahama through the NDC Covid-19 technical team presented personal protective equipment (PPE) to health workers at the Ketu South Municipal health Directorate in Aflao yesterday.
The presentation, according to Hon Alex Segbefia, a member of the NDC Covid-19 technical team, is part of the former President’s contribution to the safety of our front line health personnels during this Covid-19 Pandemic and to help address the shortage of PPEs and other medical materials required in the various health facilities across the country.
He expressed the hope that the items presented will help in protecting the staff of the hospital as they go about their work.
Speaking at the presentation, Hon Dzifa Gomashie the Ketu South Parliamentary Candidate of the NDC expressed gratitude to the health personnels for managing the Covid-19 situation in the municipality and expressed her joy for the impressive number of recoveries recorded so far.
The items presented include 30 full sets of PPEs, 30 gum boots, 2000 hand gloves and a sizeable quantity of the locally made mask.
This latest presentation follows the earlier interventions made by the Member of Parliament, Hon Fifi Kwetey and the Parliamentary Candidate, Hon Abla Dzifa Gomashie to the Ketu South Health Directorate.
The team was received by the municipal health Director, Mr Joseph Degle and Mr Jacob Torvinya Agbanu the Deputy Health Administrator of the Ketu South Municipal hospital. They expressed their appreciation on behalf of the facility to the former President and the NDC for the presentation.
The items were officially received on behalf of the health directorate and the hospital by Madam Florance Attah the deputy director of health nursing
Accompanying Hon Segbefia for the donation were Hon Kobby Woyome MP for South Tongue, Hon Gabby Hotorwogbe MP for Central Tongu, Edem Agbana Deputy Nation Youth organizer, Hon James Gunu the Volta Regional Secretary, Delbright Kugbadzor the deputy regional communication officer, Evelyn Gaglozu the deputy regional Treasurer and Bright Kumordzie the constituency chairman with some other constituency executives from the south and central Tongu.
Issued by
Bright Dzila
Ketu South NDC Communication Officer
0246497595
General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Atik Mohammed has asked The Ghana Police Service to immediately invite the party’s National Chairman, Bernard Mornah, over his seditious comments against the Electoral Commission.
Bernard Mornah, who is also a leader of the Inter-Party Resistance Against New Voter Register [IPRAN], reportedly threatened mayhem should the Electoral Commission (EC) proceed with its registration exercise to compile a new voters’ register.
He is said to have beaten ”war drums” saying the group will violently disrupt the process and won’t hesitate to ”kill” during the exercise.
Speaking on Peace FM’s ‘Kokrokoo’, the PNC General Secretary described the statements by the party’s National Chairman as ”treasonable” and therefore called on the Police to swiftly swoop him up for interrogation.
He emphasized the mandate of the Police is not just ”to deal with criminals but to ensure that crimes are not even committed in the first place. So, if somebody is threatening mayhem in this country, the person’s insurance cannot be the fact that he is Chairman of a particular political party”.
Atik Mohammed stressed that Bernard Mornah is not above the laws of the country and so should not be left off the hook.
“Merely being the Chairman of a political party such as the PNC doesn’t mean you can say any gibberish. It doesn’t give you the licence to just say all kinds of things and I am on this occasion inviting the Police that they should invite Bernard Mornah…If you threaten mayhem if you threaten violence, the threat of violence and the visitation of violence on whoever are offences under the Criminal Offences Act. So, you cannot threaten mayhem against a State agency doing their work within the limits of the law,” he told host Kwami Sefa Kayi.
MP for Assin Central, Kennedy Agyapong and veteran journalist Abdul-Malik Kweku Baako
“…I have a case against Kennedy Agyapong for a year and a half now. The judgement would have ended much earlier…but now the judgement is slated for June 26…,” Kweku Baako told host of Good Morning Ghana, Randy Abbey.
The case which has been in and out of court for over a year, according to Mr Baako has had quite interesting twists in the process, including the fact that the “the lawyer for the defendant (Kennedy Agyapong) did a lot of injustice to their witness.”
Kweku Baako also indicated that in the course of the legal process, the defendants called for an out of court settlement which he agreed to but no tangible consensus could be reached during that period thus, his decision to reject and continue court proceedings.
Kennedy Agyapong will be expected to cough up a whopping amount of GHC25 million as demands by Mr Baako as damages for defamation if he is found on the wrong side of the law.
In a panel discussion on Good Morning Ghana, the veteran journalist said if he could have engaged in a radio and TV banter with Kennedy Agyapong but the issue would not have been resolved because that’s his turf.
“Mr Kennedy Agyapong openly accused me of engaging in ‘galamsey’. He also said Anas and I conspired to blackmail the president and so when Anas went to the president for the Number 12 thing it was only I, Anas and the president, only the three of us and I had a secret camera which I used to film the president…,” Kweku Baako explained.
According to Mr Baako, the viciousness of the character assignation propelled by the Assin Central lawmaker caused him to test the provisions of the law.
In his opinion, partisan personalities who are fond of brutally defaming people must be taken through the full rigours of the law, henceforth.
“All these guys around who make too much noise, attack people…assassinate characters, we must subject them to that drill, we have no other choice. Some of them anticipate that you engage them on that radio and television, that’s endless…yes, that’s their turf. They have their fanatics behind them, you also have your fanatics behind you so it’s your word against my word. Radio and television debates nobody solves any matter there…,” he said.
Assin Central lawmaker in 2018, during the heat of the Number 12 expose and illegal mining debates defamed Kweku Baako on two separate occasions on radio and television.
Mr Baako, therefore, prayed the court to direct Mr Agyapong to “publish on three consecutive occasions on the same platform that he published the defamatory words, an unqualified retraction and an apology, with the same prominence as given to the issuance of the defamatory words. Other costs including legal fees and any others as this honourable court may deem fit.”
Political Science lecturer at the University of Cape Coast (UCC) Jonathan Asante Okyere has questioned the resolutions taken by the Electoral Commission (EC) to compile a new voter registration in late June regardless of opposition from some political parties and in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Speaking to Nana Yaw Opare on the Yensempa morning show on Onua FM, Mr Asante Okyere described the decision by the EC to use National Identification Authority (NIA) card and passport as the required documents for the registration as “voodoo logic”.
“In all my life being social and political, I have never seen an incompetent Electoral Commissioner like Jean Mensa,” he said.
He repeated: “In all my life, I have never seen an incompetent EC chair like the current chair and I think there is lack of common sense which more or less is affecting the operations of the EC.”
He noted that the EC’s position in allowing people to vouch for others, who are without NIA cards and Passports, would create the avenue for people to demand for money in guaranteeing, making it possible for foreigners to get registered which could compromise the integrity of the register.
Commenting on the position of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in kicking against the intended new voter register, Mr. Asante Okyere disclosed that the party has a strong position which to some extent has attracted support from other political parties and a variety of civil society organisations.
He is of the view that the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) have their weight behind the EC because they believe the intended new register would influence processes for them in retaining power at all cost.
Mr Asante Okyere, as a result, has admonished the Chair of the Commission, Madam Jean Mensa, to tread cautiously because the path she has chosen could be detrimental to Ghana’s hard-earned democracy.
The UCC Lecturer is positive President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is clandestinely supporting the EC’s position otherwise he would have instructed or called the EC chair to order in ensuring a peaceful environment for the December 7 polls.
Mr Asante Okyere thus prayed faith-based organizations, traditional rulers and highly respected elders in the country to intervene to salvage the situation in maintaining peace before, during and after the polls.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service has invited the National Chairman of the People’s National Convention (PNC) Bernard Mornah for questioning over alleged threats he made against the Electoral Commission (EC).
He is due to be at the CID headquarters at 10 am on Tuesday, June 2, 2020.
According to an invitation letter extended to him and signed by Deputy Director-General of CID, DCOP Barima Tweneboah Sasraku II, the CID is investigating the threats he made against the EC and its staff.
His pronouncements made at a press conference are in relation to the planned voter registration exercise.
The EC is due to organize the exercise in the coming weeks.
But at a press conference, Mr Mornah, says he will resist every attempt by the EC to compile the new register.
According to him, “People who are already Ghanaians are already registered are going to be taken out of the voters’ register, don’t think confusion will come at the registration station and if confusion comes there, you think the EC staff will be safe, we will beat each other there and, we will kill each other there if that is what the EC wants to lead this nation to.”
The said press conference was organized by the Inter-Party Resistance Against New Register (IPRAN) on May 26, 2020.
Following the threats, suspended General Secretary of the PNC, Atik Mohammed asked the Police to invite the party’s Chairman, Bernard Mornah for.
By threatening to disrupt a legitimate exercise of the Electoral Commission, Atik Mohammed indicated that his party’s Chairman comments amount to treason and violate other portions of the country’s constitution.
He believes that if such comments are allowed to fester, some persons will take the law into their hands to act out the “unfortunate and reckless” words by Bernard Mornah.
“Merely being the Chairman of a political party doesn’t give you the license to spew gibberish. And I’m on this occasion inviting the police that they should invite Bernard Mornah for his comments. If you threaten mayhem if you threaten violence; chairman (referring to the host, Kwami Safa Kayi), threats of violence, and the visitation of violence on whoever are both offenses under our Criminal Offences Act.
“And so you cannot threaten mayhem against a state agency doing its work within the limits of the law without the police inviting you. What if they wait and you actually give effect to your threats? And I believe the police administration is not just there to deal with criminals but to ensure that crimes are not even committed in the first place,” Atik said on Peace Fm Thursday.
The PNC suspended General Secretary noted that nobody is above the law.
“And so if somebody is threatening mayhem in this country, the person’s insurance cannot be the fact that he is the Chairman of a particular political party. Ofosu Ampofo is standing trial. He is the Chairman of a political party; I do not see the reason why the police cannot invite Bernard Monah,” he stated.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section1. Policy.Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, the power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, says his investigations so far have revealed that about 80% of fake pastors in the country are from the Ashanti Region.
According to the MP who has sworn to expose fake pastors in the country, these fake pastors from the Ashanti Region are young men who have promoted themselves from magicians to men of God with the aim of duping innocent people to acquire wealth.
“My investigations so far tells me that they (the fake pastors) are very young pastors and about 80% are from Kumasi. I can’t explain why but from my investigation most of them are from the Ashanti Region.”
He made this statement on Wednesday, May 28, 2020, when he appeared on Net TV’s ‘The Seat Show’ to continue his series of exposés on the leader and founder of the International God’s Way Church, Bishop ‘Angel’ Daniel Obinim.
He added that what seems more worrying about the activities of the fake pastors is how they are destroying marriages and relationships beyond duping people.
“They are not only duping people, they are able to destroy marriages as well…Because of their thirst for people’s spouses, they say all sorts of lies to make some women leave their men so they can go into relationships with them.”
Kennedy Agyapong on the show entreated Ghanaians to be cautious of the fake pastors who he said has rendered a lot of people broke and devastated in their quest to find salvation and solution to their life problems.
The Member of parliament of the North Tongu Constituency, Hon. Okudzeto Ablakwa in his fight against the COVID -19 has come out to pledge support to 45 private basic school teachers in his constituency after they have been deprived of their livelihood due to the outbreak of the pandemic.
In his Facebook post on Thursday, May 28, 2020, the legislator confirmed direct cash transfers to 659 indomitable teaching and non-teaching staff in his constituency.
”We have this evening concluded direct cash transfers to 659 indomitable teachings and non-teaching staff in my beloved constituency.” He said.
The figure according to him comprises some 570 teaching and non-teaching staff from 45 private schools and 89 volunteer teachers in public basic schools who are not on the government payroll.
This MP’s initiative to ameliorate the plight of private school teachers who have not received salaries since March due to the COVID-19 induced closure of schools has now been successfully implemented.
The source of funds for the intervention are as follows: MP’s Common Fund financed 30%; MP’s personal contribution 20%; MP’s fundraising efforts from donors accounted for the remaining 50%.
”I express my heartfelt appreciation to all those whose generosity have helped us make this initiative a resounding success. I am eternally indebted to my army of dedicated volunteers who authenticated the data and verified the MoMo transactions. May God bless every one of you greatly.” He concluded.
