Mr Daniel Dugan wrote in the 30th October 2023 edition of The Chronicle that in his article, which I had reacted to, he did not talk about all that I had written about and that by talking about all those other issues, someone who had not read his original article, might think that everything I wrote was about his comments.
What Dugan failed to understand is that just a word in someone’s comment, deemed unpalatably inaccurate by another, is enough to elicit a rejoinder that could take a full-page article or even a whole book. He should comprehend defamation and libel within the context of Law and Journalism.
Dugan strangely indulged in what he accused me of doing when he chose to discuss the tenures of two former presidents, which he conveniently brought under his foggy microscopic assessment.
Characteristic of him, he disparaged one of them. Still, he applauded the other, as though I had blamed these two personalities as an entity for any reason and their stewardships in my critique.
By his understanding of a rejoinder, did it not defy commonsense, which is interestingly the title of his column, for him to have spoken about these two statesmen who had nothing to do with the issue at stake? So, between my journalism ‘lecturer’ (Mr Commonsense) and me, who is more in need of essential coaching in journalism?
Daniel Dugan’s statement that what he wrote in reaction did not emanate from him, but the VRA was just a failed attempt to distance himself from his own words to save his image. But that claim is untrue, as he did not quote the VRA. He wrote: ‘The Volta River Authority (VRA), seeing the eminent danger, sent notices to assemblies downstream before it opened the spill gates.’
He should show me where he attributed this statement to the VRA. He did not end there; he continued. ‘It made all efforts to inform the people of what could happen if all spill gates were opened and water gushes forth in volumes unimaginable.’ Daniel Dugan should have said the VRA said that it made all efforts…, but the way he went about it was a direct speech.
He went further to hurl insults at some people who felt concerned about how the spillage was carried out. ‘In all its efforts, like any natural disaster, VRA could not immediately anticipate what would follow until it happened.’
Was this not Dugan’s own judgment? You see, you took a side to attack Tongus, as is characteristic of you, clearly evidenced in some of your past write-ups, which I patriotically drew your attention to.
You insulted those who felt the VRA was negligent in the spillage.
Listen to yourself: ‘Some are saying this is not a natural disaster but man-made, as if to suggest that it was those in authority who filled the lake with water and that the spill gates should not have been opened.’
When you spoke like this, what defense could you put up as not attacking and rubbing salt into the sore of the victims on behalf of the VRA? I do not think the VRA would endorse such a vitriolic comment.
Can you fill even a pond with water, let alone a whole dam? No reasonable person can talk about an ethnic group like that. And you are not remorseful? With all the supra quotes, how could you say I was attributing falsehoods to you? My brother, what was your motivation?
What you wrote as quoting the VRA defied ‘attribution’ in journalism, and a Level 100 journalism student knows this and will not argue that way. Your journalism lecturer will be generous not to refer you but score you below average on a Communication Skills paper.
In the introduction to my retort, I said comments by some people (and some anonymous) were misleading about the Dam spillage, and I felt compelled to correct the misconceptions.
I stated that, at an academic platform recently, for example, a participant said that Tongus were encroachers on VRA land.’ Which of these is unclear to Daniel Dugan?
Yes, some people passed comments on the spillage that were deemed inaccurate, but it was a waste of time responding to each of them, most especially as they were made on radios and social media platforms.
As you know, yours appeared in an identifiable medium, so I disputed it in that newspaper. Do you think you need to be educated that rejoinders must be sent to only the source(s) of the publication?
That is why I could not have responded to social media commentaries in The Chronicle.
When I said the children of Tongu do not benefit from CMB scholarships even though our fathers’ cocoa farms were in areas now swallowed by the Volta River, Dugan reacted. ‘Is Bright saying that these unfortunate incidents affect only Ewes?
To begin with, how extensive was the size of cocoa farms in the Tongu area? What was the percentage of output compared to cocoa-producing areas in Akan lands or even the Guan section of the Volta Region?
For Daniel Dugan to question the sizes of those cocoa farms to warrant a scholarship consideration meant that he needed to gain an understanding of farming. But if it is the case that he was asking me to provide the sizes, then he did not know that in Ghana’s jurisprudence, there is a maxim known as ‘he who alleges must prove his case.’ If he claimed that the sizes were insignificant, then, of course, he must have provided the measurements.
Is he aware that not long ago, a company undertook uprooting of timber in large quantities from the Volta Lake? That should tell him of the density and size of forests with land fertile for such crops.
He questioned my concern about Tongu ‘without considering Ghana in general.’ Bear in mind that I was relating this to the effects of the Dam on people along the Lower Volta Basin vis-à-vis the Dam spillage.
Perhaps Dugan is unaware that communities which have surrendered some collective pleasures or rights to the state are entitled to compensation.
‘During Kufuor’s administration, I think some people who settled in areas very close to the Lake were evacuated, but the NDC came and reinstated them. How about that,” Dugan queried me. Have you seen his mentality?
Were we talking about settlement along the Lower Volta Basin? And to even say: ‘I think,’ suggested that you were merely conjecturing, not factual, and I think intellectual as you claim you are, you would have avoided some of these rudimentary boo-boos.
When I questioned the prudence in crafting the so-called simulation exercise in a language other than the native tongue of the target audience, Dugan evasively saw that as tribalism. But isn’t this a case of the pot describing the kettle as black? You have an unenviable reputation for that, as seen even in your rejoinder.
According to the international media, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) was distributing flyers to Palestinians in Gaza ahead of an attack recently. Dugan, do you think Latin or Chinese was put on the leaflets? Arabic, of course, and this is basic common sense because that is their native language.
And he said to use Twi in couching the heading for the exercise, ‘da woho so,’ was apt because Dangmes also share the Volta River. Who is disputing location? He conveyed forth: ‘Mind you, the Dangmes also share the Lower Volta with the Ewe, Tongus, so why Ewe and not Dangmes?
But is that the basic language of Dangmes? Why not ask the VRA that question about the choice of language? I was not the one who chose the language or heading for the ‘simulation’ exercise. I don’t think I should continue to waste time on you because you write from an uninformed position.
For your information, it was said that the said simulation exercise was carried out in ‘Mepe areas.’ Are Akuse and Asutsuare part of Mepe areas? No, they are not! Have you seen how you are basking in ignorance?
Listen to this perverted logic, too: ‘Can Bright go along and condemn Christian worshipers in Ewe communities who sing Akan songs of praises and worship to God?’
Oh, we are talking about communicating with people living in their traditional area on a critical issue, and you are talking about a song in church? Studying ethnography will help you tremendously to free your mind of thinking and reasoning that way.
Suppose you go to the Nzema areas as a government agent tasked to communicate with them on an important matter, will you choose the Ahanta Language or a language understood by all?
On my suggestion of dredging the Volta River, Daniel Dugan, who claims to be acquainted with the area, doubted the effectiveness of this option. He wrote: ‘Where will the silt go when it rains? Has he ever thought of that?’
It is pleasing to read his admission of reasoning limitations. Listen! I said early on that three companies were given that job. One of them started but was restrained by a court order. The bone of contention, among other things, however, was the right to use the silt.
While the company wanted to sell it, the plaintiffs felt they should have that right. There is a market for it. Much of the sand used in construction in Accra and Tema is from the Volta River. The amount of sand expected from this dredging exercise is enormous. So, the question of the silt being washed back can engage the minds of only the uninformed.
Besides, the aquatic weeds to be harvested will be processed into animal feeds, manure, and what have you. I must commend you for this humility of admitting knowledge deficiency, which has unearthed this education to you.
Mr. Daniel Dugan, in an exercise seeking superior arguments, insults should not be given space. I suggest you try to eliminate use of abusive words from your articles. Anytime you write a feature article in a fit of rage, do not hesitate to submit it; go through it later before it is sent. I must admit that I felt highly uncomfortable writing this article to suit your style.
By EX WOI Bright Segbefia (re.shuffle@yahoo.com)
