Martin Amidu says Prof Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang, the NDC’s vice presidential nominee, together with Prof. Kwamena Ahwoi, who recently published a book on former President Jerry John Rawlings, lacks the ethics and integrity “to be sincere leaders of Ghana”.
According to him, the two elders of the opposition party which is seeking to lead the country if they win the December 7 elections have shown that they had no good motives.
Amidu, in his fourth critique of Prof. Ahwoi’s ‘Working with Rawlings’ book, indicated that the author, who is also “a boastful” Rhodes Scholar, intentionally failed or refused to make full and frank disclosure of his educational and career shortcomings likely to affect his narratives, the research method of his qualitative work, his biases and possible conflicts of interest for the reading public to appreciate the particular position from which he wrote the book.
He quoted the author’s reason for writing the book from the preface (at page xxi) to spite him. The preface partly stated: “…to give present and future leaders some ideas about governance at the highest levels, the dos and don’ts of governance; the skills required for governance and the importance of human relationship as a leadership trait”.
On that, Amidu wrote that the author’s “laudable” purpose was immediately negated by narratives showing a glaring lack of scholarship, leadership qualities of ethics, candour, keeping confidences and secrecy of official information, courage, character, and training as a trusted practitioner or lecturer on good governance and above all ‘the importance of human relationship as a leadership trait’.
Amidu continued: “Any scholar learned in the philosophy and methods of scholarly research wishing to achieve the author’s laudable purpose would have done so ethically with the consent of the subjects the author writes about while at the same time protecting the subjects from any harm. Scholarly ethics is the first quality of a teacher of good governance and “human relationship as a leadership trait”. A critical reading of the book does not vindicate the author’s pretended laudable purpose.”
Read Martin Amidu’s full critique below.