Tag: politics and government

Posted on

EUAN McCOLM: Civil Servants’ Benefits Spark Fury


  • Click here to visit the Scotland home page for the latest news and sport

The sense of entitlement is, at once, both infuriating and entirely unsurprising.

Pampered Scottish Government officials have grown accustomed, since the
Coronavirus
pandemic forced the temporary closure of offices, to working from home.

This emergency protocol was established for excellent reasons: in the months before a vaccine was created, Covid-19 presented a devastating threat to life. Of course it made sense for workers across the public and private sectors to carry out their duties far from the risk of infection.

But, thanks to the development of effective vaccines against the deadly virus, there is no longer any need for employees to stay away from their offices. Indeed, it is some years since such a measure was necessary, or even appropriate.

Yet, long after the threat from the virus was diminished, many Scottish Government civil servants continue to work from home. And many of them appear to have decided that’s the way things should stay.

For most Scots workers, going back to the office was not a matter of choice. It was, simply, a return to normality. But Scottish Government bureaucrats don’t reckon those rules apply to them.

Following an order that they should return to their offices for just two days a week, toys were ejected from prams across the country. How dare anyone expect these very important people to actually turn up at work?

An edict stating that 9,300 Scottish Government staff who have been allowed “hybrid” working arrangements since Covid should start spending two days a week in offices by autumn fuelled a backlash among mandarins, with some demanding special treatment simply for getting back behind their desks.


Using the government’s internal communications network, Saltire, staff bitterly complained about the hardship they would face if they had to actually turn up at the office to do the jobs for which they are so handsomely paid.

There were been demands for a swimming pool at the government’s Victoria Quay building to reopen, complaints that making staff come to work is unfair on their pets, and even questions over whether workers’ human rights are being breached by the order.

And, of course, there were calls for a pay rise, as if simply carrying out one’s contractual obligations represented a great personal sacrifice.

Senior managers within the Scottish Government want to cut back on the amount of time people work from home for the very good reason that they wish to boost productivity. It turns out that leaving entitled bureaucrats to their own devices is not good for efficiency.

I find it impossible to disagree with Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr’s view that those civil servants now complaining about the order to go to the office for a mere two days a week are “divorced from reality”.

Should you need persuading this is so, consider this comment from one civil servant: “Many have made big decisions based on balance — whether that be starting a family, getting a pet, getting rid of cars; down to things like starting a new fitness class, being able to take that longer lunchtime walk for their mental health or meet a friend after work because there is no commute. The prospect of that now being taken away is undoubtedly causing stress and anxiety.”

The wee lambs.

For workers across the private sector, refusal to come to work would be considered a matter of gross misconduct and instant dismissal would follow.

Click here to visit the Scotland home page for the latest news and sport

These same rules should apply to civil servants.

While the backlash from bureaucrats is enough to make the blood boil, who can say they find it surprising?

The culture of any organisation is set at the top and we have grown grimly accustomed to those who govern us acting as if they are entitled to special treatment.

We have watched as First Minister after First Minister has stood behind colleagues who – in the private sector – would have been sacked for incompetence. Why would a civil servant feel the need to perform their duties to any kind of acceptable standard when, for example, health secretary Neil Gray – of taking-a-limo-to-the-pub fame – remains in post? Why would a mandarin feel compelled to turn up to work when so many members of the Government act as if the standards by which the rest of us live and work are for the little people?

There would be something comical about highly-paid civil servants complaining about having to sit at their desks if Scotland’s public service were not in such a parlous state.

The SNP have made swingeing cuts to departmental budgets, stripping back services from social work to health to bin collections.

Meanwhile, ministers have retained a monomaniacal focus on the matter of Scottish independence. Not only have those in charge put their constitutional obsession before, for example, the need for a working NHS, they have diverted staff from vitally important work.

All of the hours spent planning for a second independence referendum that the Scottish Government has no right to run could – should – have been spent on the issues that truly matter to voters.

Amid the fear and anxiety created by the pandemic, there were some positives, not least the creation of a sense of community. As old social hierarchies crumbled, the feeling that we were all in it together was very real, indeed. The urge to play one’s part was strong and reassuringly widespread.

For most of us, life has got back to normal but for others, the need for friends and family to rally round endures.

There are those, of course, who live with the physical effects of Coronavirus long after infection. Others continue to pay a heavy financial cost.

The UK Government’s furlough scheme ensured wages were paid during the worst months of the pandemic but countless jobs lost – particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors – look unlikely ever to be replaced.

The “suffering” of a highly-paid mandarin, asked to come to work two days a week – without even having access to a swimming pool – doesn’t compare to that of someone whose career was destroyed by the pandemic, does it?

There is a case for the intervention of First Minister John Swinney, here.

I suggest he contacts those civil servants complaining about the return-to-the-office demand and makes them a generous offer: They can do as they are told or they can leave and find work more suited to their fragile temperaments.

There are plenty of hardworking Scots ready to step up.

Read more

Posted on

Junet Mohammed: Loyalty Over Betrayal? Raila Odinga Stands With the People, Then and Now

The lead story in the June 23, 2025, edition of

The


Standard

newspaper was a gross misrepresentation of facts, a calculated distortion of history in motion, and a flagrant act of political propaganda masquerading as journalism.

It claims that Raila Amolo Odinga, the indefatigable champion of democracy and social justice, betrayed the Gen Z-led anti-Finance Bill 2024 uprising. The paper could not be further from the truth.


Indeed, if there is any individual who has borne the


brunt


of resisting autocracy and economic oppression in Kenya, it is Raila Odinga.


He has spent decades in the trenches—detained without trial, tortured, vilified, exiled—so that


the people of


Kenya could enjoy the very liberties that


he is proud that


Gen Z is now exercising with admirable boldness.


To attempt to paint him as a betrayer of a movement rooted in justice, accountability, and economic freedom is both ahistorical and dishonest.


Let us set the record straight.


First, it must be acknowledged that the Gen Z


protests


did not emerge in a vacuum. It arose from a continuum of Kenyan struggles against neoliberal oppression,


punitive


state policies, and broken promises.


In June and July of 2023, long before many of today’s commentators even noticed the impact of state fiscal overreach, Raila Odinga led protests against the Finance Bill 2023.


That Bill aimed to raise taxes on ordinary Kenyans—on housing, digital services, fuel, and incomes—


ostensibly for accelerated


development, but in reality


to plug the holes left by


decades of


elite mismanagement and corruption.


Those protests saw the deaths of dozens of young Kenyans, many of whom were shot in cold blood while exercising their constitutional right to assemble


and picket


. Odinga did not abandon them.


He walked side by side with them at great personal risk in the process, surviving assassination attempts in broad daylight and full view of cameras.


He mourned with


Kenyans who had lost their dear ones


. He condemned the killings.


He called for justice. He stood with them—while those now crying betrayal were either complicit in silence or distracted by political expediency.


Fast forward to May 2024. Once again, Odinga led Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition in convening to analyse the newly proposed Finance Bill 2024—this time even more draconian than its predecessor.


The coalition invited tax experts, economists, civil society actors, and members of Parliament to the Sarova Stanley Hotel. The result was a comprehensive analysis of how the Bill would escalate economic suffering and choke the country’s productive sectors.


Slides from that Azimio PG presentation were disseminated widely online. These became key tools in the digital mobilisation led by Gen Z activists—tools that clarified, educated, and armed citizens with evidence.


Gen Z did not spring from nowhere; it took up a baton passed on by the broader Kenyan movement, including Odinga’s own efforts. To claim betrayal, therefore, is to deny this intergenerational continuity and mutual reinforcement. It is a politically expedient rewriting of the facts.


Unlike some establishment figures who met the Gen Z protests with disdain, Raila Odinga lauded the youth. He did not attempt to hijack their struggle.


He did not seek to impose an Azimio stamp on it. Instead, he respected its organic nature and celebrated its unprecedented success. On June 2


5


, 2024, when protesters overran Parliament and the Judiciary


and also


forc


ed


a dissolution of the cabinet, it was not lost on him or any serious political analyst that Kenya had entered uncharted territory.


The youth had achieved in weeks what conventional political movements had failed to do in years.


At that point, the conversation shifted. From opposing a singular Finance Bill, the protests now called for the resignation of President Ruto. “Ruto Must Go” was not a policy demand.


It was a political ultimatum. With the three arms of government discredited and overrun


, Kenya stood at the


horns of a political dilemma


.


Faced with this reality, any responsible leader must assess possible outcomes. As a party, Azimio outlined five possible scenarios:


Scenario one, r


esignation of President Ruto and succession by the Deputy—a constitutional option.


Was this the alternative the protestors were suing for?


Second scenario, a m


ilitary intervention—akin to developments in Sudan, Egypt, or Tunisia


after the Arab Spring “revolutions


.


”


Scenario three, a


palace coup, which history shows can usher in prolonged instability.


Scenario four, o


utright anarchy—with balkanized militia rule, civil strife, and state collapse.


And finally, scenario five. The exercise of p


opular sovereignty through Article 1 of the Constitution—a national dialogue and citizen-led resolution.


Given the foregoing,


Odinga championed the fifth option. He called for a national conversation, not to dilute the Gen Z momentum, but to anchor it in constitutional legitimacy


and not let their gallant efforts go to waste


. He did not betray the movement. He sought to safeguard it from being hijacked by chaos and reactionary forces.


Odinga’s decision to take the high road, to insist on dialogue and national coherence,


cannot be termed a


betrayal,


as

The Standard’s

propaganda seeks to plant in the psyche of its readership


. It is leadership.


True, the call for a national dialogue was rejected in the heat of protest. That is the nature of an uprising—radical, emotional, and unstructured. But it is the duty of elder statesmen to offer structure and a path forward, not to cheer as the country teeters over the edge.


To argue, as The Standard does, that Odinga capitulated or colluded is to ignore history and distort facts. By July 2024, street demonstrations had already subsided. The momentum had shifted from mass action to elite reaction.


Those who now claim that Odinga betrayed Gen Z are either willfully blind or politically dishonest. They ignore that it was Odinga, more than


m


any other leader


s


, who pushed for


the enactment of the new Constitution


that enshrined Article 1—the sovereignty of the people.


They forget that it was Odinga who warned about the dangers of violent state responses


to peaceful protests


, about the


rampant abductions


, and about the fragility of our hard-won democratic gains.


It would be remiss not to interrogate

The Standard

itself. The newspaper’s recent editorial line raises questions about its motivations. Owned and managed by figures tied to past regimes and elite economic interests,

The Standard

has a documented history of silence during state-sponsored violence, assassinations, and repression.


From the Moi era


detentions without trial, official torture at Nyayo House and assassinations


to the


recent


interregnum,


this media house


has often aligned itself with

status quo

forces.


The Monday lead story


reeks of the same betrayal it seeks to project. It betrays


honest


journalism. It betrays objectivity. It betrays the Kenyan people’s desire for truthful, constructive engagement.


This is not the first time this media house has attempted to discredit


Raila


Odinga. From the 1980s when it ridiculed detainees, to the 2000s when it whitewashed stolen elections,

The Standard

has too often stood on the wrong side of history.


Let us be clear. Kenya is in the midst of a profound transformation. Gen Z has done the country proud. They have reclaimed civic agency and shaken the foundations of impunity. But their struggle is not detached from the broader freedom movement. It is part of the same arc of justice that leaders like Raila Odinga have pursued for decades.


To attempt to split that arc, to pit the present against the past, is to aid the oppressors. It is to do the


devil’


s work for it. We must reject false dichotomies and manufactured betrayals. The real betrayal would be to let the movement descend into anarchy. The real betrayal would be to let state violence return unchecked.


The real betrayal would be to abandon the dream of a united, just and democratic Kenya.


And that’s what the Memorandum of Understanding signed on March 7, 2025 to guard against.


Raila Odinga did not betray the people. He has always stood with the people. He stands with them still.


Let

The Standard

look for traitors elsewhere.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).

Posted on

Critical Analysis: Bawumia’s Case for Cedi Appreciation in 2025


By. Bernard TETTEH-DUMANYA (Dr)

In a recent public commentary, former Vice President Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia attributed the appreciation of the Ghanaian cedi in 2025 to policies implemented under the previous New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration.

He specifically highlighted the gold-for-oil initiative, the Bank of Ghana’s gold reserve accumulation, the global weakening of the U.S. dollar, and restrained public expenditure by the current NDC government as key drivers of the cedi’s resurgence.

While these remarks are positioned to credit past NPP policy interventions for current macroeconomic stability, a closer examination reveals several economic and logical inconsistencies.

One of the most striking contradictions lies in Dr. Bawumia’s shifting stance on the relationship between macroeconomic fundamentals and exchange rate dynamics. In 2014, while in opposition, he famously asserted that “if the fundamentals are weak, the exchange rate will expose you.” This statement became a cornerstone of his critique against the then NDC government during periods of cedi depreciation.

However, during his tenure as Vice President and Chair of the “solid” Economic Management Team, Dr. Bawumia adopted a markedly different position.

When the cedi came under pressure, he contended that currency depreciation does not necessarily signal weak fundamentals, often attributing the depreciation to external shocks beyond the government’s control.

This apparent inconsistency reflects a troubling tendency toward political opportunism rather than a principled, evidence-based approach to economic policy.

If one holds that weak fundamentals inherently lead to exchange rate vulnerabilities, then it logically follows that the cedi’s significant depreciation during his time in office should equally be viewed as a symptom of underlying structural weaknesses, not merely the result of external pressures.

Such contradictory narratives undermine public confidence and raise important questions about the coherence and integrity of Dr. Bawumia’s knowledge of Ghana’s economic discourse.

In 2025, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia asserted that the Ghanaian cedi’s appreciation is primarily a result of the gold-for-oil policy, and the gold accumulation strategy implemented during the previous New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration.

While it is economically sound to recognize the importance of building foreign exchange reserves in safeguarding a currency against volatility, Dr. Bawumia’s attribution suffers from a

post hoc fallacy;

mistaking chronological succession for causation.

From an empirical standpoint, foreign reserves support currency stability most effectively when aligned with prudent and current fiscal and monetary policies.

The appreciation of a currency, particularly in open market economies, is more often a forward-looking signal reflecting investor confidence, market sentiment, and the credibility of ongoing economic management.

It is therefore logically inconsistent to credit 2025 exchange rate movements to policy decisions whose implementation had either concluded or lost momentum years earlier.

Although the Bank of Ghana’s gold purchases may have helped mitigate the balance-of-payments crisis in 2022–2023, the assertion that these past actions are the primary drivers of the cedi’s 2025 appreciation overlooks the complex and dynamic nature of currency markets.

Current macroeconomic outcomes are largely shaped by present-day governance, fiscal discipline, and credible monetary policy factors which investors actively monitor. Attributing ongoing developments to legacy policies, without acknowledging the influence of the current administration’s decisions, discounts the real and measurable efforts being made today by the NDC government.

More critically, Dr. Bawumia’s position reflects a troubling unwillingness to recognize the contributions of others. His dismissal of the current government’s role in fostering macroeconomic stability appears politically motivated and lacks analytical fairness.

One must ask: if the cedi were depreciating under the current administration, would he still attribute that to past policies? It is unlikely. This selective narrative implies that only positive developments stem from his tenure, while all negative trends are the fault of others’ a stance that is neither objective nor intellectually consistent.

It is important to acknowledge that while reserve accumulation is essential for long-term resilience, the cedi’s current appreciation is occurring under a new administration and is likely influenced by factors such as renewed investor confidence, ongoing fiscal consolidation, enhanced policy credibility under the IMF program, and improved monetary-fiscal coordination.

Indeed, the Bank of Ghana’s own Monetary Policy Report has noted that short-term exchange rate movements are more directly impacted by real-time fiscal discipline, external inflows, and policy credibilityrather than reserve buffers alone.

Dr. Bawumia has challenged the current administration to identify a single policy responsible for the recent appreciation of the cedi, attributing current macroeconomic improvements to the legacy of the previous NPP government.

However, this view overlooks the complexity of currency markets, which are influenced by ongoing fiscal policies, market expectations, and global trends. \xa0His argument also references the weakening of the U.S. dollar and compares Ghana to Zambia. While a softer dollar affects emerging markets broadly, it does not fully explain the cedi’s performance.

Ghana’s currency has historically been more volatile due to domestic factors like inflation, debt servicing, and trade imbalances.

Unlike Zambia, Ghana has not benefited equally from commodity exports or debt restructuring. Thus, the cedi’s gains are more credibly linked to internal policy credibility than external trends alone. Dr. Bawumia’s explanations also rely heavily on selective comparisons.

The Dollar Index (DXY) has seen cyclical changes, not a sustained decline, and other regional currencies like Nigeria’s naira have not mirrored the cedi’s performance. This suggests internal policy actions are more decisive.

Overemphasizing external factors ignores Ghana’s specific economic realities. It is dangerous for Dr Bawumia to continuously oversimplify such economic dynamics undermines public discourse and no wonder in 2017, he claims of having “arrested the cedi and given the keys to the IGP” serves as a caution against political sloganeering if he indeed wants to become president in Ghana.

Dr. Bawumia also argues that limited spending by the current administration—particularly its failure to pay Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and contractors has eased pressure on the cedi by reducing demand for foreign exchange.

While this may be true in the short run, it is a

dangerously flawed justification

for currency appreciation. Thus, claiming reduced expenditure as a virtue oversimplifies the relationship between public spending and currency health.

In summary, Dr. Bawumia’s attribution of the cedi’s recent appreciation to policies of the past government reflects a mix of

economic misinterpretation and political deflection


.

While some foundational efforts such as gold reserve accumulation may have contributed to earlier stability, the sustained appreciation of the cedi in 2025 is more likely the result of

ongoing fiscal discipline


,


IMF-backed reforms


,

and

reduced speculation due to increased policy credibility


.

Furthermore, relying on reduced spending or global dollar trends without acknowledging Ghana’s internal structural issues reveals a

narrow reading of complex macroeconomic dynamics

. For a more productive national economic discourse, future commentary must center on

evidence-based policy impact

, not retrospective credit-claiming.



>>>the writer




is a distinguished Ghanaian financial economist and consultant with nearly three decades of experience spanning academia, corporate finance, and agribusiness. He has held pivotal roles at institutions such as UBA Ghana, SIC Financial Services, Empretec Ghana, and the Swiss International Finance Group, reflecting his profound understanding of global finance. Renowned for pioneering efforts in risk management, compliance, and corporate strategy, Dr. Tetteh-Dumanya has significantly contributed to Ghana’s financial landscape.



His expertise encompasses venture capital, business and financial reengineering, and fundraising, playing a crucial role in the growth and development of numerous entities.




Driven by a commitment to capacity development, he has provided consultancy services to a diverse array of local and multinational organizations, including GIZ, AGRA, SNV, DANIDA, and USAID.



As the CEO of SGL Royal Kapita, he has introduced innovative investment services targeting Ghana’s agriculture sector, aiming to support farmers and agribusinesses in achieving financial stability and growth.




Beyond his professional endeavors, Dr. Tetteh-Dumanya is an influential columnist, offering incisive analyses on Ghana’s economic policies and advocating for strategic financial mechanisms to enhance the nation’s economic sovereignty. For inquiries, Dr.\xa0 Tetteh-Dumanya can be reached at:
mafioba@yahoo.com

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).

Posted on

2027 Warning: Atiku-led ADA Poses Threat, Group Alerts Nigerians

The Oduwa Peoples Assembly (OPA) has issued a strong warning to Nigerians over the emergence of the All Democratic Alliance (ADA), a new political coalition reportedly spearheaded by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

In a statement by the group’s leader, Rechard Oltunji Kayode, expressed grave concern over the composition of the coalition, alleging that its leadership is made up of individuals whose records in public service have been tainted by allegations of corruption, poor governance, and self-interest.

Kayode said: “The leadership of the ADA is comprised of individuals who have long been associated with political opportunism, a trait that has severely undermined the trust of the Nigerian people in their leadership.

“Key figures such as Nasir El-Rufai and Rotimi Amaechi, among others, have been discredited through their actions and policies during their tenures in office. Their records reveal a troubling pattern of governance characterized by self-interest, corruption, and a blatant disregard for the welfare of the Nigerian populace.

“Nasir El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna State, is emblematic of the kind of leadership that has brought our nation to its knees. His administration was marked by controversial policies and a lack of transparency, which left many citizens questioning his commitment to democratic principles.

“His involvement in the ADA raises serious concerns about the coalition’s intentions, as he has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to prioritize political gain over the needs of the people he was elected to serve.

“Similarly, Rotimi Amaechi, the former Governor of Rivers State and Minister of Transportation, has a history of political maneuvering that has often favored his personal ambitions rather than the collective good. His leadership style has been criticized for fostering division and conflict rather than unity and progress.

“The OPA believes that the inclusion of such figures in the ADA is indicative of a coalition that is more interested in consolidating power than in addressing the pressing issues facing our nation.

“The desperation exhibited by the leadership of the ADA is palpable. In a bid to regain relevance and influence, these political opportunists are attempting to repackage themselves under a new banner, hoping that the electorate will forget their past misdeeds.

“However, the Nigerian people are not easily fooled. The electorate is increasingly aware of the need for genuine leadership that prioritizes accountability, integrity, and the common good.”

He urged Nigerians to resist being “swayed by the superficial allure” of the coalition and instead demand genuine leadership anchored on accountability, integrity, and national development.

He added, “The OPA urges all Nigerians to remain vigilant and critically assess the motives behind the formation of the All Democratic Alliance. This coalition should not be viewed as a beacon of hope for our democracy but rather as a continuation of the same old political games that have plagued our nation for decades.

“The ADA’s leadership is not equipped to offer the transformative change that Nigeria desperately needs; instead, it represents a regression to the very practices that have stifled our progress.

“It is our duty to demand better from our leaders. We must hold them accountable for their past actions and challenge the narratives that seek to mislead us. The Oduwa People’s Assembly calls upon all Nigerians to be discerning in their political choices and to support movements and individuals who demonstrate a true commitment to the principles of democracy, justice, and national development.

“The Oduwa People’s Assembly stands firm in its warning against the All Democratic Alliance. Let us not be swayed by the superficial allure of a new political coalition led by discredited figures. Instead, let us strive for a future where our leaders are genuinely invested in the welfare of our nation and its people.”

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).