This week, five people asked what I thought about a Ghanaian President jetting around in his brother’s plane. My answer: there would have been nothing wrong but for the fact that we are in Africa where Presidential relations with “family and friends”, result, more often than not, in the state holding the short end of the stick.
Outside fear of nepotistic influence, even the optics don’t look good. What will the population say when the President’s brother wins a contract, even if genuinely?
Take late December 2016. A few days before leaving office, after losing the Presidential election, Mahama granted between more than half of bauxite deposits in the Nyinahin forest to Exton Cubic Ltd, a company associated with his brother, Ibrahim.
The deal was later cancelled by the subsequent NPP government.
Forget the legalities. At the back of Akufo Addo’s head was “family and friends.” Remember the 2010 case where the President was gifted with a Ford Expedition? Even though Mahama had turned over the car to the state, the deed didn’t look good in the eyes of Ghanaians. It’s called “optics”.
But why allow ourselves to be embroiled in presidential jet politics? Why must the situation get out of hand before our governments call for a replacement? Couldn’t the processes start early enough to avoid a vacuum where the existing jet becomes a flying coffin? Every President wants to avoid the tag of “profligate expenditure”; but what is more profligate than Akufo Addo flying around in a private jet, an Airbus ACJ320, which, according to the Opposition, cost the state US$15,000 per hour?
Doom
Well, as you can see from the headline above, “presidential jets” is just one of my topics for the week.
The other is the impending economic doom into which America is bent on plunging the world. If Iran keeps the Strait of Hormuz closed beyond this week, the fuel price hikes and consequent economic turmoil will be unimaginable. Meanwhile, America has crude oil; it is currently the world’s top producer of crude oil, (about 21.91 million barrels per day, representing over 20 per cent of global production).
But it’s not only Trump. Apart from Jimmy Carter, nearly every American President has, in their lifetime, released that country’s fury upon the world. Even in his grave, President Carter still rues the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-81 when, for 444 days, Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 American citizens captive.
Long before Carter, President Kennedy suffered what has been described as “spectacular failure” in the Cuban Missile Crises. The Kennedy administration’s planned invasion of Cuba on April 17, 1961 at the Bay of Pigs failed.
Between 1953 and 1975, five Presidents – Eisenhower, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon and Gerald Ford – prosecuted America’s longest and costliest Cold War conflict, the Vietnam War which resulted in its most humiliating defeat.
On October 20, 2011, Barack Obama sent troops to kill Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi. Today, Obama says the unforeseen aftermath was the worst mistake of his presidency.
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush led America to invade Iraq, claiming there was evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The bombings and destruction over, no weapons of mass destruction were found but Bush had achieved his primary objective: killing Saddam Hussein.
Question: In this (2026) invasion of Iran, what is America’s justification? Trump says Iran is enriching uranium and is capable of developing nuclear weapons. Yes, but is it not a fact that the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has been monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme since 1974, with teams of inspectors occasionally returning to verify sites? Indeed, as of March 2026, IAEA inspectors have visited sites like Bushehr and negotiations were on-going.
But America must bomb Iran, so it must come up with a second reason: “the Iranian government is killing thousands of its citizens for carrying out protests”.
If I fear the consequences of this war, it is because of the character of the present American President, Trump. The man loses an election and therefore his supporters must storm the U.S. Capitol to prevent a joint session of Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.
Predict
Trump’s character makes it difficult to predict an outcome of the conflict. He does not have the humility to beg America’s allies for help in clearing the Strait of Hormuz; he is threatening them. And the world suffers.
On March 3, after Spain declined to allow US to use its air bases, Trump now says, “We don’t need Spain’s help. Spain has absolutely nothing that we need”
For refusing to do his bidding, Trump paints UK Premier Keir Starmer as weak. When Starmer says he wants to consult “the team” (the UK Parliament and NATO allies), Trump says: “What does he need the team for? He is the leader.”
The difference is clear between two sets of leaders.
So, yes, Trump will triumph – because an elephant is fighting an ant. But will he triumph over NATO? Remember the consequences for Ukraine?
The writer is the Executive Director, Centre for Communication and Culture.
E-mail: