A master painter's brushstrokes are not just about colour, but about the canvas. Some try to mimic Okudzeto Ablakwa's investigative artistry, but their canvas is tainted by bias. Ablakwa's work is like a masterpiece crafted with fact, painted with integrity, and displayed with transparency. Others may try to replicate the style, but their art lacks the depth and credibility.

Ghana's Foreign Affairs Minister, Honourable Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has clarified the country's stance on the controversial abstention from the United Nations Human Rights Council vote on LGBTQ+ rights.

Ablakwa emphasised that the vote was not about supporting LGBTQI+ individuals but about extending the mandate of independent experts addressing violence against women and various sexual orientations.

This explanation is crucial as it aligns with Ghana's commitment to human rights while respecting the nation's traditional understanding of gender. Ablakwa emphasised that endorsing a resolution that implies support for LGBTQI+ rights would contradict the nation's foundational beliefs about gender and sexuality.

This diplomatic balancing act seeks to uphold Ghanaian values while participating in international dialogues on human rights. Ablakwa's serious approach to the matter is commendable, as misinformation can lead to misplaced criticisms directed at the government. His insistence on clarity underscores the need for coherence between a nation's public stance and its commitments on the global stage.

Ghana's abstention was not about endorsing LGBTQ+ rights but about protecting human rights, particularly those of women and persons of various sexual orientations, from violence and discrimination.

This stance is consistent with Ghana's human rights credentials and commitment to upholding the 1992 Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social and economic status.

My Point of View.

The Minister's explanation is clear: Ghana abstained from a UN vote on protecting people from violence and discrimination, not on supporting LGBTQ+ rights. The vote was about renewing an expert's mandate to report on protecting vulnerable individuals, including women and those with different sexual orientations.

Ghana can't vote against women's rights and simultaneously vote for acknowledging other genders beyond male and female. Abstaining was the logical choice. Voting for or against would have been tricky, as it would have entailed endorsing or rejecting aspects that might not align with Ghana's values.

The Minister's explanation highlights the complexity of the vote and Ghana's commitment to upholding human rights while maintaining its stance against LGBTQ+ rights. By abstaining, Ghana protects vulnerable individuals while staying true to its principles. What would have been your strategy if you were in the minister's position?

The opposition should be focused on pressing issues and constructive criticism, but seems instead to revel in sensationalism.

Unfortunately, some opposition figures have seized upon this issue to create controversy and twist the narrative in their favour. By jumping to conclusions and spreading misinformation, they are attempting to score political points rather than engaging in constructive criticism. This behaviour is not only unproductive but also undermines the credibility of the opposition and their commitment to national interests.

Eugene Boakye Antwi's recent statements expressing a desire for President John Dramani Mahama to fail are not just unfortunate; they are profoundly childish and indicative of a narrow-minded approach to politics. His wish for the Mahama administration to falter for the sake of his party's electoral gain reveals an alarming level of self-interest and a lack of genuine concern for the well-being of the Ghanaian people.

Antwi fails to grasp that the consequences of political failure extend far beyond party lines. Should Mahama's presidency face significant hardships, it is the citizens of Ghana, especially the vulnerable, who will ultimately suffer. The well-being of the nation should never be jeopardised for political ambitions; such a mindset is not only unpatriotic but also undermines the very essence of public service.

His remarks suggest an alarming detachment from the responsibilities that come with holding public office. Instead of advocating for effective governance and progress, he opts to root for failure, reflecting a profound lack of vision and maturity. Public servants should aspire to uplift their nation rather than wish for its downfall to suit their party's agenda.

This means if President Mahama should appoint Eugene Boakye Antwi, he may be putting the institution at risk of sabotage, given his expressed desire to see the administration fail.

Such a mind-set disqualifies him from being considered an honourable member of society. His defeat in the previous election serves as a reminder that the electorate is conscious of self-serving attitudes. Ghana deserves leaders who prioritise the nation above party politics, not individuals who wish for the country's struggles as a stepping stone to personal or partisan gain. Such blatant partisanship and disregard for national interests warrants strong rebuke from all Ghanaians who prioritize the nation's welfare.

In contrast, former MP Andy Appiah Kubi's comments on President Mahama's administration demonstrate a sense of patriotism and constructive criticism. By acknowledging the president's competence and expressing hope for the success of his appointees, Appiah Kubi shows a commitment to national development and progress. His sentiments are a breath of fresh air in the current political discourse, highlighting the importance of collaboration and constructive engagement in governance.

Clarity they say, is a beacon in darkness, and Hon. Ablakwa's explanation was so loud and clear. Let's not be 'fooled by the noise of empty drums'; instead, let's prioritise credible leadership and constructive criticism.

As Ghana charts its course, may we 'paddle the canoe with wisdom' and put national interests at the forefront. Individuals like Andy Appiah-Kubi show us that a single grain of constructive criticism can weigh more than a sack of controversy.