Ghana! (first few days)

Well, I landed in Accra at ~6PM here (which corresponds to 11AM PST, or 2PM EST) on Sunday. True to form, the weather was humid, it was raining a bit, but... it wasn't 30C like everyone was saying it would be. No, it was more around the 20, maybe 25C mark - it felt a bit like one of those uncommonly humid days that Vancouver has had this past summer.

Where I'm staying is a little cramped and there is running water, though clean potable water is clearly a commodity in this country. I'm very glad I took Dukoral (cholera/traveller's diarrhea vaccine) and have anti-malarials before entering this country, because even though I haven't had street food, I haven't had any problems so far. However, it's just the start of what promises to be both an exciting and wearying trip.

On Monday, I met up with people in the WiLDAF office, particularly Ama, the legal officer in charge of the Legal Awareness Program, and Patricia, the administrative head of the general organization. Upon my arrival, I received a more detailed description of many of my jobs in Ghana, which is helpful, but was somewhat daunting-looking at first since it included a few tasks I wasn't aware of. Overall, my task list was better defined and included the following duties:

1) Review of previous Court Watch programs (CWPs)/program components and creation/implementation of a CWP:

In Ghana, the beginnings of a CWP have already been put in place: the Northern region of Ghana (Accra, the capital, is in the ~south-southeast, right next to the coast) recently had a large survey of the justice system with respect to domestic violence. Interviews of magistrates, lawyers, some willing complainants, and surveys of courts monitoring DV occurred. My role is going to be basically integrating some of the results and issues of the Ghanaian approach with the program as conducted by METRAC to fashion a more systematic method of intake and study. I will thus be responsible for drating up a process and court watch survey document for future volunteers to use (and, if time is willing, creation of an easy-access database to store and add further comments to).

This work is very interesting. The judicial examination that was carried out in Ghana will involve many more variables than would usually be looked out for in Canada. As in Canada, much of the emphasis will involve a complainant-centered approach, primarily on trying to see court from the complainant's point of view. Does it look fair to them? Does it try to encourage them to speak? How does the structure of proceedings vary with that in Canada, and what potential effects might this have?

For instance, s.24 of the Ghanaian DVA states that if the charge of violence involves an offense which does not "require" a sentence of more than 2 years, the complainant can ask to rescind the charge and settle out of court, or the Court can refer it to ADR with the complainant's consent. Out-of-court settlement is also accompanied by additional counseling resources. The section specifically calls itself "Court to promote reconciliation", which Canada (to my knowledge) does not specifically include in the Criminal Code (and no specific DVA with respect to criminal offenses exists). Does this kind of section actually give procedural bias and an implicit attempt to coerce the sides into settling, which may then also decrease the complainant's ease in speaking at court? Also, note that the court can ask the complainant instead of the complainant always needing to approach the court - does that mean that the court unintentionally will pressure clients into settling? Finally, note that this is for any crime not "requiring" a sentence of 2 years, but as we know many offenses have a wide range of potential sentences. Will the complainant still decide to settle, if the crime fits in that category of not always needing >2 years but perhaps in this case the judge, after hearing the facts, would sentence someone to 2+ years? And if so, does that really accomplish the ideal mandate of the section (which seems to be that if the offense isn't severe enough, a relationship might not be worth sacrificing in the interests of "justice")? This section, in itself, reveals one of the procedural complexities Ghanaians have to think about when considering their DVA, which Canada does not address specifically.

2) A comparative law paper detailing the features of the DVAs of Ghana, Uganda and South Africa in particular; challenges they faced in implementation and outcomes resultant from legislation:

This paper is likely going to be tailored further with the arrival of the senior lawyer, Berniece Sam, from tomorrow onwards (since she’s currently at the Aid Effectiveness conference, which I’ll probably post on a bit later), but per talking to Ama and Patricia I got the sense that they wanted to look at these legislations with respect to social response, the resultant changes in litigation/criminal charges, and trying to draw comparative differences between the countries and an idea of where they might originate from (be it social, statutory or parallel legislation from which these effects result). They also wanted to see what challenges each society faced with implementation (for instance, the initial advocated DVA by WiLDAF included an explicit section characterizing marital rape as an offense, which was then dropped as opponents continually pointed to that one section as being disruptive to the potential harmony of the family) and finally, what positive components could be drawn from each separate piece of legislation.

This will be an interesting side-by-side comparison because all countries are in various stages of development, are Commonwealth countries, have different approaches to relationships in general (for instance, South Africa is so liberal as to legalize gay marriage; Ghana is more conservative and outlaws homosexuality, and Uganda I don’t really know that much about for now). They are probably the closest in respective development to each other, though, so the focus on these countries is understandable.

I think it will be interesting to see how the legislation of these countries mirrors their international commitments (primarily UNHCR resolutions adopted by the countries), and how the international community and/or history has helped to influence their current formation (for instance, I would suspect that the path South Africa took post-apartheid had a significant role in influencing its current approach to equality and gender parity initiatives). Perhaps, if I have the chance, I would like to include countries like Mauritius (which also use a DVA, but are civil law in nature) or Canada (no DVA, but has certain sections in the Criminal code outlining domestic abuse) into the comparative mix with a more statute/effect/challenges-faced comparison and less of an implementation comparison.

3) Review of WiLDAF legal intake forms, comparison with models supplied by METRAC, and subsequent drafting of new WiLDAF forms and (potentially) a database for storage:

I am going to try to speak to WiLDAF’s legal intake officers later in order to get a better sense of what’s going on, but from what Ama and Patricia tell me there is a lot of difficulty in trying to keep sense of all the data they obtain. Thus, my role seems to include streamlining the intake forms and make a few input tools which will make it easier for storage to occur.

This could be interesting, since I have some knowledge of how to work Microsoft Access (database-creating software), but I don’t remember all too much after making a database. I do have a decent framework to start from, though, because I previously made a database of this sort when doing summer work for Megan Ellis, a family lawyer who specialized in sexual assault litigation.

I think the forms that METRAC gave me (from a women’s services centre, and a legal aid clinic in Toronto) will be very helpful in streamlining the process (one included a second sheet which I think is useful, as it looks a bit like a doctor’s day sheet which certainly helps to simplify their work), but I want to talk more to the WiLDAF officers to get a sense of what issues they consider as important when interviewing clients. There are likely some specific issues that will translate over cultures, but much like how the DVA in Ghana has some major differences from Canadian approaches, the same likely exists in trying to analyze the legal issues incoming into a Ghanaian legal office.

4) Discussing with WiLDAF and associated organizations on Ghanaian approaches to family law, and areas of intersection to criminal law with respect to violence against women:

This is for METRAC, but I’m not exactly sure what they want at this point and so will need to clear this up with Zahra. For instance, there is specific reference to the Ghanaian Criminal Code through s.23 of the DVA, but I’m not sure how much further they want me to go in exploration. It seems like I would get some information through writing the comparative law paper, but I think there must be certain things they want in greater detail with respect to family law (consensual unions, the unique provision detailing the court’s goal to promote reconciliation, ?) .

5) Engaging METRAC and WiLDAF in discussions on anti-oppression and initiatives that can include men to try and achieve gender equality and in addressing violence against women:

For now, this is on hold, but if it goes through I think it’s going to be very entertaining from my perspective. Personally, I’m sort of skeptical about the whole idea of attaining a ‘universal equality’, because I think equality can only be dictated from one person’s perspective. For instance, people might look at the legal culture and say that there is equality which states that greater tenure and more productivity will increase one’s chances to attain partnership. However, others then argue that the culture itself needs to be changed because there may be cultural, religious or even biological factors that limit people from attaining this ideal without greater sacrifice than others (for instance, women, in going to raise children, face the prospect of having to give up their chance at a promotion because current legal culture seems to value the amount of time spent at work rather than what is accomplished, and women’s time is at a premium particularly during the primary maternity years). And of course, if initiatives are started, people might then argue that you are being procedurally unequal again. Thus, while I agree there are ways to get closer to either procedural or substantive equality in many cases, it is rare (if not impossible) to find situations where you can achieve both. Of course, that’s the cynic in me talking, and perhaps I’m wrong – I’d be very happy to find out that I am.

6) Learn more about WiLDAF’s Legal Access Program and contrast its approach to that of METRAC’s, making a future presentation

What this approach illustrates is that unlike previous “aid” missions to Africa, there is a growing realization that many approaches other cultures take to certain problems may be helpful to North American approaches. For instance, while I previously raised concerns about the idea of promoting reconciliation through the DVA, I also think there is a definite merit in having a stable structure such as the nuclear family and that a more pro-active approach might be useful in many cases in Canadian courts (not just restricted to this issue, mind you). I also think that many other cultures tend to have stronger dispute resolution mechanisms as well: in North America, litigation is seen as the gold standard for resolving disputes, but it also can result in future problems when trying to maintain relationships, be they personal or business. Other cultures, in employing social authority figures, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution schemes, take the approach that a problem often is more representative of society as a whole rather than isolated between two individuals, and thus a solution might be most ideal if society is allowed to participate in the process of trying to find one. The idea of a final arbiter isn’t foreign in many cultures, but unlike North America they see it less as an ideal to strive towards, which I think many North Americans could benefit from in many conflicts that do end up going to court.

So far, there have been many discussions between myself and Zahra concerning the differences in Western society and others, and one thing that I think is very interesting is how much community is involved in WiLDAF procedures. From previous talks with other volunteers in Africa, I have the sense that community coalesces much more quickly in Africa than it does in North America. There is a bigger sense of a problem not being confined to the individual but to society in general, sparking more response at various levels. In North America, unless it happens within our four corners, we tend not to actually respond to things, and even if it does it often is hard to inspire others to be as involved as we become (a grand example being politics). Thus, comparing METRAC and WiLDAF procedures will be interesting but I think trying to put WiLDAF strategies into action in North America will require much tailoring, if only to try and galvanize the population to act in a certain direction.

That’s just some of the things I will be doing. I can’t wait!

Speaking of the aid conference: there are many Ghanaians that visit my host family (particularly since she is a merchant, and also because her daughter operates a small fabric-making operation on the premises) and so I get to talk to people of a variety of perspectives, but they all have a much stronger Ghana (and probably in many cases, African) viewpoint than I have. What they continually articulate about the aid conference is that they do hope aid will continue, but unlike the perspective many people may gain about the lazy African, these people are educated and beyond that, highly driven to succeed. They are highly self-dependent and they realize that while aid can help, it is mostly to the individual to succeed, though there is a great deal of skepticism that they can actually achieve true heights. This is because while there is aid, there weren’t any actual financial institutions that would help to inspire saving and in the end, potentially be the engine for growth.

There are no social safety nets that really exist in Africa, and so to even survive the amount of work one has to do in these cultures is significantly higher. When a Ghanaian’s average income per year is less than $2000, it makes every single dollar all the more important, and sure, some things are cheaper in Ghana but many things are not. Furthermore, trying to start up operations tends to be difficult because of the high interest rates charged on lending (either high amounts of securities need to be guaranteed, or a standard prime lending rate is 19%, which even outscores my Visa’s interest rates), which means that people end up having to depend on each other to borrow money (and when everyone doesn’t have that much they can save up, just how easily is it to incentivize saving? We all know bank rates for saving are terrible, anyway). Finally, financial education and institutions are starting to arrive (stock offerings, funds, etc) but that will take a very long time to diffuse into Africa, where many times the rate of inflation will far outstrip even the modest average return rates on many securities (thus, making saving relatively pointless from an economic perspective). The West has every right, they agree, to prioritize their aid funds and to put conditions on how things are to be spent – they also realize and agree that foreign investment needs guarantees that there will actually be returns in the country. However, the main argument they advance is that much of the time, the West’s agenda in aid is slanted, if not outright biased in trying to suppress the ability of Africans – to devote the money to certain sectors and not others, to put it into certain initiatives and not those which, ideally, would be the best ways to incentivize growth within the country.

Thinking about it, it does make sense – Africans have to live with the conditions, so in many ways they are the ones who will be best sensitized to the problems. Do we really expect our politicians to really be that well-sensitized to the problems of other nations? Heck, they’re bad at figuring out our own! Also, incentivizing growth is a tricky business because by its definition, ‘aid’ is present to help the worst-off in a global sense: if one sees this and decides to continue and try to receive aid, what kind of incentives are there to actually improve the situation of their country? In Ghana, there has been stability and thus people are becoming bolder in asking questions and demanding accountability, but even here there is great cynicism when walking in the streets lined with open sewers, with people who are in the minor stages of malnutrition, even in the capital city, and watching weird cavalcades of limos, SUVs and other high-income vehicles pass by. Corruption is such an endemic problem that there should be greater incentive to eradicate that – perhaps, the rewards via aid should be greater the more a country does perform positively, but of course that also opens its own Pandora’s box of problems. Thus, such a problem is multi-headed and I seriously doubt it’ll be solved in this conference, if ever.

Thinking about the conference, I really wish I’d had more of a chance to talk to Ann Veneman (the current head of UNICEF). It was very odd, since I was half sleep-deprived and sitting in the Frankfurt airport lounge, and then to just randomly strike up a conversation to the woman next to me, to find out that I’m sitting next to a keynote speaker for this conference. I’m quite mad that I didn’t think to ask for a card, or some way to keep in contact, because she did seem somewhat interested in what I was doing and what I had done in the past as a TA/student researcher with respect to malnutrition and its political roots. However, it was impressive to see her speak in such an informal setting, since even then Ms. Veneman comported herself with a good deal of poise and dignity, almost as if a diplomatic stance was her default setting. She was very quiet and didn’t talk much about herself – I think in many ways, to really be able to have a lasting effect in one’s deeds, one needs to think about what they do before acting. It seems to be a common quality in many of these dignitaries that myself and my friends have run into at random instances (Gen. Romeo Dallaire, Kofi Annan, etc). As it is, I wish Ms. Veneman the best of luck (even though I have no idea what her policies were like as Agricultural Secretary in W’s administration in 2001) and can’t wait to meet Berniece to find out how the conference went.

Well, that’s it for now, I guess – perhaps not all, since there is a chance that I can end up working with Transparency International in Ghana while I’m here. However, I’ll have more on that when further details become known! Heck, I still have yet to read everything he gave me (but I got through one third so far! So… go me?)

Until the next time! (geez, what a long post...)