What do we do as a country with the National Cathedral?

By Anny OSABUTEY

This week, thanks to a report by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo’s pet project – the National Cathedral – was in the headlines again, with a recommendation to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to investigate procurement violations by members of the Board of Trustees.

After reading excerpts from the report, I went back to an article I read in 2018 by US-based Nigerian art critic, historian and academic at Princeton University, Professor Chika Okek-Agulu, which said, Critics should not fight the project.

In the article mentioned – published in the online version of The New York Times dated April 14, 2018 with the headline “Ghana deserves this cathedral.” Don’t Fight It,” Professor Okeke-Agulu argued, among other things, that the project “signals that the country is ready to consolidate the gains of decades of democracy.”

The article arose due to public reservations about the truth behind the project’s funding source, particularly when Ghanaians were told that no government funds would be used other than land to be donated.

Contrary to that promise, the state has so far invested over $50 million in what is still outstanding Hole. So the question is: what do we do with the cathedral? How does an economy supported by the International Monetary Fund provide additional funding for the cathedral?

According to Professor Okeke-Agulu, those advocating for basic needs before a project of this magnitude must recognize that Africa must aim beyond basic needs to be successful. He described as “worrying” the idea that “unless every house in Africa gets a mosquito net and every village has a school, no concrete dreams and inspiring structures should emerge.”

Again he defused his argument based on what he believed was the resistance of colonial governments in the 1900s to building universities in West Africa, as well as “the defunding of higher education institutions in many parts of the continent from the 1980s onwards” (because poor countries could not afford them).

I’m not sure what facts he had about the cathedral and the reservation and why a president, aware of the challenges facing his people, would invest federal funds in a pet project designed to satisfy ego and religious To satisfy beliefs to the detriment of critical sectors of the economy.

No country can eliminate poverty. It’s never happened before. Despite their economic strength, a large portion of the U.S. population still struggles with income inequality. The difference in leadership is that American leadership will seek to use this money to raise the low-income population to a level comfortable for them through well-thought-out, nationalistic programs. On the other hand, we put this amount in a pit, even though we swore to heaven and earth that no government money would be used.

Those who have reservations about the project do so out of concern for the well-being of the state and not out of malice or personal hatred toward the president, as some of his supporters claim.

For those who have reservations about the project, they point to the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, built by the late Félix Houphouët-Boigny, then President of Ivory Coast, and what became of it. At the time of construction, most people warned about it. But the dictator felt the need to boost his personal ego with a building, and so he destroyed everyone. He even chased others into exile.

Even today, the project remains a powerful image of how not to waste public money massaging a leader’s ego. Interestingly, Professor Okeke-Agulu referred to the Basilica, describing it as the “big white elephant of past dictators.”

For the “Cathedralists,” the argument is that the country did not solve all of its problems before both the National Theater and the Conference Center were built. That’s true. However, the leadership at the time also did not say that they would use personal resources to fulfill a promise to God. The same applies to the anniversary house. It divided opinions; However, the then-acting president did not say he would use personal funds to complete it.

The cathedral cannot therefore be included in the same argument. I believe, despite the reservations of part of the public, if the mountain of lies had not been spread, people would have rallied around it. This is the mistrust that people have towards the entire project.

Speaking at the Black Star Square in Accra to mark the centenary of the presbytery of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana, he said the opponents of the project were like the biblical Sanballat and Tobias who were against a wall that Nehemiah wanted to build at the time .

“Just like Sanballat and Tobias, there were some in the days of Nehemiah who did not share my views on the construction of the National Cathedral. I respect your right to disagree, but I am confident in my decision because of the large number of enthusiastic supporters of this project, whose spiritual dimension is limitless.”

Since it will still be a few weeks before the president leaves office and the project is not yet completed pit At this level, do he and his employees believe that whoever takes over the company should still use government money to complete his project? personal promise to God?