Maj Gen Sampson Kudjo Adeti (rtd)
We would not have bothered to return to the story of Maj Gen Sampson Kudjo Adeti (rtd) but for his decision not to let sleeping dogs lie.
He has resorted to an NDC mouthpiece to wage a failed campaign of calumny against this newspaper and the people of Ghana; an unproductive effort which requires a response just so the truth shall be unleashed.
The twilight of the days of the General in the military was characterized by moral challenges and these are verifiable and contained in the report originating from the investigation into his conduct regarding a Nissan Pickup donated to the Southern Command of the Ghana Army.
It was recommended among others that disciplinary action be taken against him for the integrity blemish. In the military, as he knows full well, integrity is not toyed with. Indeed it is not for nothing that officers are referred to as gentlemen.
For a senior officer who would wrongfully change the identity of a vehicle belonging to a Command and deliberately refuse to include the mention of same in his handing-over notes to an incoming successor or relief, he has put up a conduct which is incompatible with his commission.
It is strange, outright balderdash that in the face of a verifiable report and recommendations about the misconduct of this officer, he would risk further exposure by resorting to a newspaper in a bid to politicize the subject and let off the hook.
When soldiers become subtle politicians, they suffer the fate which has befallen Maj Gen Adeti who after over three decades in the colours, would lose his honour. We wonder just what pushed him to do what he did and expect that it would not be exposed on the public space.
At this stage, we wish to pose the following questions to the retired General with a view to telling him that he has lost it and would be unable to reverse his fate as a senior officer who allowed himself to be destroyed by material things like a vehicle.
Did he or not include the details of the vehicle in his handing over notes to his successor at the headquarters of the Southern Command?
Had the DAILY GUIDE story not been published would he have let go the vehicle?
Did he not tell AR Gomda that the vehicle was given to him by the Bank Of Ghana for the services that he had rendered them in the presence of Prince Prah at his office in Burma Camp?
Did A.R. Gomda demand money to kill the story as he sought to put out when he described the journalist as a bounty hunter?
Why did he breach standard procedure in the Armed Forces for accepting donations?
Didn’t he do that because he sought to steal a vehicle which did not belong to him?
Let us be honest with ourselves and stop politicizing issues when we are cornered.
We have been operating as a newspaper since the 80s having weathered the highs and lows of local politics. Our survivability has depended upon the professionalism we display consistently regardless of the pranks of personalities like the crestfallen General and bad politicians under whose wings he is taking cover.
What is so special about this retired General that anybody would be jittery about him as his newspaper is seeking to imply? There are better Generals both in service and in retirement who did not and would not steal vehicles belonging to their Commands or units.
Persons like the subject under review are responsible for the image challenges the military suffered some years ago. We are calling on the Military High Command to ask why the recommendations of the report were not implemented but the subject rather ironically promoted and the officer who investigated sent out of the country?
We are particularly interested in the matter of the missing documents pertaining to the said vehicle in the files at Burma Camp. Such a thing should not happen in our beloved Armed Forces. Subject should be revisited.