Two Ghanaian ministers die in helicopter crash, along with six others
Defence Minister Edward Omane Boamah and Environment, Science and Technology Minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed, 50, were killed in the crash, which Chief of Staff Julius Debrah described as a "national tragedy".
Earlier, the Ghana Armed Forces said the Z9 helicopter, which was carrying three crew and five passengers, had gone "off the radar".
It had taken off from the capital, Accra, at 09:12 local time (and GMT) and was heading to the town of Obuasi for an event to tackle illegal mining.
Images purportedly showing the charred remains of the helicopter are circulating on social media.
The authorities have not confirmed the cause of the crash.
The chief of staff has directed the country's flags to fly at half-mast.
He extended condolences to "the servicemen who died in service to the country," on behalf of President John Dramani Mahama and the government.
Ghana's Deputy National Security Coordinator and former Agriculture Minister Alhaji Muniru Mohammed was also among the dead, along with Samuel Sarpong, Vice-Chairman of the governing National Democratic Congress party.
The crew members were named as Squadron Leader Peter Bafemi Anala, Flying Officer Manin Twum-Ampadu, and Sergeant Ernest Addo Mensah.
President Mahama was feeling "down, down emotionally", Education Minister Haruna Iddrisu was cited as saying by news agency AFP.
Boamah served under Mahama's previous government as communications minister and before that he was minister of environment. As defence minster he tackled jihadist activity that was brewing in the northern border in Burkina Faso.
In 2022, a France-based NGO, Promediation, said its research showed that jihadist groups had recruited between 200 and 300 young Ghanaians.
Violence in the area has also been on the rise, with concerns that jihadists may be trying to exploit communal in-fighting between rival communities in northern Ghana.
Boamah's book A Peaceful Man In An African Democracy, about former president John Atta Mills, was due to come out later in the year.
Muhammed was at the forefront of the battle against illegal gold mining, which has wrecked the environment and contaminated rivers and lakes.
Protests against the practice, known locally as Galamsey, peaked during Mahama's run for the presidency last year. — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
5 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Sheinbaum says Mexico has no proof of alleged Maduro ties to Sinaloa Cartel
MEXICO CITY — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Saturday her government has no evidence to support US claims linking Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to the powerful Sinaloa Cartel. The allegations, tying Maduro to Mexico's largest drug cartel and the Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua gang, were recently raised by the administration of US President Donald Trump. "This is the first time we've heard about this issue. There is no investigation from Mexico related to it," Sheinbaum told reporters. "As we always say, if they have any proof, let them show it. We have no evidence related to that." US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday announced the doubling of a reward for information leading to Maduro's arrest, from $25 million to $50 million, calling him 'one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world and a threat to our national security.' The US has long accused Maduro of running a 'narco-state' and facilitating cocaine shipments to North America through alliances with transnational criminal organizations, including the Sinaloa Cartel. Maduro has denied the allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated. — Agencies
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Momentum sagging at UN plastic pollution treaty talks
GENEVA: Talks on forging a landmark treaty to combat the scourge of plastic pollution were stumbling Saturday, with progress slow and countries wildly at odds on how far the proposed agreement should go. The negotiations, which opened on Tuesday, have four working days left to strike a legally-binding instrument that would tackle the growing problem choking the environment. In a blunt mid-way assessment, talks chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso warned the 184 countries negotiating at the United Nations that they had to get shifting to get a deal. 'Progress made has not been sufficient,' Vayas told delegates. 'A real push to achieve our common goal is needed,' the Ecuadoran diplomat said, adding that Thursday was not a just deadline but 'a date by which we must deliver. 'Some articles still have unresolved issues and show little progress toward reaching a common understanding,' Vayas lamented. The key fracture is between countries that want to focus on waste management and others who want a more ambitious treaty that also cuts production and eliminates use of the most toxic chemicals. And with the talks relying on finding consensus, it has become a game of brinkmanship. A diplomatic source told reporters that many informal meetings had been scrambled together for Sunday's day off to try and break the deadlock. 'If nothing changes, we won't get there,' the source added. Countries have reconvened in Geneva after the failure of the supposedly fifth and final round of negotiations in Busan, South Korea in 2024. After four days of talks, the draft text has ballooned from 22 to 35 pages — with the number of brackets in the text going up near five-fold to almost 1,500 as countries insert a blizzard of conflicting wishes and ideas. The talks are mandated to look at the full life cycle of plastic, from production to pollution, but some countries are unhappy with such a wide scope. Kuwait spoke up for the so-called Like-Minded Group — a nebulous cluster of mostly oil-producing nations which rejects production limits and wants to focus on treating waste. 'Let us agree on what we can agree. Consensus must be the basis of all our decisions,' Kuwait insisted. Nudging in the same direction, Saudi Arabia, speaking for the Arab Group, said the responsible way ahead was to start considering what bits of the text 'may not make it to the final outcome due to irreconcilable divergence.' But given how little is truly agreed on, Uruguay warned that consensus 'cannot be used as a justification to not achieve our objectives.' Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics adviser for the World Wide Fund for Nature, told AFP that the Like-Minded Group's proposal was 'another attempt to make it a waste management agreement,' and to stifle talks on reducing the amount of plastic in circulation. The UN Environment Programme is hosting the talks and swiftly called a press conference after the stock-take session. UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said a deal was 'really within our grasp, even though today it might not look so.' 'Despite the fog of negotiations I'm really encouraged,' she told reporters, insisting: 'There is a pathway to success.' Vayas added: 'We need to accelerate. We need a better rhythm in this and we need to also work in such a way that it will be clear that we will deliver by the end.' Afterwards, Bjorn Beeler, executive director at IPEN, a global network aimed at limiting toxic chemicals, told AFP: 'This whole process has not been able to take decisions and is still collecting ideas. We're sleepwalking toward a cliff and if we don't wake up, we're falling off.' Plastic pollution is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body. More than 400 million tons of plastic are produced globally each year, half of which is for single-use items. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060. Panama's negotiator Juan Monterrey Gomez took the floor to slam those countries wanting to stop the treaty from encompassing the entire life cycle of plastic. He said microplastics 'are in our blood, in our lungs and in the first cry of a new-born child. Our bodies are living proof of a system that profits from poisoning us.' 'We cannot recycle our way out of this crisis.'
Arab News
2 days ago
- Arab News
Statehood offers a brighter future for Palestinians — and Israelis
Western countries' recognition of Palestinian statehood is like a London bus — you wait ages for one and then three come along at once. It still baffles me why this has taken 45 years since the now nearly forgotten Venice Declaration of 1980, in which the nine member states of the European Community, the forerunner of the EU, recognized the right of Palestinian self-determination, and then an horrific war during which, slowly and with hesitant steps, a number of member states have taken this step. The most recent change of heart has seen France, the UK, Malta, and Portugal, in addition to Canada, expressing their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. Historically, they are very much behind the curve, as by now 147 out of the 193 members of the UN have already recognized Palestinian statehood. But this is better late than never, especially as France, the UK, and Canada are the first G7 members to do so. In the case of the first two, they are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, leaving the US isolated in its rejection of such a move. This makes it more than just a symbolic gesture, but a significant message from major international powers, especially if it signals proactive involvement in advancing a peace process. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Long before the horrific events of the past 22 months, the process of bringing peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution was stuck, a complete and utter stalemate. Since the US Secretary of State John Kerry's peace initiative collapsed in 2014, almost every single development has been detrimental to ending the conflict, and it now needs a game-changer to prompt new thinking on how to restart negotiations that will conclude a deal on a two-state solution. Most of the world, including those who have not recognized a Palestinian state, agrees that the only viable solution to this never-ending conflict is of two states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting peacefully side by side. Since the Madrid process in 1991 and the Oslo Accords two years later, the working assumption was that recognition of a Palestinian state would be the outcome of successful peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians that were supposed to be completed after an interim period of five years. However, this has never materialized. Instead, in the intervening years, what has emerged, by design and by default, are conditions unfavorable to such an outcome, while those who oppose it have gained the upper hand, mainly by using coercion. The international community increasingly took a bystander's position regarding this conflict and, tragically, let it slide to where it is at this moment in time. Recognizing a Palestinian state now means reversing the order of, first, resolving all the outstanding issues between the two sides, including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security arrangements, and other bilateral and multilateral issues, and then international recognition of a Palestinian state. What was supposed to become an incentive to successfully conclude peace negotiations has become an obstacle. It has underlined the asymmetry in the power relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and their utter mutual distrust, leading to unrealistic expectations on both sides. On the Israeli side, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, too many decision-makers have not entirely come to terms with accepting a Palestinian state next door, whether for ideological or security reasons; on the Palestinian side, on the rare occasions that Israeli leaders have been ready to accept a Palestinian state, they have felt short-changed by the terms of the agreement, or have got cold feet. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Yossi Mekelberg International recognition of a Palestinian state is not the silver bullet for achieving the two-state solution, but it is an important step for the international community to reiterate that this is a conflict between two sovereign entities, albeit one still not fully formed, that have equal rights to self-determination, but also equal responsibility to bring to an end the conflict between them. It would have had more impact if the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood by France, UK, and Canada had been announced jointly. Nevertheless, events have still generated a certain momentum that could see more countries following them between now and the actual declaration of recognition due to take place at the General Assembly in New York in September. Additionally, declaring such a recognition from the podium of the General Assembly provides it with the highest level of legitimacy short of ultimate recognition by the Security Council, something that is still being blocked by Washington. However, the regrettable lack of enthusiasm for this move, or the fear of a US response, has somehow led the UK and Canada to diverge from France's approach of unconditionally recognizing Palestinian statehood. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel 'takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution,' and this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear that there will be no annexations in the West Bank. It was obvious that Israel would not accept these conditions; however, it put a negative twist on the issue by presenting recognition as some sort of punishment of Israel, not as a positive and necessary decision to change the dynamic between the two antagonists. Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has said that his country's recognition depends on democratic reforms of the Palestinian Authority and on elections being held next year without Hamas. The timeline is somewhat problematic, as this can hardly be done in a meaningful manner in a matter of few weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately rebuked the suggestion, as one would expect, and claimed that to recognize Palestine as a state was to reward Hamas and terrorism. This argument does not hold water, as the Arab League has also called for the disarming of Hamas. This is about empowering the moderates of both sides to work together for a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu would have responded in the very same way had this recognition taken place before Oct. 7, with his constant unsubstantiated whinging that any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians' right to self-determination is anti-Israeli and antisemitic, and hence should not be taken seriously. However, recognition is not the 'be all and end all' for solving this conflict, but one important step toward peace in the Middle East which, if followed through with a concerted international commitment to initiate a meaningful peace with clear objectives and deadlines, might just change the course of the history of this conflict. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
