We have observed the rather unnecessary arguments over whether the vehicular accident in which Samuel Nuamah lost his life was the result of the driver’s recklessness or not.
The points raised for us are uncalled for and the energy being expended in what is inching towards polemics by people who should be mourning their dead colleague could have been reserved for eulogies for the deceased.
Were we pretending when we trooped to the family house and then later to New Times Corporation to sign the Book of Condolence?
Even before the results of the investigations by the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Authority (DVLA) into the accident and the state of the vehicle are made public, such banters are seemingly holding sway in the media. Such irresponsible remarks definitely have the potential of preempting the outcome of the tests.
We are surprised that the President of the Ghana Journalists’ Association (GJA), Affail Monney, in particular would be drawn into the verbal exchange.
As the president of the association to which journalists belong, it is our take that he should set the tone for his colleagues to follow.
Jumping into the fray as he has done appears to have rather fueled the banter and dragging it beyond acceptable level.
It is in bad taste to seek to reduce the importance of a serious issue like death, especially one which came through a vehicular accident.
There is no point supporting another person’s opinion that the accident could not have been caused by the driver’s blunder.
Let us be sensitive to such matters, more so when the bereaved family would be privy to the banter and suffer further emotional pain. How would those engaged in such banter hold themselves when they show up during the funeral or even burial of the deceased?
Under the circumstances, we are constrained to describe the banter as a show of gross insensitivity to the plight of a bereaved family which is yet to come to terms with the reality of their loss.
A colleague of the deceased, Nutor Bibini, Dean of the Presidential Press Corps of which the deceased was a member, is part of the raging banter.
He is quoted as saying that the story about the death of his colleague had been blown out of proportion. While we are unable to determine the exact circumstance which warranted the remarks, we would venture to point out that suppressing his take on the subject would have been better.
Shouldn’t the verdict of one of the victims on board the vehicle and not others outside it, override all the aforementioned?