Due to Ghana’s abundance of natural resources, investment is needed for the country to reap the benefits of its enormous potential.[1] Thus, it should be no surprise that Ghana has been involved in numerous investor-state settlement conflicts and is familiar with the current framework for investor-state settlements.[2] There are advantages and disadvantages to the current system. While there is room for improvement in any system, various attempts have been made to reduce said critics of the current ISDS system, with the newest amendments to the ICSID Rules hopefully being a positive step toward resolving several pressing issues with the existing system.

Current Advantages of ISDS system as it is to Ghana

Investors Are More Comfortable with Experienced Institutions Than Domestic Courts

Investors will be more inclined to invest in Ghana if the institution handling a dispute is experienced and of international status. These institutions, like ICSID or UNCITRAL (both of whom Ghana is a member of), are a good choice because, aside from the apparent fact that courts may be biased in favour of the state, their arbitrators are well-versed in complex international disputes and have a proven track record.[3]

Cost and time involved in ISDS Mechanisms

Various ISDS institutions, such as UNCITRAL and ICSID, allow for quick and cost-effective dispute resolution. For example, in domestic courts, some basic preliminary objections can take a whole year and a half at only the court of the first instance for a decision to be rendered. However, this is not often the case in ISDS mechanisms. If the respondent asserts the issue is “without merit,” it might apply to dismiss the matter immediately rather than waiting until the completion of the proceedings.[4] Hence it allows a respondent to request that the proceedings be dismissed summarily if they believe the underlying claims are without legal merit. In the case of Trans-Global v. Jordan[5], the host state thought that the accusations were frivolous. The claimant filed an ICSID claim against the respondent, alleging that Jordan violated some US-Jordan BIT articles. The respondent made a 41(5) objection, arguing that the claimant’s claims were without legal merit in numerous ways. The Tribunal confirmed in the operative section of its judgement only THREE months after the objection was made. In addition, the Secretariat’s extensive services and specialist employees supporting each case cost USD 42,000 each year (USD 21,000 per party).[6] Comparing this amount to lawyer’s fees alone in Ghana (10%-15% of the amount claimed) indicates why institutions like ICSID or UNCITRAL should be preferred to local courts for investments which include large amounts.

Simple Award Enforcement Procedure

Another essential advantage of ISDS mechanisms is the enforcement procedure mechanism. Most ISDS institutions are enforceable under the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Some even have specialised enforcement mechanisms. For example, ICSID’s specialised enforcement mechanism saves time and money while ensuring predictability. It even has a post-award remedy process, including those based on the grounds for annulment, leaving no need to rely on domestic courts for that.[7]

Current Disadvantages of ISDS system as it is to Ghana

The Termination of Investor-State Relations

In almost all circumstances, international arbitration of a dispute between an investor and a state will result in the termination of the two parties’ ties. Unfortunately, this is the complete opposite of what Ghana wants when seeking various investors to invest in their countries and improve the economy.  A dispute between an investor and a state will ultimately destroy this connection and set a poor precedent for Ghana and potential investors.

Local laws are Susceptible to ISDS challenges.

As more firms are formed, national laws are subjected to more examination. The prospect of foreign companies succeeding in challenges to Ghanaian laws outside the Ghanaian judicial system would make selling trade to a sceptical local public more difficult.[8]

ISDS exceeds obligations regarding “national treatment.”

ISDS, in the opinion of certain parties, turns on its head the concept of “national treatment,” which states that imports and foreign enterprises will receive the same treatment as domestic products and companies. This is because international investors are granted privileges that local investors may not have.[9] It is possible to argue that this is discriminatory and a violation of Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which states the right of Equality and Freedom from discrimination.

New Amendments to ICSID Rules and their Implications for Ghana:

The most recent changes will take effect on July 1, 2022, and will apply to arbitrations that begin after that date. The following changes will be made to the ICSID Rules as a result of the Amendments:

a) Less Stringent Jurisdictional Requirements;

b) Specification of Ownership and Control of Investments; 

c) Disclosure Requirements for Third-Party Funding; and 

b) Security for Costs.

1. Less Stringent Jurisdictional Requirements

The ICSID Additional Facility Rules have been amended to significantly expand ICSID’s capacity to administer arbitration and conciliation proceedings. Even when none of the parties to the dispute is an ICSID Member State or a national of an ICSID Member State, the rules can still apply to them.   This is a significant shift because it gives the non-ICSID Member States and their nationals access to ICSID arbitration and conciliation. These parties, previously limited to commercial arbitration procedures, can utilise the ICSID mechanism.[10]

• Specification of  Ownership and Control of Investments

Previously, a request for arbitration just required to include information on the issues in dispute, indicating that there is a disagreement deriving directly from an investment, but the new requirements are more explicit. Under the new rules, the request for arbitration must include “a description of the investment as well as its ownership and control.” This allows both ICSID and respondent States to determine whether the assets qualify as the claimant’s investment and will likely allow for an earlier resolution of jurisdictional difficulties etc. 

• Disclosure Requirements for Third-Party Funding

The funded party must reveal the identity and address of any non-party source of funding immediately. This new requirement appears to have a broad scope, as it applies to parties who have received “a donation or grant, or in exchange for remuneration contingent on the outcome of the case” from a non-party, whether received “directly or indirectly.” It further demands identifying the individuals and entities that own and control them. As a general rule, disclosure of the funding arrangement and its terms and circumstances is not required under this new responsibility. This amendment provides a reasonable answer in that the name of a participating funder must now be revealed to potential arbitrators as soon as feasible to minimise unintended conflicts of interest.

• Security for costs

This provision of the interim measure was already approved under the ICSID rules.[11] However, ICSID has now introduced a detailed rule that allows a tribunal to force any party presenting a claim or counterclaim to provide security for expenses. The rule establishes a timeframe for deciding a request for security for expenses and an example list of circumstances to be considered in the tribunal’s decision-making process. It also governs the implications of failing to comply with an order for security for costs (suspension and ultimately discontinuance of the arbitral proceedings). 

---

[1] Natural Resources in Ghana – https://myhealthbasics.site/list-of-natural-resource-in-ghana/

[2] Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator (Ghana): https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/79/ghana/respondent

[3] Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases: Facts and Figures 2020: Issue 4, September 2021

[4] ICSID Rule 41(5) – Effective with the 2006 modifications to the ICSID Arbitration Rules

[5] ICSID Case No. ARB/07/25

[6] Cost of Proceedings: https://icsid.worldbank.org/services/content/cost-of-proceedings

[7] Article 52 of the ICSID Convention

[8] Investor-State Dispute Settlement by Gary Clyde Hufbauer – https://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/7137/11iie7137.pdf

[9] The Standard of National Treatment in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Practice by Andrea Sesin: http://cilj.co.uk/2017/02/05/the-standard-of-national-treatment-in-the-investor-state-dispute-settlement-practice/

[10] Maria José Alarcon, “ICSID Reform: Balancing the Scales?,” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, January 28, 2022, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/01/28/icsid-reform-balancing-the-scales/

[11] ICSID Convention Article 47 and ICSID Arbitration Rule 29

Prelude

The COP26 conference, which took place on November 1st, brought together parties from all over the world to accelerate action towards the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change goals. As the first day’s proceedings came to a close, it was disappointing. World leaders arrived in convoys with a total of 85 automobiles, all of which had their engines running during the summit. The security protocol is essential and must indeed be followed. Still, if the pandemic has taught us anything, video conferencing meetings are just as effective as “in-person” meetings. Arriving on luxury aircraft and with massive motorcades for a group of world leaders who have gathered to discuss and assess their tactics for the battle against climate change is undoubtedly not an encouraging message for the international community.

Introduction

The Paris Agreement: Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS).

The Paris Climate Agreement establishes a framework for countries to work together to avert global warming caused by carbon emissions. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) is one solution to this problem. The advantages and downsides of the Paris Climate Agreement are mostly appraised using this method. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured by CCUS from industrial processes or fuel burning. It is usually stored to prevent carbon from entering the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. CCUS technology, according to the industry, can collect up to 90% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants. [1]

However, it is essential to remember that, in reality, CCUS technologies have had little influence. This is because power plants must use roughly 30% of the energy they produce, resulting in the burning of more fossil fuels. Furthermore, there were only 24 power plants operational or in construction as of June 2020. [2] Petra Nova, the world’s largest coal-fired power station with a post-combustion collection facility, is one case. According to the estimates, it collects 90% of CO2 from a nearby coal plant. However, when the emissions produced by the capture equipment are taken into account, Petra Nova captures only around half of the CO2 emissions. [3] While this is a step forward, a shift away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources would result in even fewer emissions. As a result, it would be far more in line with the Paris Climate Agreement’s goals.

The Paris Agreement.

” The Paris Agreement provides a viable blueprint to mitigate the serious threats to our planet,” Ban Ki-moon, the former UN Secretary-General, notably declared. “It sets clear targets to restrict rising temperatures, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and facilitate climate-resilient development and green growth.” The pact was hailed as it was the first time its participants confronted climate change. Around 200 countries have ratified the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. This is a good sign that climate change is being taken seriously worldwide, particularly by more powerful countries like the United States, China, and India. At the 2015 climate change conference in Paris, COP 21,  196 countries signed the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement establishes a global framework for avoiding severe climate change by keeping global warming far below 2 degrees Celsius (2°C )and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C). It also attempts to improve countries’ ability to deal with climate changes’ effects and assist them in their efforts. This emphasises reliance on various means, including education, money, technology cooperation, and acknowledging the importance of climate action in achieving many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). [4] The Paris Agreement is thus hailed as a significant step toward bringing nations together to combat climate change.

The Benefits of the Paris Agreement

1. In the fight against climate change, a united front is needed.

One hundred ninety-seven countries have ratified the Paris Agreement. As a result, the global issue of climate change has become a top priority for most of the world. Hopefully, other countries that believe the pact isn’t strong enough will recognise the available benefits and join in this united struggle.

1. The Paris Agreement aids in the mitigation of global warming’s effects.

Sustainable development is a critical element of the Paris Agreement. Even if a two °C increase in global temperature does not appear to have a substantial impact, this change will provide additional resources for future generations to use. As it stands, if global warming trends continue, melting ice from the polar areas will result in rising sea levels, leading to flooding and other devastating consequences, including severe drought, especially important for Africa.[5]

1. Parties are accountable to each other.

All parties to the Paris Agreement must produce national emissions reports to track progress toward meeting the agreement’s targets. Furthermore, the agreement allows for various independent evaluations of the reports to help determine the development of the countries in concern. This is done to maintain mutual trust and confidence among all parties, allowing for effective agreement execution and enhancing transparency.

1. Technological Innovation is increasing.

The Paris Agreement boosted technical innovation, which is a crucial step toward finding more sustainable, climate-resilient solutions. All of these technological advancements are required if countries are to have a hope of combating global warming. ENGIE’s installation of off-grid electricity with solar panels paid for with mobile money in remote areas in three African countries is one such example of technological innovation.[6]

• Employment

The Paris Agreement has increased the number of renewable energy jobs accessible worldwide. This includes solar, hydropower, and wind energy industries, where countries are encouraging businesses to switch to cut global emissions. It is estimated that the renewable energy sector alone employed about 11.5 million people in 2019.[7]

The Paris Agreement’s Drawbacks

1. It establishes distinct sets of rules for each party to the agreement.

Regrettably, the Paris Agreement establishes a system in which different laws apply to other countries. When countries like India and China signed on to the agreement, they were not obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the same manner that the United States was. Each country can select how to lower its emissions profile under the guidelines of the program specified in this agreement.

1. Data on emissions reduction is not necessarily verifiable.

As required under the Paris Agreement, specific reporting techniques could lead to some countries “misreporting” their emissions. In this arena, questionable accounting is already a concern, with developing countries sometimes relying on disputed carbon reductions from land-use changes or forest preservation to accomplish their objectives.

1. The Paris Agreement has a colossal price tag.

The UN Green Climate Fund was established in 2010 due to Cancun, Mexico-based negotiations. By the end of 2020, it aimed to raise $100 billion each year. Some countries, such as the United States, took the initiative and pledged $3 billion to the Paris Agreement during the Obama administration. The entity that expends these monies, on the other hand, lacks accountability and transparency. The UN Green Climate Fund, according to the Cato Institute, is a “slush fund for global dictators.”

How Does the Paris Agreement Work?

The Paris Agreement is based on a five-year cycle of countries taking progressively ambitious climate action. Countries must submit their climate action plans, known as nationally defined contributions (NDCs), by 2020.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

Countries communicate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their NDCs to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets. Governments also share activities they plan to take to improve resilience and adapt to the effects of rising temperatures in their NDCs.

An African perspective on the current implementation.

African countries have decided to establish the Africa Nationally Determined Contributions Hub (Africa NDC Hub) under the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) Climate Change and Green Growth Department to accomplish the Paris Agreement goals. Thus, it is meant to assist various African countries to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Hub’s main objectives are to promote long-term climate action, mobilise implementation resources, and assure coordination, advocacy, and collaboration. [8]

Background and Justification.

All attempts to manage climate change appear to have failed due to the numerous problems faced by African countries, such as limited access to various markets, extremely high poverty levels, limited ways of calculating data accessible, and a lack of record-keeping. It should be noted that all 54 nations have signed the Paris Agreement and submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in compliance with its obligations. [9] The bulk of African countries have submitted INDCs, accounting for around 7.5 per cent of global emissions. Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, The Gambia and Uganda are among the countries that have ratified their INDCs.[10] While the majority of them have ratified their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), there is a widespread opinion that African countries’ INDCs were rushed and, in most cases, did not take long-term consequences on national development goals into account. As a result, they do not accurately reflect national needs and potential to contribute fully to global goals of attaining a low-carbon, climate-resilient route by mid-century. In general, African countries’ INDCs include two targets: (a) an unconditional target (roughly 15%) that will be met with domestic resources; and (b) a conditional target (which is subject to about 85 percent financial support from the international community). Unfortunately, there is almost no distinction between the above-mentioned targets, and failing to do so reduces the resources available to African countries in order to meet the set goals. Despite the creation of a global aim to achieve sustainable development, different attempts to implement NDCs have overlooked the necessity of adaptation and resilience building. As a result, efforts are made to persuade private sector investors to help with initiatives that can contribute to the achievement of the NDCs.

The AfDB Africa NDC Hub

This is a bank created to assist countries and non-state players on how they might help African countries meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. The bank will also support African states in raising funds and developing sustainable development strategies in order to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. The Bank and its partners will work with a variety of stakeholders to assist African countries in meeting their NDCs, primarily through mobilizing large amounts of funding to support national sustainable development imperatives.[11] The Hub will ensure that NDCs are effectively transformed into bankable and implementable projects/programs that are based on rigorous analytical work and that draw on the synergies of ongoing regional, national, and sectoral efforts to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Africa NDC Hub leverages on the AfDB’s extensive experience in Africa’s development, including the management of climate programs and finances.

The AfDB Africa NDC Hub’s Objectives

1. Foster long-term climate action:- this means doing research to link country-NDCs with national development agenda, voluntary contributions, and alternatives for increasing the level of ambition required for long-term low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

2. Mobilizing means for implementation: Finance, capacity building, technology development, and transfer are examples of mobilising resources for execution. These are crucial facilitators for achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals in the context of African long-term development. The Hub will work with global climate funds and the private sector to accommodate African NDC pledges that are both conditional and unconditional; and

3. Coordination, Advocacy, and Partnerships:- The Hub will serve as a platform for coordinating NDC support actions across the continent to make the most of limited resources.

It is self-evident that one of Africa’s significant challenges in meeting its stated INDCs is a lack of financial resources. The AfDB will assist most African countries in alleviating this strain by providing whatever funds it can to support countries with low resources, but how much money can the bank provide? It is worth noting that Anthony Nyong, the African Development Bank’s Director for Climate Change and Green Growth, has stated that for NDCs to produce effective results in Africa, the continent will need roughly $3 trillion. He also noted that these resources are required to support all countries. [12]

Where is the money you said you would give to Africa?

“We are, naturally, very disappointed by the failure of the wealthy nations to honour their commitments of making available one hundred billion dollars (US$100 billion) annually to the poorer countries to assist us in the fight against climate change, and by the unavailability of the technology transfer that will help us find sustainable ways of charting a path out of this existential crisis,” said Ghana’s President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo at the recent COP 26 conference. He continued by stating that: “Those same nations are, however, insisting that we abandon the opportunity for rapid development of our economies. That would be tantamount to enshrining inequality of the highest order, a totally unacceptable conclusion.”[13] The Ghanaian President points out that if the developed countries, the primary perpetrators of climate change (whose impacts are felt more in Africa than in most other locations), do not keep their promises, Africa would focus on developing itself without concern for climate change. Notably, the deadline for funding was set for 2020; however, during COP26, it was pushed out to 2023. At the same time, the statement by Anthony Nyong, Africa Director of the Global Centre on Adaptation, is essential, and he observed that, “It takes much more than just money to implement NDCs, we need a revolution in knowledge, proper planning and finances.” He further added that “We abound with adaptation solutions; what we need is scale and speed. These solutions will largely be driven by the private sector and armed with this knowledge, we will increase implementation of the NDCs through the private sector.”

OPINION

Many African countries have suffered financial losses due to the Covid-19 outbreak. As a result, African countries must raise funds to meet their NDCs. One option is to work with the business sector to obtain loans to help Africa improve its circumstances, and Ghana’s approach is vital.

Ghana’s Methodology

Ghana has taken a position in compliance with Article 4.9 of the Paris Agreement, which requires parties to provide five-year updates. In its first NDC submission, the West African country announced that by 2030, Green House Gas emissions would be reduced by 15% and conditionally reduced by an additional 30%, subject to the provision of external financial support. It was predicted that if it received financial assistance, it would reduce its GHG emissions by 45 per cent. Ghana’s NDCs indicated that financial aid must come from foreign private capital investments or bilateral and multilateral organisations (including the Green Climate Fund (GCF)). Ghana is thus working to put in place a range of mitigating measures, focusing on the energy sector, agriculture, industry, transportation, and forestry, among other things. A grant from the GCF to help some communities in Ghana’s Savannah Region adapt to the effects of climate change is one such investment. [14] Furthermore, the Cooperation Agreement agreed with Switzerland is another example of a favourable investment made by the county. [15]  In accordance with Article 5 of the Paris Agreement, Switzerland will grant support to Ghana to assist the country in adopting low-carbon technological solutions.

CONCLUSION

Many African countries, in my opinion, would benefit from adopting the Ghanaian model in their approaches to climate change, as it would help achieve the NDCs and, in the long run, aid in the fight against climate change. The Gambia[16] and South Africa[17] are two additional African countries that have taken significant efforts toward achieving their NDCs, similar to Ghana’s. This could pave the way for a new level of implementation based on successful, innovative approaches.

---

[1] IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[2] CCUS AROUND THE WORLD: https://co2crc.com.au/about-ccus/ccus-around-the-world/

[3] A Case Study of the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project, Prepared for the CEO Council for Sustainable Urbanization by Jesse Jenkins

[4] The Explainer: The Paris Agreement, https://unfccc.int/blog/the-explainer-the-paris-agreement

[5] Article 13 of Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015

[6] Taha Gaya. 2021. The ENGIE Acquisition: With USAID Support, an Off-Grid Solar Fenix Rises: https://www.climatelinks.org/blog/engie-acquisition-usaid-support-grid-solar-fenix-rises

[7] Renewable Energy Sector Provides Millions of Jobs Worldwide: https://knoema.com/infographics/ywbifkc/renewable-energy-sector-provides-millions-of-jobs-worldwide

[8] Africa Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) Hub, African Development Bank: Roadmap and Work Programme: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Generic-Documents/Africa_NDC_Hub_Roadmap_and_Work_Programme.pdf

[9] Decision 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20 of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change

[10] Transitioning from INDCs to NDCs in Africa by AfDB

[11] Building Partnerships to deliver Africa’s Paris Agreement commitments: https://www.afdb.org/fr/news-and-events/building-partnerships-to-deliver-africas-paris-agreement-commitments-18900

[12] Supra 10

[13] National Statement By The President Of The Republic Of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, at The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26), In Glasgow, Scotland, On Tuesday, 2nd November 2021: https://www.graphic.com.gh/features/opinion/president-akufo-addo-s-speech-at-cop26-full-address.html.

[14] Green Climate fund approves $54.5m projects to reduce deforestation and carbon emissions in Ghana’s shea landscape: https://www.gh.undp.org/content/ghana/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2020/green-climate-fund-approves–54-5m-project-to-reduce-deforestati.html

[15] Switzerland and Ghana sign historic agreement for Climate Action: https://www.undp.org/press-releases/switzerland-and-ghana-sign-historic-agreement-climate-action

[16] The Gambia receives global recognition as the circular economy keeps the country on track to below 1.5°C: https://www.shiftingparadigms.nl/projects/blog-the-gambia-receives-global-recognition-as-the-circular-economy-keeps-the-country-on-track-to-1-5c/

[17] PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE SOUTH AFRICA’S STRATEGIC PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE PARIS AGREEMENT: https://static.pmg.org.za/210302SA_Paris_Agreement_Strategy.pdf

So yesterday I came across this tweet from Kafui;

And it got me wondering, would people rather be told the truth or rather be lied to, to keep them happy. So as usual, I asked a few friends of mine, and these were their responses;

 

As you can see it was almost a split decision. Some would rather be lied to than be told the truth and some preferred to be told the truth upfront.

The thing about the truth is it contains facts, good or bad. You sugar coat it a little, then it crosses the line between truth and lie. This makes telling the truth the best option especially if you want to help someone. Like Kafui said, the truth usually ends up hurting people, so why would someone continue to be honest with another when there is a chance that they’re likely to end up being hurt? After hurting the person too there is a very high chance that the friendship between them will not be the same which is quite sad especially if you care about the person and don’t want to offend them.

Then there is lying to the person. That option always seems the safest. Simply saying or not stating facts when unquestioned about something. Imagine your close friend asking you “Chale, I dey mel?” Then your response is “Nah chale” when indeed your friend stinks like that lake on the way to Korle-Bu. It’s sad but chale if you told them the truth, they would be offended and might even be upset you didn’t tell them before. KFBfc people, last year must have been tough for you. I Digress.

But yeah, it’s never easy to be entirely honest. I know people who also refuse to be honest because they don’t want to risk complacency. A friend who works at a reputable law firm, told me how he doesn’t commend his junior associates at all as it keeps them on their toes, and stops them from becoming complacent. From his point of view, even a “Good job” for a job well done isn’t necessary. Can his refusal to make such comments be considered a lie?

Lemme get personal small. A few weeks ago someone told me something that brought me down to earth. The person was honest to me and it pained me plenty and things. I could have enjoyed life as it was but chale the truth was best in those particular circumstances and its helping me to work and access certain things. I’m almost certain that in the long run if I had been told the truth later things would be worse than they are right now and I would be harder hit.

So I guess we generally can’t decide whether we’d rather be lied to, to keep things as they are and stay happy with ourselves. Or rather be told the truth and react to it appropriately to “better ourselves” or know what’s actually going on or be happy being lied to. But the question is, would you rather be “fool” who is being lied too?

Personally, truth is always the best. Despite being blunt about most things, I always hesitate when it comes to being honest about personal things that could affect a friendship. But isn’t the whole point of a friendship to help improve each other one way or another? Anyway, what do I know.

 

Glorious.