Accra is building upwards at an extraordinary pace. Sleek apartment towers with ambitious names—A-Heights, B-Towers, C-Residences—are sprouting across the capital’s most affluent neighbourhoods, from Cantonments and Labone to East Legon and Ridge. Many come with gyms, pools, rooftop lounges, and concierge desks. Yet drive past these gleaming structures after sunset, and a strange silence hangs over them. The number of lit windows on most evenings could be counted on one hand.

This paradox, luxury apartments multiplying while remaining largely empty, their prices defying the basic economic logic that excess supply should drive costs down, is at the heart of a provocative social media essay by Kofi Hamilton Amekudzi. In a Facebook post that has generated hundreds of reactions and dozens of detailed comments, Amekudzi asks a question that has quietly troubled many Accra residents: who is buying these homes, and why do so many appear to be used as little more than “vaults with balconies”? Read the full article below.

---

ACCRA, A CITY WHERE VAULTS HAVE BALCONIES
Drive through Accra these days, and you will see apartments shooting up like missiles. They rise. They glitter. They acquire ambitious names such as A-Heights, B-Towers, C-Residences, D-Pinnacle, E-Apex, F-Summit, etc. It appears the developers are running out of synonyms for the word “high”.

In Cantonments, Labone, Airport Residential. East Legon, Osu, Nyaniba, Ridge, and beyond, familiar bungalows are giving way to vertical structures determined to redefine Accra’s skyline. The developers will tell you that the land on which stood a single bangalow must be maximised.

Most of these apartments include gyms, swimming pools, rooftop lounges, concierge desks, and many other admirable amenities, included to enhance their appeal. I would not be wrong to say the building of apartments has become a competition in Accra. And yet, for all the furious construction, a strange silence hangs over these buildings after sunset. Drive past at 8pm and count the number of lit windows. You will surely not need the fingers on both hands.

Therein lies the puzzle that is not easy to explain. The apartments are everywhere but are largely empty, and yet their prices continue to ascend like a BA jet leaving Accra International Airport. Ask any first year economics student what happens when supply outstrips demand? Clearly, the Accra apartment story defies the principles contained in Economics text books.
So, who is buying an apartment that would most likely be empty for most of the year?
The rumour mill, never shy in Ghana, has produced its answer. Many of the apartments are being used to “wash” money. For the avoidance of doubt, “washing” money does not make dirty money cleaner. Omo and Key soap have no role to play in this kind of “washing.”

It simply means tucking “suspect funds” away from the prying eyes of the formal banking system and converting them into brick and mortar. This, the rumour mill insists, is the reason why the prices do not respond to the gravitational pull to drop. “Suspect money” is increasing and hence the demands are high.

An individual who has invested unspeakable sums into a three – bedroom unit in Cantonments is in no particular hurry to sell. The apartment is not a home. It is a vault. Yes, a vault with a balcony view. There are also Ghanaians in the diaspora (and also in Ghana) who have found the interest rates whispered by the banks to be unattractive. They find the interest on treasury bills and fixed deposits to be inadequate. They are also aware of the historic adventurous relationship between the Cedi and the Dollar. After careful thought, they prefer to keep their hard-earned resources in brick and mortar.

This brings us to a question no one is asking. Does this rush to invest in apartments suggest a falling trust in our banking system? Is it possible that the banks would have been the main beneficiaries of these resources going towards real estate entities if the citizens trusted the banks?

The sad part of this story is that the increase in apartments is not reducing the housing deficit in Ghana primarily because many Ghanaians cannot afford these apartments.
A young teacher in Madina who pays rent cannot afford these apartments. A nurse in Korle – Bu searching for a one-bedroom cannot afford the $120K the developers are asking for a studio apartment. These apartments were never built for such people. The price tags start where their dreams end.

And so Accra’s Towers would continue to multiply. Gleaming, expensive, half-lit, half-occupied, and yet, only half-explained. They will remain monuments of wealth we cannot fully explain, and this whispers to us that “unexplained wealth” is still very prevalent in Accra.

One day, maybe an audit will reveal the names of all the owners of the apartments in Accra. The earth may shake that day. The owners of the dark rooms will be revealed in the light.
Until then, Accra will continue to be Accra. The apartments will continue to rise. The more they rise, the more they will be empty. The more they are empty, the higher their price tag ascends. The more you think about this logic, the more you will struggle to make sense of it.

In a nutshell, Accra reminds us that vaults have balconies, and theories from economics textbooks do not make sense on the streets. Good day.

A prominent Nigerian lawyer and social media influencer known as Celebrity_Lawyer (De_Monarch1) has opened up about an unexpected occupational hazard: years of handling customary divorces left her with a deep-seated fear of commitment, a condition she identifies as gammophobia.

In a candid video shared with her thousands of followers, the lawyer recounted a pivotal moment at a customary court years ago. A chairman, observing the young lawyer at work, issued a warning:

“I should learn to separate my personal life from my professional life. That somehow, if I mix my emotions with my professional life, it’s going to affect my love life.”

At the time, the lawyer admitted she did not understand the warning. But over the years, the daily immersion in marital breakdowns, the disputes, the betrayals, the legal dissolutions, took a psychological toll.

“Over the years, I realized that I had commitment issues,” she said. “I became scared of marriage, commitment.” She described her automatic response to romantic interest as a defensive shutdown: “If you come and tell me, ‘Oh, I like you, let’s see how it goes’… I’m like, this marriage thing, what is the problem? I beg, I beg, I beg, carry your problem and be going.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Celebrity_Lawyer(De_Monarch1) (@celebrity_lawyer1)

Comfort in Singlehood, Until a Wake-Up Call

For a long time, the lawyer found comfort in her single status, describing it as a modern blessing.

“Being single is a blessing. You get to do anything you want to do. You don’t have to consider anybody. You’re considering yourself,” she explained.

However, a recent tragedy forced a profound shift in perspective. A neighbor battling cancer passed away, and the lawyer observed who remained by her side until the end.

“The only people beside that woman was her husband and her children, not her employers, not her colleagues, not even her sisters,” she recalled. “Her husband and her children.”

That image became the catalyst for questioning her long-held fears. She concluded that avoiding marriage simply because of the failed marriages visible around her was a form of deception. “

“That’s the devil trying to cheat you,” she stated. “Devil is trying to cheat you without you knowing.”

Now, by consciously opening her mind to healthy marriages she had previously overlooked, the lawyer says she has experienced a revival of hope:

“I might get married one day. Yeah, I will get married one day. And I feel like marriage is a very beautiful thing when done right.”

She offered a balanced final message, quoting scripture:

“Even the Bible said one shall chase 1,000, two will chase 10,000. So if it’s a healthy marriage, you’re going to achieve more than if you are single. But if it’s a bad marriage, it’s better that you are single than be in a bad marriage.”

The lawyer’s confession has since sparked widespread conversation online about the unseen mental health impacts of legal professions, the fear of commitment in modern dating culture, and the changing perceptions of marriage among young African professionals.

In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court has opened the door for states to enact discriminatory voting maps, overruling decades of precedent, the text of the law, and the will of Congress.

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a ruling that voting rights advocates are calling a devastating blow to American democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark 1965 civil rights law that for six decades served as the nation’s primary legal shield against racial discrimination in elections.

The 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, handed down on April 29, 2026, strikes down a congressional map that had finally allowed Black voters in Louisiana to elect candidates of their choice, and more broadly, provides a legal roadmap for states to enact racially discriminatory voting maps so long as they claim partisan intent.

“This decision — which contradicts the text of the Voting Rights Act, the will of Congress and the Constitution — is one of the most consequential setbacks for our multiracial democracy in a generation,” said Trevor Stanley, president of Campaign Legal Center, which submitted amicus briefs in the case.

Between Hope and Exploitation: The hidden truth about migration in a globalized world

A Landmark Law, Dismantled

For sixty years, the Voting Rights Act has stood as a cornerstone of American civil rights legislation. It was enacted to dismantle the Jim Crow-era barriers that had systematically excluded Black Americans from the ballot box — literacy tests, poll taxes, and violent intimidation.

Section 2 of the VRA specifically prohibited any voting practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. It allowed voters to challenge discriminatory maps and seek judicial remedies.

That protection, the Supreme Court has now ruled, has been significantly weakened.

The case originated in Louisiana, where a federal court had found that the state’s congressional map discriminated against Black voters. Louisiana was ordered to redraw its map to create an additional district where Black voters could have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The state complied, adopting a map that resulted in the election of two Black Louisianians to Congress for the first time in state history.

Then a group of self-described “non-Black” voters sued, claiming the VRA-compliant map was an illegal racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court agreed.

The Loophole: ‘It’s Partisanship, Not Race’

While the majority claimed to make only minor adjustments to the legal framework for challenging discriminatory districts, voting rights experts say the decision represents a fundamental overhaul.

Going forward, voters will face new evidentiary hurdles. More critically, states can now defend against virtually any claim of racial discrimination simply by arguing that they discriminated based on political party — even when race and partisanship are nearly impossible to disentangle, particularly in the American South.

“The decision provides a roadmap for states to return to pre-1965 race discrimination in redistricting,” the Campaign Legal Center said in a statement. This is despite Congress’s repeated and overwhelming reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, including as recently as 2006.

In practical terms, a state legislature could draw a map that systematically dilutes Black voting power — then argue in court that the map was actually designed to disadvantage Democrats, not Black voters. Under the new standard, that defense may be sufficient.

Leased Sovereignty: Ghana, the EU, Ukraine and the Politics of Security Dependency

Justice Kagan’s Scathing Dissent

In a pointed dissent, Justice Elena Kagan captured the gravity of the decision, writing:

“The Voting Rights Act ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed — not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Kagan’s language, “now-completed demolition,” reflects a growing recognition that this ruling follows a pattern. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 4 of the VRA, effectively gutting federal preclearance requirements for states with histories of discrimination. Now, the Court has neutered Section 2, the last major provision allowing private citizens to challenge discriminatory maps.

What This Means for Voters

The immediate impact will be felt most acutely in Louisiana, where the court’s ruling invalidates the map that allowed two Black representatives to serve in Congress simultaneously for the first time.

But the ruling applies nationally. Any state — particularly those with significant minority populations and histories of racial discrimination — could now adopt maps that dilute minority voting power, so long as they frame their actions in partisan terms.

“Black and brown voters who have long fought for fair representation at the federal, state and local levels will be particularly impacted,” the Campaign Legal Center warned.

The decision also leaves voters with little legal recourse. The evidentiary burdens are now higher, and the partisan-appearance defense provides states with a nearly automatic shield against Section 2 claims.

Global Implications

For international audiences, the ruling carries significant weight. The United States has long positioned itself as a global model for democratic governance and has frequently criticized other nations for electoral irregularities and the suppression of minority voting rights.

This decision undercuts that moral authority.

Democracy watchdogs around the world — from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to the African Union to the European Parliament — have documented backsliding in democratic norms across multiple nations. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling will likely be cited as evidence that even established democracies are vulnerable to the erosion of civil rights protections.

“This is not just an American story,” said a spokesperson for a leading international democracy monitoring group. “When the world’s oldest continuous democracy weakens its own voting rights protections, it sends a signal to authoritarian-leaning governments everywhere that democratic guardrails can be removed with impunity.”

What Comes Next

While the Supreme Court’s decision is a major setback, voting rights advocates stress that the fight is not over.

Congress can act to enact new federal protections against racial and partisan discrimination in redistricting, fulfilling its role as a co-equal branch of government. Legislation to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act has been proposed in previous sessions, though it has stalled due to partisan gridlock.

States can also adopt their own voting rights protections. Several states — including New York, Virginia, and Colorado — have enacted State Voting Rights Acts (SVRAs) that provide protections beyond federal law. Advocates are now urging other states to follow suit.

Campaign Legal Center and other pro-democracy organizations have pledged to continue litigating, advocating, and fighting to ensure that all Americans can participate meaningfully in the democratic process.

“Every generation has faced attempts to restrict access to the ballot box, and every generation has pushed back,” the organization said. “This moment is no different.”

A Long Arc Bent Toward Justice — But Now, Bent Back?

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” For voting rights advocates, that arc now appears to be bending in the opposite direction — at least in the courts.

Whether Congress or state legislatures can bend it back remains the defining question of America’s democratic future.

For now, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: the Voting Rights Act, once the backbone of federal protections against racial discrimination in elections, has been reduced to a shell. And millions of American voters, particularly Black and brown citizens, will likely pay the price