RAAE: Today, you are described as “Africa’s most notorious journalist.” How did you come to be an undercover investigative journalist? Was it by accident or by design?

AAA: I started out as a “normal” journalist, where I had observed the trends in the various military regimes in Ghana. Although at the time Ghana was a democracy, in my opinion, it was a pseudo-democracy. I say this because it was “military grown,” so to speak. You see, as a child I grew up with my family in the military barracks at Burma Camp [in Accra], and this impacted my formative years. Later, as a young adult, I read the important works of a number of prominent journalists, such as K.K. Inkoom [Daily Graphic] and Tommy Thompson [Free Press of Accra], who had undergone a great deal of challenges and obstacles in order to produce their work. But, even back then, I observed that only minimal changes resulted as a consequence of their efforts. There just was not that “knock out” punch to their work. By this, I mean, this was not work that could remove criminals from society. Rather, I viewed the situation as reinforcing criminality in society. So, it was then that I first began to consider the option of working as an undercover journalist. I was also interested in appealing to the youth. At that time, journalism in Ghana was operating according to an old paradigm, whereby journalists created an exclusive story, kept whatever information they gathered to themselves, and did not share it with law enforcement agencies. This led me to think that, if we, as Ghanaians, are aiming at creating a just society, why not collaborate [with law enforcement agencies]? Certainly, I was aware of the importance of exclusivity for journalists, and the notion of not having a relationship with government that would compromise our work—nonetheless, it did not make sense to me. To my mind, once we as journalists are convinced of a story, and able to position ourselves in way that we can work without being inadvertently influenced or manipulated, it does not stop us from working with others in enforcing the law. Besides, as journalists, we do not possess the powers to arrest people, so if we seek justice, we can assist in fighting crime. It is in keeping with this philosophy that I developed my mantra, “name, shame, and jail.”

RAAE: But you also studied law?

AAA: Yes, I studied at Ghana Law School and was called to the bar in 2013. I would describe my career as a metamorphosis. After working for some time as a journalist, I then asked myself, “How do I, or rather, what are the necessary steps to take in order to have an impact on society?” and “What is the shortest, and most effective route to take?” Journalism embraces a lot of advocacy and also the opportunity to represent the voiceless. The next step was to solidify the journalism and make myself almost impenetrable in terms of legalities. So, I decided to become a lawyer. Knowledge of the law helps so much because even if you are undercover, you must know the “ingredients,” so to speak, if you want to have a successful prosecution. Law is the backbone of our kind of work. I am not a typical lawyer who is always practicing in court. But I know enough law in order to help “get me around.”

RAAE: How do you view your approach?

AAA: I consider my approach as a simple solution to a problem specific to my country, Ghana. Of course, such an approach might not work in other parts of the world, so it was also a matter of knowing my society. Yet, I also see Ghana’s problem as an “African problem,” for the reason our situation resonates elsewhere in the continent. However, I should add that when I attended a screening of the film about my life, Chameleon [named for Anas’ penchant for disguises] in Mexico, I discovered that my Brazilian colleagues loved the film.Footnote ⁷ I was shocked, but I learnt they faced similar problems to those we have in Ghana, so I realized this paradigm might be applicable in different places. So, whilst I had to explain to the British and North Americans attending the event, I did not have to [explain] to the Brazilians that my purpose was to bring a smile to my peoples’ faces.

RAAE: I was introduced to your work through some of your early documentaries, such as Deadly Gold, How to Rob Africa, and Ghana in the Eyes of God. I wonder if you could speak about your decision to turn from print to film? Why film? Why is film so special to you? What does film do? Both for you and for your audiences?

AAA: It grew organically. I am a product of our society. Although I started in print [the newsroom], when civil society started developing here, there was a need for a much stronger evidence—in other words, the bar for proof in the public domain kept rising. So that was when the concept of multimedia emerged. I felt there was a need to combine methods. Initially, as a print person [working for The New Crusading Guide with editor and mentor Kweku Baako Jnr], whenever I went to the various locations to do my stories, I also took my camera. Still, what was I to do with these photographs after having printed them? Or, with videos that I had created? In the beginning, I gave my material to the news stations so they could cut bits of it and use it for their news items. That was when I had a ten-minute footage. But as my investigations became bigger and stronger, and I started to collect hours of footage, naturally, I asked myself, “What do I with all of this?” So, this is how I became a television or radio journalist. It grew organically. I had the information. People at several international organizations remarked upon the fact that I had a great deal of material and suggested that I turn to television. So that is how I became what I am today. I still call myself a “multi-media” person because I love print. I am a typical print person. You can see my print in television. You can even feel it, that this guy [myself] is not just committed to being just a typical broadcaster. You will notice that people say, “I saw it.” In my view, “I saw it” and “I read it” are not the same thing. Film simplifies, and film increases credibility.

RAAE: What are peoples’ reactions to watching your films?

AAA: I think it depends on the issue in the film. I have produced many films that make people very uncomfortable, that they don’t want to watch, or they will watch parts of it, and say, “I just can’t watch it” [in its entirety]. There is a mixture of reactions. Whatever the situation, such responses are good, because it means that perhaps this is a topic that all of us must look at. Nonetheless, the person who says, “I heard about the movie and tried to watch it, but I couldn’t” is as committed to fighting that menace as the one who watched it.

RAAE: So, do you think Ghanaians are becoming increasingly more discerning? And, if so, why is this?

AAA: Yes. I always congratulate the middle class that is growing. Education is important. Apart from the upper and middle classes, the other people, they are consumers of information, but today, if you say, “Anas is corrupt,” they believe it. Tomorrow, if you say, “Anas is not corrupt,” they believe it. They are so gullible; they have no position. They are not critical thinkers. On the other hand, the situation in Ghana is getting better, and it will go through a phase of pruning over a period of time. People did not use their voices because they thought they had no voice. Now, they are beginning to realize, “Oh wow, this little thing that I wrote has gone viral.” For example, consider the recent police brutality case at a bank. Someone puts the documented footage in his/her social media wall. S/he goes to buy food and come [back home]. And by the time s/he returns, finds that the post has been shared a million times. The person puts his hand on his head and asks, “Is it me? When did I become a king?” By the evening time, the President is commenting upon it. That is how you grow society. That is how you empower people. The person asks, “Am I that important?” These are the little changes. But they are growing. People sit in their houses and they are bored. They do selfies and they talk. Other people respond, so they ask themselves, “So, I can sit in my bedroom and people will listen?” This is the metamorphosis we are going through. It can only lead to good things. Initially, it will start with a lot of trash. But time will take care of all of this (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Anas, Nima in Accra. Photo courtesy of the Author.

In my mind, this is not the time to shut down dissenting opinions. Let us encourage more people to turn to social media and let their voices be heard, whether their views are wrong or right. Then, in this way, three, four, or five years down the line we will now start [to develop into something more critical] … social media has its own particular way of vetting people and adding credibility to the voices we hear, and the things we read on our [social media] walls. For instance, I have friends who “block” people. That is a way of sanitizing social media. And, there are also people who write on social media and no one comments. Why? So, it’s all a matter of time. But for now, every Ghanaian should concentrate on encouraging more people to join social media. Our government states that they don’t operate according to what is portrayed on social media. But whatever issue is depicted on social media, they follow it. This is because the government knows [the power that social media holds]. The rights of the middle classes are creating a lot of fear and panic in government. I am perhaps feared because of the following that I have.

RAAE: Still, throughout your career, you have faced a great deal of controversy and criticism over a number of things. For example, your methodology of obtaining information is a longstanding popular topic of conversation amongst Ghanaians. Certainly, your work focuses on secreted, clandestine, or concealed practices that are oftentimes illicit. But there has been much disagreement over your approach with suggestions that it is unethical, and also that the public is led to verdicts before a court has found them guilty of a crime.

AAA: Sure, we have a growing middle class in Ghana. It is the middle class critiquing my methodology. On the other hand, I am such a controversial journalist that when I don’t get critique on a story, I am not happy. What is the point in doing a story and no one is talking about it? Ask anyone who knows me. If I finished a story, and all was uneventful and accepted, I would ask myself, “So what is the controversy in the story?” Where is the “fear” factor or the “wow” factor? It exists in every story. At times at a high level, and at others at a lower level. Sometimes, a story can be quiet, but when it is released, it is accompanied by death threats. Nonetheless, the story is not complete if there is no controversy.

RAAE: I understand. But I want to ask you, is there not controversy and critique, and then what we are witnessing now, which is far more serious, far more alarming? Recently, there was a film exposé Who Watches the Watchman? aired by Kennedy Agyapong, a Ghanaian Minister of Parliament and businessman. The film was intended to expose you for your “dubious investigative operations.” But more than that, I have also read newspaper articles that state that you have been forced to go “on the run,” constantly moving location, sleeping in taxis, and so forth. A few weeks ago, another newspaper article claimed you went to the American embassy in order to get visas for your family to leave Ghana. Are these urban myths? Please, can you speak to this?

AAA: I have not been sleeping in taxis (laughing). And, the American embassy is a public institution. So, if I have gone there, definitely, people will know. The reality is, I have not travelled since my film No. 12. Then again, as for detractors… The point is, if I have just taken a whole group of people out of office, they are bitter. They have lost their income; they can’t cheat, and they can’t steal. Most of these people, they have been disgraced. Now, whatever they say, or whatever they will do to bring your career down, that is another issue. Then again, the good thing is that [working with] the likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera, is that they care about the credibility of their reporting. So, every single allegation that you make, they will investigate it, in order to satisfy themselves whether there is any merit in the allegations. As for this most recent situation, this is not the first time, and it will not be the last.

RAAE: Are organizations such as the BBC and Al Jazeera conducting research into allegations in order to satisfy themselves because it is their reputation, or because they are concerned about your welfare, or is it a combination of the two?

AAA: It’s a combination. It’s also about having the issue under control. So, whatever swipes are taken at a certain person, it will not end up in the death of our reporter. That is important to them. In addition, if our reporter was wrong, we need to know how to address it. I mean if someone says, “hang the journalist” and “the journalist has killed people.” Outrageous. When people make such statements, others come and see me, and we laugh. We laugh, for the reason, who would say that a journalist should be killed in this day and age? Even those who feel insulted [as a consequence of my work], I would never wish for that. The key thing is that we should encourage more dissenting voices in Ghana. That said, such work is “a package.” You can never have the fame and all the accolades without these scratches. And the more the scratches, the more people put your work under close scrutiny to convince themselves you are good, and you are what you portray yourself to be. For example, when somebody alleges that one has done this and that, and then you sue the person, all the issues that s/he claimed are brought before the court. At the end of the day there will be a verdict. What does the verdict do? It serves to enhance my credibility. Anybody who thinks that when you take a swipe at such “big” people in society and no such suits will come at you is a joker. I am saying that No. 12 is not the first. It will not be the last. Even my film Malawi’s Human Harvest generated a lot of critique directed at me. It is normal. Although, they now tell me that they have arrested the murderers who have confessed to murdering one person. So, the same people who were formerly blasting me and insulting me now have admitted that I have done a good job.

RAAE: Earlier on, you spoke about doing something that is appropriate for the Ghana context. But, since your work has a very large international appeal, I am also thinking about your non-Ghanaian audiences. Are you concerned that perhaps your documentary films continue to perpetuate old, ethnocentric, racist, colonial stereotypes? That is, it reinforces problematic framings of Africa and Africans for non-Africans?

AAA: I think that the African continent is in transition. I think that when you read United States or British history, you realize that where we are now, as a people, they have been there. People had to make sacrifices. We have the benefit of hindsight [vis-à-vis other histories]. In Ghana, the transition is on. We simply have no choice but to push at the frontiers. There are defined institutions that we need to make things work but they require individuals pushing. It’s not going to be rosy path. It will not be “a tea party.” Nevertheless, the moment we decide to stop the push, that will be when our problems begin. It is important to note that pushing the frontiers means taking hard decisions that will affect peoples’ financial and social status, including the fact that we may sometimes fail. If you attempt to take away the financial and social status from any human being, s/he will bounce back and fight. That’s why the fight is ruthless. What is more, people even prefer dying than to your disgracing them because of their needs. We, as people, have a pride that we will do everything we can to protect, whether one has committed evil or not. When I look at our history, I think we are better off today (than in the past). Sometimes, it’s a very slow change. If we are not careful, people can become despondent and feel that we have been doing this for so many years and nothing has changed—there is always corruption. However, people have forgotten that ten years ago, the police, military, and government impunity was so high. Today, it is reduced. They have forgotten that ten or fifteen years ago, there was nothing like media freedom in Ghana. We fought for it. There is a class of people, who, because of what they are gaining from corruption, would prefer people to think that nothing is happening. They want for people to conclude that all that we are doing is for nothing and is a waste of time. According to their view, “why don’t we just and sit watch the system and pray to God?” I keep saying, whatever people say, we will not just push the frontier but encourage young people to learn to also push the frontiers of democracy. In the United States, United Kingdom, and other places, they have reached other levels of pushing the frontiers; they have not just gone to bed. Look at for example, President Trump. People are pushing against Trump. There is also Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation. Cohen knows what he is doing, even though it’s making the President uncomfortable. He is aware that even if the President sacks him, the whole of America will support him. Those are the kinds of institutions that we want; institutions that are strong. You can only have strong institutions when you have strong individuals. We are not very far from that [scenario].

RAAE: But again, I want to come back to people who live outside or have never travelled to the continent, who have certain ideas or imaginaries about what Africa is—do you think that showing films about child trafficking, “witchcraft,” or corruption just reinforces those stereotypes?

AAA: I don’t think so. I think it depends on what people see. I provide the viewer with the problem, but also with the solution. Now, there is trafficking in the United States, United Kingdom, and so on. But the thing is, how do we deal with it, in Ghana, as a people? I just did a film called The Invisible Hands (2018), where there were lots of children working on cocoa farms. It was about letting the world know that cocoa farms involve child labor, there are institutions that have not “gone to bed,” and that if the Ghana police is aware of this problem, they will take stringent measures to ensure that ends. The film also looks at the role of multinationals, making the connection between the problems in Africa and the rest of the world. It was premiered at the United Nations. So, my journalism is not only about portraying the problem, but also about finding the solutions to the problem. That’s my take.

RAAE: I would now like to turn to discuss corruption. This is a topic, perhaps best exemplified in your film Ghana in the Eyes of God: Epic of Injustice (2015) on corruption in the Ghana judiciary system, which resulted in the removal of office a number of high court judges, lower court judges, court registrars, and interpreters,Footnote ⁸ ,Footnote ⁹ and also your latest film No. 12 (2018) on the Ghana football administration, which forced the Ghana president of the Association to resign.Footnote ¹⁰ Nonetheless, corruption is a globalized phenomenon and of concern for many, in many parts of the world. Yet, there seems to be a great deal of ambivalence about how to define corruption. It speaks to the complexities of issues such as gift exchange, reciprocity, kinship, patronage and other associations, ethics, and moral economies. In other words, what constitutes and does not constitute corruption? Why is it so prevalent? Thinking about the African context, there is a long historical tradition of gifting. In my mind, I am curious to know if you think we can disentangle any discussions of bribery from gifting? What is the difference between the bribe and gratuity, known locally as a “dash”? So, can I ask, is there a difference between bribery and gifting? Is that one is done before and the other after? Is it the amount? Is there a moral distinction? Or, is it about something else? Or rather, is the dash just a more socially accepted way of paying a bribe? I am not saying that corruption in the past did not exist, but do you think it’s gifting transformed? I am also wondering if in a society where people are related through kin networks, the gift can come at any moment in time, and can take many different forms. But in the contemporary, urban setting, where those old networks have broken down, it’s a different kind of network that requires a different kind of gift? My apologies, these are a lot of questions.

AAA: I can tell you how I apply it when I am working. A gift is a gift. If the rules say you are not allowed to take a gift, you should not take that gift. Therefore, terming something a “gift” alone does not make it so. It can still be a gift and also a bribe. For example, if someone approaches the director or governor of the bank of Ghana in search of a license with the understanding of giving a gift of two million dollars, clearly it is not the label that makes the difference. I determine whether something is a gift or bribe by paying close attention to the question of [personal] interest or motivation, at that time. In a typical African society, somebody says “thank you” after the whole job has been done, for example, when you are naming your child and you bring an MC. You didn’t buy the MC, but he came to do it. The family decides to go to his house to thank him with tubers of yam. I can’t see corruption anywhere. That is what I would classify as a proper gift.

I would look at after [an event or transaction]. I ask the question: What is your interest? I mostly focus on interest. In the case that someone reveals that they will donate a gift afterwards, that dilutes it. That is why interest is important. Certainly, it’s very difficult to decouple culture and cultural settings from the act of giving. But, once we allow cultural settings to “seep into our pores,” people take it a notch higher and think it’s the norm to give gifts prior. Furthermore, even if you give before, they still want it afterwards. So, we now have a situation where there are those who want it before and after. When you come before, they will demand. And afterwards, if you don’t bring [it], they will come to your house and say, “bring it.” So, the earlier, we say “no”—right from the onset, the better.

Now, back to your point about escalation. Yes, that is the point. It’s the gifting that people are twisting and taking advantage of. Certainly, gifting gives room for bribery. Sometimes, when someone wants to bribe, they can sometimes approach a friend or the people around a person. So, the surest way, and I have said this before, is to codify the gift—what should and what should not be declared. Our laws, apart from what the president is allowed to receive and must account for, do not translate down to the Ministerial level, spelling out what s/he can or cannot receive as gift. This gives room for people to take advantage. Hence, I am calling for codification of the gift. This is a bottom-up approach. We must not only focus on the top. When we do this, it becomes clear. For example, when I was doing No. 12, and I read the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rules, I knew straight away that Kwesi Nyantakyi could not receive a gift.Footnote ¹¹ So, giving him money and saying it was “a gift” was immaterial. In fact, when I was giving him the money, I said “this is a gift for you.” Still, some Ghanaians don’t understand, because they say, “you yourself said this was a ‘gift.’ Why are you saying he is corrupt?” Thus, there is this confusion. I believe that we must begin to codify and set the record straight about what is and is not acceptable.

RAAE: But, we would have to do this in all arenas, no?

AAA: First of all, we need to know what are the areas and/or professions that attract corruption. For example, in a school it may not be the teacher, but rather, it is likely to be the school head because of admissions. So, anywhere that that net can catch, we must apply the code.

RAAE: It seems corruption is a complicated project because it is governed by specific rules, codes, and practices; in other words, one needs to know the whom, how, and when, as well as how much. These things are not explicit. And, there is also the question of the actors’ various hierarchies.

AAA: It is very, very complicated.

RAAE: I want to return to the role of kinship again vis-à-vis corruption.

AAA: You mean in the traditional settings?

RAAE: Yes, and also contemporary, urban contexts.

AAA: I think this is the case everywhere. Who you know matters. Who you know has its positive angles. Nonetheless, we must develop our institutions and set our standards. For instance, if you want a job and you have the necessary qualifications, it does not matter whether you know anyone. It is not wrong to suggest a person for a professional position.

RAAE: So, a kind of mild nepotism is acceptable?

AAA: I don’t know what to call it. I would prefer to have an array of people to choose from. Let’s have a strong set of rules, so that no one is cheating to put anyone there. Why do we advertise positions? We advertise because we want people. Inasmuch as the “who you know” is not going to lead to people bending the rules, I don’t mind, they can bring everybody. But, only if the [decision-making] person there is a strong-minded person to conduct such activities. Who you know is everywhere. It’s how you put it to use.

RAAE: What are the conditions that allow for corruption to take root and flourish?

AAA: Poverty would be one reason. When people feel that they are poorly paid and unable to take care of their family, they are tempted turn to corrupt practices, forgetting the fact that if everyone were to decide to “dip their hand in the kitty” there would be nothing left. There is also inertia within government to stop corruption. When you are living in a society where you know government condones corruption, you are not bothered, because you know you can do whatever you want and no one is going to do anything to you. When you have a society where the people are quiet and seem unaffected when they are cheated, then corruption thrives. When you have systems that encourage the energy of the fraudsters and the reckless, without the journalists, there is no one to check anything, so corruption will thrive. When you have a government that sets out to clamp down on vociferous individuals and human rights organizations, they fail to realize and are seeking to say that they want chaos to raise its head in our society. All these together encourage corruption.

RAAE: Has corruption always been an issue?

AAA: I think it’s getting better because of the middle class and social media. Today, it’s not just me alone. When I get up in the morning and I scroll through Facebook, for example, I see that other people are also fighting—even if it’s in a small way.

RAAE: Ghana has conducted and published numerous official investigations into corruption. It appears there is a large anti-corruption industry comprised of government officials, committees, and non-governmental organizations and consultants, for example, Transparency International—and you! An anti-corruption stance has become a powerful political tool. In Ghana, we witnessed this in the run-up to the last elections (2016). A short while ago, you gave President Nana Akufo-Addo the privilege to watch No. 12 prior to its release. That said, it is difficult to eradicate corruption in reality, as we are seeing now. Nevertheless, our president has created a role for Ghana’s first Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, and the newly created Office of the Special Prosecutor. What is your view?

AAA: Yes, our president said he would apply the “Anas principle” when he comes to power. He is yet to use it … But people appreciate what it can do. When you come into power and sit on the throne, you know that if you want to implement the Anas principle, the whole government can come down. I am still waiting. It is not easy and will never be easy. I don’t think that the special prosecutor alone is capable, because until we orient the investigators we are getting nowhere. I would rather see an institution than a personality. This is not about Martin Amidu per se. It is not about individuals. But our president seems to be more fixated with a person. I am not sure why. He is working from a top to bottom approach. I would rather work from the bottom up, so that we have a strong institution and so that anybody can be placed at the top and it will still run. I think the Office of the Special Prosecutor will do very well, in the future. But in the short term, it will face a lot of problems. Since the Special Prosecutor draws his powers from the Attorney General, it is not an exceptional strategy.

RAAE: It will take time. Even so, do you ever wake up in the morning and think to yourself, “Oh, not today”? Do you ever have your “down” moments?

AAA: Usually, the “down” moments come when one is looking for solid impact but instead, gets very little. Yet, in those moments, one only has to check their email inbox and see the countless messages from people asking for help on a number of issues. You think about the many children that you have helped that would have died without your intervention. You think about your inability to act, and the consequences of your inaction. It is important to understand, as African journalists, we have no luxuries, because the decision not to act in certain situations can lead to many problems. The guy is assembling the guns, and he is going to kill them if you don’t intervene. So, you can have blood on your hands by your inaction. Sometimes you can’t sleep because you don’t have the capacity or the financial resources to act. You also know, only too well, that if you had that capacity you could have ended this violence. That is another moral dilemma that many of us go through, not just me, many other African journalists. Then again, you can only do what you can.

Sometimes, the stories that the West tells about Africa and our societies are not exactly the sort of stories that we want to communicate. But, in order to get them to tell our stories, you can only join them. And nudge them towards what the real story is. I wish I had the capacity—without the support of the BBC and Al Jazeera—to be able to determine the story that is important to grandma, my kinsmen, and the people of Kenya and South Africa—the story they want to hear. Unfortunately, we have to compromise and tell a story that people in the United Kingdom find palatable and that also appeals to Kenyans, South Africans, and Ghanaians. It’s always a matter of trying to create and maintain that certain balance. Not because we love it [balance], but because that is where we [as African journalists] find ourselves. No. 12 is a typical example. It’s my people’s story. The BBC would call it betraying the games. For the reason, they are describing it from their perspective. But I have to say, “No, I want to tell my people’s story.” Even then, one has to fight, because they will say, “No, we have the exclusive right, why do you want to portray the story in a different way?” I have to say, “I agree, you have the exclusive right, but I also need to do the film in this way.” BBC will not enter politics. They don’t care. But, I know what it means to me here.

RAAE: Perhaps those are the BBC’s politics?

AAA: Exactly.

RAAE: So, what would be a story that your grandmother would like? Could you please give me an example?

AAA: There are so many stories! One story would be, why they just fixed the road a month ago and it’s already broken down.

RAAE: I would love that story!

AAA: Exactly! Another story would be: Why is that we are planting corn, and the corn is not growing as it used to grow five years ago? They bring us fertilizers every day. What is the quality of this fertilizer? Or, another still: What about the fetish that kills children? Is it true? These are the stories that we, as Ghanaians, want to hear. If we can make an impact at the little corners, from where we are, that is how we can grow and develop our society. When we demystify all the myths that surround us, there will be nothing stopping us.

RAAE: There is one question I must ask, if I may. You are immersed in this work and I get the sense that oftentimes, the adversity in your work drives you, but what about those around you? How does your family feel? Do they want you to this? Do they support you?

AAA: It’s not about “want.” Everyone has a right to choose his/her profession. It’s about how you counsel the people around you. You have to let them understand from the beginning that this work is not “a tea party.” Those around me won’t be happy about certain things, but they have to make do with the fact that that is my chosen path. Apart from it being a profession, it’s also a passion. I am unfulfilled doing anything else. But back to your question, one cannot do anything about people being worried. Other peoples’ emotions are not your emotions. It may hurt, but you can only reassure. That is the reality. When we [as a team] decide on a story, we expect that it will “ruffle a few feathers.” No story comes on a silver platter. All stories leave marks, indelible marks. Either on your skin or in your head. It’s normal. I have gone through this, over and over and over again.

RAAE: Lastly, how do you see the future?

AAA: We are not “out of the woods” yet. We will have to make our mark. Posterity will not forgive us if we don’t. There will be a constant fight between evil and good in society. Our decision to stop fighting can only lead to more problems, because it’s not as if the evil goes to bed. We need to make that choice. Our choices are hinged on our survival as a people. And, in making that choice, we should know that it will come with thorns capable of even taking our lives. I feel positive. It will be tough. But, we have to be prepared. In my lifetime, we will achieve some, but not all.

RAAE: I hope so. Thank you so much for making the time to talk to me.

AAA: Thank you, too.