Honor systems are only as durable as the cultures that breathe life into them. In the traditional African village, honor was not an abstraction. It was tended daily—watered by rituals, guarded by customs, fortified by rites older than the oldest elder. To imagine that these systems would simply migrate intact into the chaos of urban life is a dangerous illusion. Honor, like a sacred stool, cannot survive relocation without ceremony.
Take the food market. For centuries—and even in the brief, disillusioned decades after colonial administrators handed the reins to African governors—our villages and small towns carried with them a residue of the honor they had inherited. Mothers cooked with the pride of lineage behind them. Traders sold food with the weight of ancestors watching. The system was imperfect, yes, but intact.
Today, that world has collapsed. In the cities, the water used to cook street food is often no better than runoff. The methods of preparation mock the very idea of inspection. Kitchens—when they exist—are little more than corners carved from chaos. Yet vendors plant themselves at every junction and gutter, unquestioned, unexamined, free to sell whatever concoction their hands can dredge together. And we, the unsuspecting public, eat from these pots of uncertainty. It is not merely dangerous—it is suicidal.
Worse still, the food market now dances with death in new forms. There is the reckless addiction to bouillon cubes—blocks of salt and chemicals masquerading as flavor. There is the oversalting. The rancid industrial oils. The quiet poisoning that has already announced itself in the rising epidemics of kidney failure and liver disease in Accra and beyond. This is not rumor. It is the postmortem of a society that once believed cooking was a sacred duty.
But honor systems stand or fall by the people who tend them. Honor demands loyalty—not performative, but lived. And true honor systems are never soft; they come with teeth. The rituals and customs of village life were not for decoration. They existed so that when someone betrayed the communal trust, the community would have both the moral right and the cultural mechanism to act decisively. Dishonor was not tolerated; it was expelled.
Where rituals vanish, where customs erode, where consequences dissolve into thin air, honor systems cannot breathe. They suffocate. They implode.
Take marriage. In most of traditional Africa, marriage is not romance—it is an honor system. Childbearing is not private—it is communal trust made flesh. For centuries, when a man left the village square with a wife, the expectation was simple: the children that came forth were the fruit of their union. Marriage was not a comedy of errors.
But today, in our urban centers—from Accra to Nairobi—the skyrocketing levels of paternity fraud testify to the death of that ancient trust. Women who know the truth and bury it beneath silence commit an injury older than betrayal. Men who know fathers are raising children sired by others yet refuse to confront it commit cowardice in plain sight. It is not merely dishonor; it is societal rot.
Perhaps, some say, the honor system never worked as well as we imagine. Perhaps the village hid more than it revealed. But whether or not this is true, the truth staring us down is this: in the twenty-first century, without the cultural scaffolding that once protected our moral architecture, the honor system does not work. It has no legs. It has no ritual spine.
So question everything. Before you eat street food, demand to know how it was prepared. Before you call a child yours, ask the questions your ancestors were bold enough to answer with ceremony. Do not assume. Do not sleep. Today, assumption is the root of humiliation.
You deserve the truth. We deserve the truth. A people cannot heal without debriefing. And a debriefing cannot begin with lies.
Really dont know what to say….this is what the society should be discussing
I really don’t know what to so either. I mean, maybe 20 percent mismatches will be weird. But 70 percent? Why? How?
A child can be born to both parent but won’t have the DNA of all of them or at least one of them how about that?
Again, a thorough one will have to be done on the organs let say kidney before confirmation is than.
DNA is a complex undertaking.
This is a searing, polemical piece, Narmer Amenuti. You have effectively linked two seemingly disparate crises- public health (food) and family structure (paternity)- under a single sociological umbrella: the collapse of traditional honour systems due to rapid urbanization.
The central thesis – that honour requires the “teeth” of community enforcement and cannot survive the anonymity of the city without new rituals – is compelling.
Thanks for the emphasis. It is truly fascinating to read your summary.
Akpe
Misleading statistics.
Your proof?
Joseph Mensah The statistics refer only to people who sought paternity tests. Those who go for DNA testing usually already have doubts about paternity, so it’s expected that the percentage of cases confirming the child is not the father’s would be higher. That context should not be omitted when reporting the statistics.
Kwame Boadu Kissi Not true necessarily. In the meta study below conducted in the US only 30% of the 10,000 paternity test came out negative. In Ghana, based on the data provided, the opposite is true. What it could point to is that a man’s paternity suspicions in Ghana are likely to be confirmed more so than in the U.S.
Kwame Boadu Kissi You say, “Those who go for DNA testing usually already have doubts about paternity,” as if to imply that the percentage may be lower in the general population of those who did not have a doubt or did not care. You seem to imply that the sample is biased towards over counting mismatches. Which could be true. But it is also equally plausible that the result of mismatches may be higher in the general population of men who have no doubts or do not care.
Let’s proceed with a simple exercise: Let P(A) be the probability of mismatches in the general population, P(B) be the probability a man has doubt in the general population. You claim that this test is only reporting the P(A n B) = 0.7 which is fine. Since P (A n B) = P(A) x P(B), and since P(B) can only be equal to or less than unity, we must at least, at first pass accept that the P(A) is between 0.7 ( or 70% at least) and unity (100%). Well, it cannot be 100 percent, but it is clear with a simple first analysis that it is also possible to be higher in the general population. I lie?
I don’t know, isn’t it because the only time people opt for DNA is when they’re very suspicious or sure that it isn’t theirs? Because Ghanaians are poor people, who said they can afford DNA just for the fun of it? So you’re only objective and reasonable until it comes to gender and ethnic issues.
Kumasi Ama exactly. The stats will be skewed in favour of the unfavourable.
Fi’ifi Falconer That’s true for paternity tests all over the world. In fact it’s true for any form of medical testing. Only those who suspect or show symptoms of Malaria test for the parasite. So the issue is ultimately about those who suspect that their paternity is in question, what percentage of them had well-founded grounds? If 70% of those who suspect foul play are actually right, it speaks volumes
Ama But paternity tests are mostly done because of suspicion lol. Nobody who firmly believes they are the father of the kids will demand paternity test.
Narmer Amenuti your argument does not add up to me. Why should we assume the probability in the general population is between 70 and 100% when Kwame Boadu Kissi objection was precisely that the sample size is not random?
Kwame Boadu Kissi That’s a fair point about the sample being made up of people who already had concerns — it definitely affects how widely the statistic can be applied.
My only point is that the figure itself isn’t necessarily misleading unless the report suggested it represents the whole population of Ghana. If the statistic simply reflects the results of people who came forward for testing, then it’s still accurate for that group.
So I completely agree that context is important, but I’m not sure it makes the statistic misleading — just limited in scope.
Kofi Akakpo Can you be specific? I went through a rudimentary analysis to refute the claim that the sample was biased in favor of mismatches. Whether the sample is random is another matter. But given that it is not random, why conclude that the distribution points only toward higher mismatch rates? Is that simply discomfort with the implications?
A mismatch result is independent of whether there was prior suspicion or none. We have no way of knowing the true statistic in the general population except through a basic probability analysis like the one above. My point is that the real rate could be (1) lower than the observed figure (under a sampling bias favorable to mismatches), or (2) equal to or higher than 70 percent (under other non-random sampling conditions).
Nothing in the labs’ reported results precludes either scenario. There is nothing in the data that forces us into one conclusion—for example, that mismatches would necessarily be less common in the general population. Unless you have additional information we do not, please share it.
Narmer Amenuti I thought you challenged the suggestion that the percentage in the general population may be lower? Indeed I would say the most reasonable assumption is that the percentage in the general population IS lower, which is precisely the point. It is for instance not reasonable to assume that the percentage of pregnant women in the general population is going to be higher than that of women who go into hospital to confirm if they are pregnant. That is a self selected sample and it says nothing about the general population. Indeed one has to wonder what would make anyone believe that the percentage of the general population could be 70% or above, which is what your probability argument tried to make .
Kofi Akakpo Your critique collapses under the weight of its own analogy. You smuggle in directional bias where none has been established, and then declare victory on the basis of that smuggled assumption. Let’s be clear:
(1). The pregnancy-clinic analogy is a category error.
A woman who goes to the hospital to “confirm pregnancy” arrives with an a priori suspicion—a biologically meaningful signal. This creates a unidirectional bias: upward.
The outcome (pregnancy) is mechanically linked to the reason for testing (suspecting pregnancy). This is not philosophical—it is statistical necessity. But paternity testing is not pregnancy testing.
(2). Paternity testing has no required bias direction.
People take paternity tests for a kaleidoscope of unrelated reasons:
suspicion → pushes mismatch rates up
reassurance with no suspicion → pushes mismatch rates down
legal or immigration paperwork → neutral
routine hospital or research testing → neutral or downward
Among many others.
The sample is non-random, yes—but directionally indeterminate. To insist otherwise is to claim knowledge you simply don’t possess. You cannot infer the direction of bias from the mere fact of non-randomness. That is the fundamental error in your critique.
(3). You misstate my point. I never claimed the general-population rate “is 70% or above.”
I said—carefully—that the presented lab results do not exclude the possibility of: 70%, because the sampling structure does not fix the direction of deviation. Your interpretation invents a claim I never made.
(4). Your claim that “the most reasonable assumption is that the population rate is lower” is pure intuition dressed as inference.
Reasonable to whom? On what data? Show us the breakdown of test-seeker motivations. Show us incidence rates of suspicion versus reassurance. Show us the distribution of legal-mandated tests.
You offer none of this. You only assume downward bias because it feels right—not because the sampling mechanism imposes it. That is not analysis; it is presumption.
(5). Without external evidence, your conclusion has no privilege over mine.
A non-random sample with unknown structure cannot support a one-direction-only inference. Until you identify a mechanism that forces the sample to overrepresent mismatches, your conclusion remains a guess—nothing more.
Narmer Amenuti I don’t wish to belabor this. If your claim is that the incidence in the general population could be anything from >1 to <100%, why did you need a write up to tell is that. Did you have any reason to believe anyone thought the incidence in general population was zero? And I don't think you can demand a standard of proof you have not yourself met. Don't forget your writeup is accompanied by a screen shot of a headline from not-exactly the most scientific source identifying the source of the data to "doctor". Not exactly the type of evidence to base much on except perhaps gossip and innuendo. To understand my assumption that you claim the probability would be between 70% to 100%, refer to your probability "calculation" from above. And if you can see how some biological or other reason would lead a woman to go test for pregnancy, I dont know how you can believe parternity tests are somehow not prompted by any biasing reasons. How can biological symptoms which can indicate a variety of things, somehow bias a result but suspicions of infidelity etc, necessitated by some evidence one would assume, cannot? Either way, I think I have made my point. I do not wish for this to be some debate on a matter not exactly critical.
Kofi Akakpo Massa, it was a lively debate. From the beginning, Narmer just maintained to Kwame that, “You seem to imply that the sample is biased towards over counting mismatches. Which could be true. But it is also equally plausible that the result of mismatches may be higher in the general population of men who have no doubts or do not care.”
He was not trying to prove that it was always higher in the population. Rather he disproved it was not ALWAYS lower than 70%. There’s a significant difference.
You supported Kwame Boadu Kissi claim that the statistic was ALWAYS lower in the general population. Which is fine. Narmer railed against that assumption showing that it could be higher, that it is NOT always lower. Now you are putting words in his mouth?
You say this mater is “not exactly critical”? Massa, really? What exactly should we be debating if not such matters?
Dade Afre Akufu one does not have to prove that a result is ALWAYS lower than a certain value in probability. It is in the name; probability. A coin flip has a 50% chance of heads on every flip but i can still get 10 straight results of tails. A weighted coin will bias towards one result but it will not change what the general expectation should be. That is why I said explicitly that it is MORE REASONABLE to assume that it less not that it is guaranteed to be less, or that it is more reasonable to assume it is more. And the matter is not critical because a crisis has not be established. The source is bogus to say the least, any the attribution, even more so. It seems to me a bit premature to build such a weighty reflection on such scant(or nonexistent) evidence.
Kofi Akakpo Nye Bro., You are clearly confused. You argued the sample was biased (not a fair coin)! Narmer agreed. I agree. Then you claimed it will come up more heads (mismatches) in the sample than tails (matches) every time. All Narmer showed was that you are confused. It will not do that every time, even if the coin was biased. That the weight of the coin is not in the direction of producing more mismatches every time. Now you are parroting an introductory high-school probability lesson from 1972, and you still lack the proper application. Do you see it now? Or I can go continue.
Dade Afre Akufu please continue. First of all, you will have to explain to me what you mean when you say a sample is biased. What does that tell you about the general population? And will be even more indebted if you could provide me with a modern, post-tertiary, probability definition that would suggest the general population could be higher than the sample you claim to agree is biased.
Kofi Akakpo Now I welcome your humility, Nye Bro. One probability definition is as follows. Let’s stick with the coin. If we toss a coin with two sides long enough and in the same way every time (emphasis on long enough and same way), the number of heads divided by the total number of tosses is the probability of heads, or vice versa. By implication, the probability of tails will be one minus the probability of heads, since both probabilities (the two possible outcomes) add up to 1, or 100 percent.
Now let’s apply this to the sample test of paternity fraud. One claim is that when we perform this test (tosses) in the same way, for an indefinite period we would expect the probability of mismatches to be 0.7. You claim that if we perform the same test in the general population instead—over an indefinite period and in the same manner—the probability of mismatches will be less than 0.7, implying that the lab sample was biased. Narmer critiqued that: even if it were biased, you do not have any information to indicate the direction of the bias (i.e., the coin’s weight). The figure could be higher or lower over a long enough period of time.
Earlier you wrote that you can have a fair coin (probability of heads = 0.5) and still get ten straight heads, implying that you can have a fair coin and a weighted coin at the same time. Perhaps you meant that you can have a “local” event that departs from the coin’s true bias. That is incorrect. We do not speak of probability unless we satisfy the requirement of an indefinite number of flips (tosses) performed in the same manner. There’s no such thing as a “local” probability.
Any more questions?
Dade Afre Akufu ah that was helpful. I am glad for the refresher. Your claim about not having any information to indicate the direction of the bias is confusing though, firstly because you must have missed the part where myself and others pointed out to the fact that paternity tests are biased toward higher incidences of positive results over the general population because we do not randomly select people within the population to test. Whatever necessitates the testing biases the sample towards that 70%. Secondly, I doubt that you are holding yourself to establishing the true bias of the scenario before committing to anything, seeing as you are comfortably debating on a post lamenting the decline of honor, using an alleged paternity result pattern, and I am assuming Namer did not furnish you with any additional research data with which to establish true bias.
“Miss the part?” No I didn’t miss anything. This shows you didn’t read or understand Narmer’s lessons prior to our discussion. I won’t repeat it. Narmer Amenuti’s entire lesson was a critique of the bias you and Kwame Boadu Kissi both alleged. I am not sure what you meant by your last sentence. Sounds like some copy from some AI bot or something. Anyways, you are welcome. I am happy to refresh people’s memories of the things they were taught.
Ama but does it not mean when a man is suspicious he is more often than not right? Note that a global statistic in not very different: 60%. It speaks a lot. It should have been zero. Women behave like angels but…
Baakay Buu The lack of access to paternity tests in Ghana has shielded women from scrutiny in marriages. As you stated, the data points to the validity of male suspicion of paternity. It also highlights the wisdom of our ancestors in being more strict over female fidelity than male fidelity. Imagine a scenario where a male is declared not to be the father, now the mother has to find out who the father is among a number of men some with whom she might have even lost contact. How will the child know his/her father in such a situation?
For those who think that paternity tests will always be skewed in the direction of negative results the below meta study should be of interest. In this study of 10,000 paternity tests in the US 72% came out positive ( meaning the man was proven to be the Father).
Another study found it to be 70%. Now compare that to the results declared in Ghana and you will find out quickly that paternity results don’t have to be skewed in the direction of a negative result.
Oh my gosh are you serious how many percent 70% mismatches are you kidding me where did they get that statistics from. I know it’s bad but not that brutal. God help us. Sexual promiscuity has become the order of the day by the old and the young male and female old men enticing young girls with money and young girls wanting to acquire everything that took someone years of hard work of years to achieve in a day. It’s the degradation of our cultures unfortunately nobody asks the elders don’t talk because they are part of the fabric that is being woven to make the rotten society in which we live today.its a shame
Becky l doubt the veracity of the story
Becky Kankuah-Osiakwan it could be true, because almost everyone who will go for dna testing is someone who already have seen something to suspect the partner.
On point . Reason I personally don’t eat outside expect what I cook myself. Others don’t care I know.
The degradation stems from the fact that African traditional social institutions are broken, and the urban centers have not contributed to building new ones.