I first saw your comments on Facebook and then, as subsequently published at all of pages 7 and 8 of Global Concord Newspaper of Friday, April 21, 2017. I have also seen the comments, published in several other social media channels.
Incidentally, Global Concord republished my article at pages 4 and 6 of the same Friday Edition of the Newspaper, having earlier, published it on Monday, April 17,2017.
As I earlier, very briefly remarked on Facebook, your comments do not appear to have emanated from a thorough and open-minded reading and clear understanding of my write-up under reference.
My initial tendency was to ignore your comments when I first saw same on Facebook.
That was why I only asked you to please, take a second ( and better ) look at my earlier article, which I am sure, you saw and read on this platform.
With your comments now given further and wider circulation, I consider it appropriate and necessary to make a better response - for the records.
While beginning with a very correct placement of the main thrust and position of my article vis-a-vis the earlier write-up and publication by Thomas Thomas, you promptly proceeded to attempt to fault and discredit the well known Dictionary ( not my ) definition of history, which I lifted verbatim, referenced and applied.
At the end of that strenuous effort, you said and submitted absolutely nothing different, in this regard. You gave no other definition of history.
From there , you went swiftly ahead, to attack aspects of what I wrote, raising a number of issues you claimed I differed with Thomas Thomas.
On many of these issues, you passed judgements ( even where there were no issues requiring judgement ), that I was wrong, and “ Thomas Thomas was right “.
Curiously, very curiously, however, I had no disagreement with Thomas Thomas in virtually all of the issues you so raised and passed illogical judgements. In many cases, I had already stated, quite emphatically and explicitly, that I had no disagreement with Thomas.
As you yourself rightly observed in the opening paragraph of your comments, MY ONLY POINT OF DISAGREEMENT, INDEED, PROFOUND DISAGREEMENT, WITH THOMAS THOMAS , WAS THAT, THE HISTORY OF AKWA IBOM POLITICS DOES NOT, AND CANNOT, BEGIN AND END WITH MARCH 22, 2011.
Fortunately and interestingly, Global Concord Newspaper chose to republish my own article under reference at pages 4 and 6, just before your comments at pages 7 and 8, in the same Edition of Friday, April 21, 2017. Cross referencing is thereby, made quite easy for anyone who desires to do such cross checking.
In some aspects of your comments, you self-contradicted. In more than one instance, you said and accredited to me, what I did not say, created and accredited to me, impressions I did not create.
In some other instances, you said basically what I had said, and then painted the picture and created the impression, that I said something different. I consider all of these, misleading, Barrister.
In all, I find your comments largely incongruent with my write-up - commenting just for the sake of commenting. As you will realise as we move on, this was a failed emotional effort to devalue and discredit what I had written.
In scientific writing, we clearly spell out the aim and objective of any work before commencement.
As my aim and objective in the present matter, I set out (in my article ), to correct the erroneous impression created by Thomas Thomas,, that the history of Akwa Ibom State BEGINS AND ENDS WITH MARCH 22, 2011.
I clearly stated this, in several places in my article, appropriately emphasising, however, that for the lessons it holds, March 22, 2011 is very “critical and significant” to Akwa Ibom State and its people.
In line with my objective, I went on to cite a sample of other major contemporary events in the history of Akwa Ibom politics - before, and after March 22, 2011.
Barrister, the only reasonable argument that can be made against this, is for somebody say, that any of the other events I listed, did not occur. We would then collectively assess such submission(s) and amend our records as appropriate, for ourselves and our posterity.
This would have added value to the discourse, in that, such events I had listed, which ought not to have been so listed ( because they did not take place ), would have been considered and deleted from our records and consciousness. I have, however, seen no such suggestions regarding the events I listed to complement Thomas Thomas.
Rather than subtract, as you may have observed from the other comments of Akwa Ibom people on my article, many other persons indicated that the events I enumerated are not all that had happened in Akwa Ibom State.
Of course, I did not mean, or set out, to capture everything about our history.
The people have mentioned many other significant historic events - directly concurring that, all there is about Akwa Ibom State, is not March 22, 2011, very critical and significant as March 22, 2011 itself is, absolutely.
These persons have added value to the discourse, by further complementing the record of events Thomas Thomas and I had rendered.
Away from the main thrust and objective of my article, your comments dwelt, principally, on some key citizen-personalities of Akwa Ibom State and your perspectives of their roles in the politics of the State.
I must admit that you have the lawful right ( just as I and every other citizen ), to consider, hold and express your opinion on the persons you assessed, including myself.
I must very quickly, emphatically and explicitly point out, however, that such detailed assessment of any person, was not the objective of my write-up. I though retain the capacity to do so.
I did not set out to defend any of the persons I mentioned in my write-up ( as you claimed ), arising from their previous mention by Thomas Thomas.
All I sought to do was to remind us that there were notes worthy events in our State, in which these citizens played major roles.
You are at liberty to assess those persons and their roles, as you have done. In my own case, just as you indicated, you had no relevant knowledge and information concerning what I did ( or did not do) to support (or oppose ) Chief Godswill Akpabio in his actions while I served as a Commissioner and Member of the State Executive Council, during his first tenure in Office as Governor.
Yet, you selected to accuse me of supporting his tyranny, you prosecuted me, you testified and gave evidence against me, you judged me, found and pronounced me guilty as you charged me, you condemned me, all by yourself, all alone.
Without hearing me ! Reasonable views and sound legal minds do not sound and act this way, Barrister!
Having said this much, may I ask you again, to please, take a fresh look at my write-up, this time, with all your sentiments and emotions, suspended or seriously controlled. Let me guide you as you do so.
1. MY MAIN THRUST AND OBJECTIVE
In the opening paragraph of your comments, you said to me : “ Professor Ekanem, in the main, you acquitted Thomas Thomas ‘ article “ THERE CAN BE NO POLITICS WITHOUT HISTORY”, in positive and factual light, but flawed it on the grounds of what you claimed was “ a fundamental fact “, “which appears to be missing “.
“This ‘fundamental’ and ‘missing ‘ fact, you noted, was that : “the single event of March 22, 2011, cannot constitute the history of a people “; and that “ Akwa Ibom State politics cannot begin and end with March 22, 2011; as well as with Distinguished Senator John James Akpanudoedehe “.
Barrister, you were entirely correct, even though you were not quoting me verbatim, as your quotation marks suggest. As stated, I agreed totally with Thomas Thomas, that “ There Can Be No Politics Without History”.
I, however, vehemently disagreed with him, that the event of March 22, 2011, ALONE, constitutes the history of Akwa Ibom politics, that Akwa Ibom people must know and learn from.
Nigeria got into a Civil War in 1967 -1970, the June 12, 1993 Presidential Election , adjudged the fairest and freest in Nigeria, won by Chief Moshood Kolawole Abiola, was annulled by the Military Government of General Ibrahim Badimosa Babangida.
The history of Nigerian politics does not (and cannot ) begin and end with the Civil War or with June 12, 1993, critical and significant as those events are, to Nigeria.
2. MY DEFINITION OF HISTORY AND SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS THEREUPON
In paragraph 2 of your comments, you wrote to me : “ Your definition of history as : ‘ an aggregate of events’, is not in error; but will constitute an erroneous definition if it fails to accommodate the events of March 22, 2011; because that single event, with its historical precedents and antecedents, constitutes a historical aspect of the political development of Akwa Ibom State.
In that context, Thomas Thomas was right “. Barrister, I find it difficult to make meaning out of this clumsy statement, which is also, largely, self-contradictory.
How do we hold that the history of Akwa Ibom politics begins and ends with March 22, 2011 , and then talk about the precedents and antecedents of the same March 22, 2011 ? What is there to talk about as precedents and antecedents of March 22, 2011 in Akwa Ibom State, when March 22, 2011 by itself, is the beginning and the end of the State ?
How can I say that history is an aggregate of events, and then contemplate or seek to exclude any component of the aggregate from the aggregate.
Barrister, there is nowhere in my entire write-up, that I said the aggregate of events which make up the history of Akwa Ibom politics, excludes or does not “accommodate the events of March 22, 2011”.
Rather, I recognised and emphasised all through the article that, that Dark Day, March 22, 2011, is very critical and significant to Akwa Ibom State and its people, considering the enormous lessons therein. In particular, I said, in my paragraph 3.3 : “ Truly speaking, March 22, 2011 was indeed, a very Dark Day in Akwa Ibom State.
For the deep lessons it holds for Akwa Ibom State and all Akwa Ibom people ( present and those yet unborn ), I agree with Thomas Thomas that, ‘ It is only a fool that will move against our effort to relieve the memories of March 22, 2011’.
Further on, I wrote, in paragraph 4.1: “ As I said earlier ( in agreement with Thomas Thomas ), considering the important lessons all of us must draw from it, the memories of March 22, 2011 in Ikot Ekpene, cannot be toyed with. The central and heroic role of Senator John James Akpanudoedehe in that event cannot (and should not ) be ignored “.
In the circumstances therefore, your statement: “ In that context, Thomas Thomas ‘ claim was correct “, lacked basis, meaning and relevance, because there was no disagreement between my position and that of Thomas Thomas over the significance of March 22, 2011, to warrant the declaration of either of us right and the other, wrong .
As if to suggest that I did not recognise the pivotal and front line role played by Senator John James Akpanudoedehe in the March 22, 2011 event, or had downgraded him, in any manner, in my write-up, you wrote, still in your paragraph 2: “ The fact also, that Senator John James Akpanudoedehe played a front line, if not leading role in the event, makes him relevant in the discussion of the politics of Akwa Ibom State; especially as it involves an event worthy of reflection, study and lessons. ..”.
Barrister, there are (and you saw ) very ample and copious references in my article, to the front line and heroic role played by Senator John Akpanudoedehe in the event of March 22, 2011 and even in Akwa Ibom politics, generally. Specifically, I wrote in paragraph 3.3 (again ): “ As we are further reminded ( by Thomas Thomas), Senator John Akpanudoedehe was subsequently, promptly framed, arrested and charged for arson and treason, and even murder.
Senator John Akpanudoedehe was detained on these fabricated and trumped up criminal charges till the eve of the April 26, 2011 Governorship Election”.
In paragraph 4.1 ( again ), I wrote: “ The central and heroic role of Senator John James Akpanudoedehe in that event cannot ( and should not ) be ignored “.
Indeed, I concluded my write-up ( paragraph 6.4) with the immortal words of Senator John Akpanudoedehe to his supporters at the Sixth Anniversary of the March 22, 2011 mayhem, just this March, 2017.
Let me add this to you at this point. As you are perhaps aware, it was not only in Ikot Ekpene and Annang Land, that Senator Akpanudoedehe was prevented from launching his Campaign by Chief Godswill Akpabio in 2011.
A similar thing happened in parts of Ibibio Land. It happened in my Local Government Area ( LGA), Itu, where, on the unlawful order of Chief Akpabio, Senator Akpanudoedehe was effectively blocked from using the Local Government Council Grounds or any other public facility in the LGA, for his Campaign.
Barrister, I promptly opposed that unconstitutional order of Chief Godswill Akpabio, and quickly arranged for Senator John Akpanudoedehe, to launch his Itu Local Government Campaign in an open private field in my village, NKIM ITAM. I did this, not as a member of Senator Akpanudoedehe’s then Action Congress of Nigeria ( ACN), but of Governor Akpabio’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
I did this because I found that attempt to breach Senator Akpanudoedehe’s constitutional right very objectionable.
Senator John Akpanudoedehe will personally confirm this to you, and even tell you more, regarding what some of us did, to oppose Governor Godswill Akpabio’s unacceptable ways.
So, I quite respect Senator John Akpanudoedehe and acknowledge his remarkable contribution to the political development of our State.
You said a number of odd things to me in your comments, over what you think I did not do to oppose or, is it to stop, Chief Godswill Akpabio, while I was in his Cabinet as a Commissioner.
Just for trying ( within my citizenship constitutional rights ) to make my contribution towards placing Akwa Ibom history in its proper and total perspective, you mocked and said this to me in your concluding paragraphs:
“ You served under Akpabio during his first term as a Commissioner and a member of the State Executive Council; and it is not out of place to suggest that if he ( Akpabio ) had chosen to keep you for all eight years through his two terms, you may have been a member of what may have been the G23 “. And much more! But, can two work and act together, except they agree?
Arising from some of the unkind things you said to me, let me please, add this to you. I was invited to join the Akwa Ibom State Executive Council in 2007, as a full fledged Professor of Food Technology, with my full and very independent frame of mind.
This is very well known. I joined the Executive Council with a very rich background of steadfast and long period of very active engagements in the cause of social justice, equity, freedom and public good, in general. I have been in this business all my life, and particularly, actively, these last 35 – 40 years.
I consider and take my position on public matters based on conviction, and my conviction is never evil. I say what I have to say, quite frankly, boldly and respectfully.
I keep an open mind and bow to superior argument whenever it emerges.
I watch my conduct and guard my character and integrity very jealousy. This is my well known way of life.
This is how I conducted myself and operated in the State Executive Council. I opposed all that ought to have been opposed, including the oppressive tendencies and ways of Chief Godswill Akpabio, the Governor. This is well known. I supported what I ought to have supported.
Let me further add to you, Barrister, that I was still sitting as a Commissioner in the Akwa Ibom State Executive Council, when my mother, my biological mother, was ambushed and kidnapped on her way to Church for the regular morning ( 5 am ) prayer meeting in my village, in May, 2010.
The Government that I was serving, said nothing to me over the incident, until God used the combined effort of the Akwa Ibom State Police Command, the DSS , the Nigerian Army and a team of technical experts I paid and brought in from Port Harcourt , to rescue the old woman, after nine days of captivity in a swamp forest, under the sun and rain, without food, without water and without bath.
In March, 2010 ( two months earlier), my Personal Assistant was similarly, waylaid and kidnapped in Uyo. Barrister, I was the only person who suffered that kind of maltreatment in the Cabinet, and it was not for fun, in a Government you claimed I supported in its tyranny.
When my mother eventually died a couple of years thereafter, the Government boycotted her burial and broke all moral bounds, by firmly instructing that no Government official or agency ( including my Local Government Council and the Ministry I served as Commissioner ) should have anything to do with my mother’s obsequies. And that was it ! But other Governments across the region got engaged. A lot more happened!
3. STILL ON YOUR DEFINITION OF HISTORY
Still on your arguments regarding the definition of history, you further wrote to me in your paragraph 2: “ History lacks a precise definition; and so the dictionary definition you advanced constitutes one of many others, when compared to the definitions of History advanced by the likes of : Aristotle; Reniev; E. H. Carr; Robinson; Burckhardt; Carlyle; H. G. Wells; Miller; Marc Bloch; Sigmund Freud; Jones; Henry Johnson; Pandit Nehru; Dr Radhakrishnan; Rapson; etc”. This is quite a long ( though unsystematic and haphazard ) list of “experts in the definition of History “.
You, however, said nothing as to what any of the 15 persons you mentioned, says history is, that is different from the Dictionary meaning which I adopted, and which you controverted. Yet, you provided, not even a single reference to the published works or published definitions of any of the 15 “experts” listed.
These persons and their publications, which you clearly, gave the impression you saw and read, cannot be hanging in the air.
So, as you can see, you led us nowhere, said nothing and submitted nothing outside the Dictionary, because you led absolutely no evidence in this direction.
Barrister, we do not write this way, particularly, when we are moving against another person’s recorded position.
As a Lawyer, you know what I am saying. I am sure, this is still critical to legal education and the practice of Law.
From the list of 15 unreferenced Historians, you immediately proceeded to write :
“ In making a case for the preservation of factual accounts of incidents, George Santayana said “, and you quoted him :
“ One brief event can take on thousands of meanings, when all sorts of people impose their own variations of the truth upon it”. Giving your own understanding and explanation of Santayana’s statement, you submitted :
“ This seems to accommodate ( and rightly too), the fact that the definition of History as an aggregate of events; or a series of past events; may not necessarily suffice; as a single non-historical event or past reality, may turn out to be recorded history “.
This statement is vague and does not clearly communicate and express what you had in mind. I do not therefore, clearly understand your understanding of the simple and straightforward statement of Santayana, which you quoted.
If, as I guess, you were trying to interpret and use Santayana’s statement, to fault the Dictionary meaning of history I applied and defend March 22, 2011, as the sole date and matter in Akwa Ibom history, permit me to say that your interpretation and understanding are faulty and incorrect.
This is so because “one brief event”, analysed and interpreted by “all sorts ( even billions ) of people “, remains one single brief event, which may of course, be recorded as a historical event with all sorts ( or billions) interpretations and accounts.
That single event cannot, however, constitute an aggregate of events, but one event with an aggregate of interpretations or accounts. There can be no sensible argument against this, Barrister.
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the Jews at Calvary was a single event, with different perspectives of account rendered and recorded in the Bible by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et.al. Of course, the crucifixion in itself, does not constitute THE ACCOUNT of all that Christ went through and did, during His sojourn on Earth. It is only one event in the aggregate of events from His Birth to His Ascension.
4. FURTHERING YOUR POSITION ON MARCH 22, 2011
In furtherance of your support for the position that March 22, 2011 is all there is about Akwa Ibom State, you also wrote in your paragraph 2:
“ When Lee Harvey Oswald woke up on the morning of November 22, 1963, it was no history; but when he assassinated the President of the United States ( John F. Kennedy ) on that same day, Oswald entered the history books because his single act had profound effect on a people and the world.
Before Barrack Obama won the US Presidency, he was a Presidential candidate; but when he was elected , he made history as the first black President.
When Nigeria won the Olympic football Gold in Atlanta 1996, it made history as the first African country to achieve the feat; and when Judas Iscariot was born, it made no news, but when he betrayed Jesus Christ, he etched his name in the history books for posterity. On this score again, Thomas Thomas was right “.
I cannot make meaning from all of this, please. What was Thomas Thomas right? What score were you referring to? What corollaries were you trying to draw here ?
Yes, the above are all crucial events of history, BUT Barrister :
Are you saying that American history begins and ends with November 22, 1963, because Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated US President, John F. Kennedy on that day?
Are you saying that American history begins and ends with Barrack Obama, because he won election as the first Black President of the United States?
Are you saying that the history of Nigerian and African Football begins and ends with 1996, when Nigeria won, in that year, the Olympic Football Gold Medal in Atlanta as the first African country to achieve feat?
Are you saying that the account of the work of Redemption Jesus Christ came to do for mankind through His Earthly Ministry begins and ends with His betrayal by Judas Iscariot? I ask again, for what was Thomas Thomas right? What corollaries were you trying to draw, Barrister? Are you saying that the history of Nigeria begins and ends with its Independence on October 1, 1960, or with the Civil War, 1967 – 1970 .
Are saying that the history of Akwa Ibom State truly, begins and ends with March 22, 2011? That nothing else matters in our existence and political experience? Is this the truth you urged me to “ tell Akwa Ibom people” ? Please, guide me.
STILL EXHIBITING LACK OF ATTENTION AND IMPATIENCE
Next, you accused me of not acknowledging that Chief Godswill Akpabio was not acting alone in the incident of March 22, 2011. In this direction, you said to me, in your paragraph 3: “ In your write-up, you traced the historical antecedents of the March 22, 2011 incident.
You identified the architect as the former Governor, Chief Godswill Akpabio; who you claimed deployed every unwholesome tactic to suppress opposition against his re-election in 2011.
You however, chose to overlook the fact that the former Governor did not act alone, but in concert ( overtly or covertly ), with several others”. Yet, I had very clearly written in my paragraph 3.2 :
“ In recording that regrettable event, however, we must not lose the perspective of how the then Governor of the State, Chief Godswill Obot Akpabio, who deeply felt that no person should have contested the 2011 election against him, in his bid to get a second term in Office, employed and deployed all kinds of unacceptable devices to intimidate the State and the people ( and ride rough on them ), with the active support and connivance of Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, the then President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
THE POINT BEING MADE IS THAT, A LOT OF OUR PEOPLE ( ANNANG, IBIBIO, ORO, ET. AL. ) WERE MANIPULATED, MISLED AND USED BY CHIEF GODSWILL AKPABIO AND HIS FAMILY, IN THEIR SELFISH BID TO MANIPULATE THE ELECTIONEERING AND ELECTORAL PROCESSES TO RIG THE ELECTION AND CONTINUE TO KEEP THE STATE UNDER THEIR GRIP.
In Itu an Ibibio Local Government Area (LGA), where I hail from, Senator John James Akpanudoedehe was stoutly prevented by loyalists of Chief Akpabio, from using the Council Secretariat Grounds or any other public facility, to launch his Campaign in the LGA, right in his ( Senator Akpanudoedehe’s ) Ibibio land “.
Barrister, this was written in black and white, and is right in your social media device. Careful legal minds and hands do not treat documents and matters this way, please.
5. YOUR VIEW OF OPPOSITION
Barrister, from your comments, it is clear that you firmly hold the view and position that anybody who did not leave the PDP, join another political Party and oppose Chief Godswill Akpabio, the then Governor, in 2009, the time Senator John Akpanudoedehe left and joined the ACN, was not, and cannot be, for Akwa Ibom State.
Recall, however, that Mr James Iniama had opposed Chief Akpabio since 2006, at a time Senator Akpanudoedehe and the others did not.
Secondly, you sound like saying that opposition to the maltreatment of Akwa Ibom people by His Excellency, the former Governor, was no opposition, unless and except it was organised and staged on the platform of the ACN/ APC, and began in 2009, not earlier, not later. This is incorrect.
Following the tyranny we saw, there was massive opposition everywhere in the State against the one man rule we experienced. We do not need to over labour the matter here.
Barrister, the point must be made, however, that nobody can belittle, diminish or ignore any component, any phase, any face or front, of the principled opposition of Akwa Ibom people, as led by God’s appointed instruments, at God’s appointed times and in His appointed ways and manners, His appointed locations and His appointed segments and sectors, against that tyranny in our State.
It is so, whether we are talking about the struggles and opposition led by Engr Frank Okon ( within the PDP ), Group Captain Sam Enwang ( in the defunct ANPP, now a component of the APC ), or those led by Senator John Akpanudoedehe ( in the ACN/APC ), Obong Nsima Ekere and the G22 ( within the PDP), Bishop Samuel Akpan ( within the PDP and later, the Accord Party ), Obong Umana Umana ( within the PDP and later, the APC ) and a few others. Akwa Ibom people cannot lose the record and history of the popular actions of these citizens.
Any extraneous issues concerning any or all of these persons, constitute another matter, and for another day, entirely. This is my point, Barrister.
In your paragraph 3, you strongly quarrelled with the statement I made in my write-up, that there was “ total unity and agreement of Akwa Ibom people against Chief Godswill Akpabio’s selfish plot to foist himself on the people of the State “.
You said my claim was wrong and that I was not speaking the truth because , according to you, “ the G22 led by Obong Nsima Ekere, was a coalition, which sought political relevance in the main, and not to save the State “, as I “claimed”. Barrister, I have no problem in reporting what you saw.
So, do not quarrel with what I said and report, I saw - because, but for God’s teaching and injunction, I could swear that, both in 2011, when Senator John Akpanudoedehe led the struggle and in 2015, when Obong Nsima Ekere ( with the G22) and Obong Umana Umana took the centre stage , I saw and witnessed exactly what I wrote, “ total unity and agreement of Akwa Ibom people against Chief Godswill Akpabio’s selfish plot to foist himself on the people of the State “.
With reference to the G22, in 2015, I saw 21 sons and a daughter of the State start off, within their constitutional rights, to seek the ticket of their political Party, the PDP, to run for the Office of Governor of their State.
I saw that when it became expedient ( from Chief Akpabio’s plot to impose his hand picked candidate on the Party) , the 22 evidently , buried their individual ambitions and voluntarily coalesced ( with their respective masses of supporters) under one of them, Obong Nsima Ekere as their leader, in order to collectively resist the imposition and give Akwa Ibom people ( in the Party ) the opportunity to freely and democratically elect their candidate.
I saw that when Chief Godswill Akpabio eventually succeeded in imposing his personal choice, our brother, Mr Udom Gabriel Emmanuel as candidate, all that mattered to the G22, was for Akwa Ibom people to be allowed to democratically elect their Governor in a fair, free and transparent general election.
Barrister, these are what I and the rest of Akwa Ibom people saw. It is unfortunate that you saw something else.
We can go on and on with the things you said in your two – page comments on my write-up. Let me, however, leave it here.
I advise Barrister, that, as a Lawyer, you need to carefully weigh and consider what you say and write for public consumption.
You could have made your points and passed your comments without the petty insults you unkindly meted out to me, for no cause, in your published reaction.
I will refrain from asking you the question a brilliant young man, Solomon Johnny recently asked a young Lawyer in Akwa Ibom State. Have a good day, please.
No comments: