AG On Alleged Missing CHRAJ Report

The Attorney General’s department responds to recent media reports that a CHRAJ report to the AGs Dept has gone missing as follows.

1. The report is false and should be disregarded by the general public.
2. Two (2) CHRAJ reports were received by our office in June, 2018. Both reports were forwarded under cover of a letter with the subject “SUBMISSION OF REPORT OF INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(3) OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER ACT 2006 (ACT 720).” Whereas the first report dated 7th June, 2018 received on 11th June, 2018 was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecution, the second report dated 22nd June, 2018 was received at the office on 27th June, 2018 and forwarded to the Solicitor-General for necessary attention.
3. The CHRAJ report submitted in June 2018 is on a 2007 contract on Sanitation Improvement Programme and waste management. There is also a CID docket currently under review by the office which covers sanitation related contracts between 2012 and 2017. These are two separate matters and both the docket from CID and the CHRAJ report are receiving the necessary attention by our office.
4. When the publisher of the reports, Mr Azure first enquired about the report, he requested for an update on a * CHRAJ report on Zoomlion*.

A search on the department’s data system could not trace any such report because the entries made in our system captures the subject matter as is on the forwarding letter, the date of the letter and the date received. The department, therefore, could not trace “a CHRAJ Report on Zoomlion” in our data system since those details were not details captured into the system.

This is what Mr Awuni has chosen to misreport to the public that the said report is missing.

For the avoidance of doubt, the department informs the general public that the fact that the title requested for is unknown to the department’s system does not mean the report is missing. The properly titled report is available to the department and currently being worked on.

5. During a prosecution retreat, the said journalist was invited to give an overview of evidence he claimed to have which would assist the department with its work. Upon presenting his brief, officers of the department explained to him that the information he provided was insufficient to sustain a prosecution thus the need for further evidence gathering.

He promised to provide more documents but has since been unable to do so. He subsequently directed us to the director, legal of the Auditor-General’s Office for the documents we require. The department remains in touch with the director and is yet to receive the full compliment of the promised documents.

The department continues to work diligently to ensure that the tenets of justice are upheld in all matters brought before it.

The department further urges journalists to desist from hurried attempts to misreport matters in a manner that causes public apprehension.