ModernGhanalogo

FEATURED: Why Are Black People Obsessed With The Bible That Was Used To Enslave ...

body-container-line-1
08.10.2019 Headlines

Parliament Sought To Interfere With The Independence Of The Office Of The Special Prosecutor

The Independence Of The Judiciary And Administration Of Justice -Let Those Present Speak Up For Themselves!
By Office Of The Special Prosecutor
Parliament Sought To Interfere With The Independence Of The Office Of The Special Prosecutor
OCT 8, 2019 HEADLINES

The attention of the Office of the Special Prosecutor has been drawn to a press release signed by the Acting Director of Public Affairs of the Parliamentary Service allegedly on behalf of Parliament stating amongst other falsehoods that the Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, has alleged: “that Parliament is sabotaging and obstructing his work concerning the prosecution of a former Minister of State and Member of Parliament, Hon. Mahama Ayariga.”

The Office of the Special Prosecutor challenges the Acting Director of Public Affairs of the Parliamentary Service to point to the statement, interview or occasion on which the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Martin Amidu, made the allegation that: “Parliament is sabotaging and obstructing his work concerning the prosecution of a former Minister of State and Member of Parliament, Hon. Mahama Ayariga.”

On 6th June, 2019 the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued a press release in response to a concoction by the Majority Leader, Hon. Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu stating that the Office of the Special Prosecutor has a tall list of Members of Parliament to prosecute as a reason why the Leadership of Parliament invited and met the Special Prosecutor with his Deputy on 4th June 2019. This press release is on the website of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for all who care to read.

The latest 45-minute interview granted by the Special Prosecutor to celebrated journalist and broadcaster, David Ampofo, on “Time With David” that is still trending worldwide on YouTube, does not contain any allegations talking of sabotaging or obstructing the work of the Special Prosecutor or a mention of the name of any former Minister and Member of Parliament as the Acting Director of the Parliamentary Service falsely attributes to the Special Prosecutor.

The Acting Director of Public Affairs of Parliament who signed the press release allegedly on behalf of the Parliamentary Service did not attend the meeting between the Leadership of Parliament on the one hand and the Deputy Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutor on the other hand. She, therefore, has no personal knowledge of what took place at the meeting she writes about in the press release. Her statements contained in her press release are pure and simple, hearsay statements upon which no reasonable person would place any credibility on.

The Special Prosecutor took notes of the discussions at the meeting. He also committed his full recollections of the meeting to file in a signed memorandum after comparing and merging his notes with those written down by his Deputy to constitute an accurate contemporaneous record of what took place at the meeting, after their return to the Office.

The Rt. Hon. Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader, the Hon. Mr. Joseph Chire representing the Minority Leader, and the Clerk to Parliament were the Parliamentary side: belatedly the Minority Leader joined the meeting and Hon. Mr. Chire was excused. The Deputy Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutor were the Office of the Special Prosecutor side.

As to the matter of Parliamentary interference, the ruling of the High Court, Financial & Economic Crime Division 3 held on Tuesday the 4th day of June, 2019 before Her Ladyship Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe (Mrs.) in the Republic v Hajia Hawa Ninchema & 6 Others rejecting the Speaker's certificate is available as a clear interference by the Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament in the independence of the judiciary and the administration of justice under the 1992 Constitution.

Perhaps the participants from the side of the Parliamentary Leadership should explain why they find it necessary for the Acting Director of Public Affairs who has no personal knowledge of the meeting to speak on their behalf?

The interesting public are invited to revisit the press release issued by the Office of the Special Prosecutor on 6th June, 2019 in reaction to the Majority Leader’s claim of a tall list of MPs to prosecute. As the Majority Leader’s interview with Okay FM’s Ade Akye Abia alleging that the Office of the Special Prosecutor has a tall list of MPs to prosecute clearly shows, the meeting was not about any former Minister and Member of Parliament per se but about privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament generally. There was no response to the press release from the Office of the Special Prosecutor refuting the Majority Leader’s concocted narrative.

Is the hearsay falsehood put out by the Acting Director of Public Affairs of Parliament simply a misguided or malicious reaction to the Special Prosecutor’s latest trending video interview with David Ampofo? Was Adamu Sakande, former NPP-MP for Bawku Central’s tried only on Mondays under the John Dramani Mahama Administration? Were Abuga Pele, a then NDC-MP, and Philip Assibit’s trial conducted only on Mondays also under the John Dramani Mahama administration? Or is the present Speaker insinuating that the Speaker of the Sixth Parliament did not understand Constitutional Law and the law of parliamentary immunity?

There was clear interference with the independence of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Speaker’s certificate to the High Court was also a clear interference with the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary under the doctrine of the separation of power under the 1992 Constitution, pure and simple. Let any of the Leadership of Parliament who was present at the meeting speak up about what transpired at the meeting of 3rd June 2019 so that the Office of the Special Prosecutor can publish its contemporaneous memorandum to file dated 4th June, 2019 for the electorate to judge between the two as to what truly and really transpired at the meeting.

Let it be known that until the Office of the Special Prosecutor is empowered with its own appointed staff who are ready, able and willing to speak for the Office the Special Prosecutor, the Special Prosecutor will continue to exercise his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution to speak on behalf of the Office and defend the 1992 Constitutional injunction to every citizen to free speech and to vigorously fight against corruption.

The Truth shall always stand!

MARTIN A.B.K. AMIDU

(SPECIAL PROSECUTOR)

body-container-line