Martin Amidu
The Supreme Court has granted an application by former Deputy Attorney General and Member of Parliament (MP) for Bolgatanga East, Dr. Dominic Ayine, to amend his statement of case in a suit filed against the appointment of Martin Amidu as the Special Prosecutor.
A motion on notice to amend the statement of case filed by his lawyer, Tony Lithur, was granted by the court, presided over by a single judge, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, on Thursday.
That was after the Attorney General’s Office and Mr. Amidu had all indicated that they would not oppose the application.
The amended statement of case contains two new reliefs in which Mr. Ayine is praying the court to nullify the appointment of Mr. Amidu as the Special Prosecutor.
The other is praying the court to declare as unconstitutional certain portions of the Special Prosecutor Act, which created the office.
Per the apex court’s directive, Dr. Ayine has seven days within which to file his amended statement of case.
The AG’s Office is also to within 14 days file its amended statement of case after it has been served by the plaintiffs.
Rejected Application
The Supreme Court had earlier this month rejected an application in which Dr. Ayine’s lawyers were seeking relief to allow them file supplementary statements of case to what they had already filed.
But both the Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor (Martin Amidu, who was once Attorney General and Minister for Justice) filed applications in opposition saying the plaintiff’s application was not known to the rules of the court.
Moving the application, the lawyer told the court that it was not for an amendment of their writ but to make certain additions to it.
But he was reminded by the presiding judge that what he was seeking to do was tantamount to amending his writ.
He said he was not minded to grant the application and if it was not granted, he (Mr. Lithur) would not be prejudiced because of the availability of other avenues he could use to get what he was seeking.
Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, objected to the application saying the rules allow for a supplementary argument but that could only be done after the substantive case had been set into motion.
Mr Martin Amidu, who represented himself in his opposition to the application, told the lawyer that he “cannot put the cart before the horse.”
He said the lawyer should have come before the court to ask for what to do before filing the application rather than filing it before running to the court to ask what to do in such circumstances.
Justice Pwamang refused to grant the relief because the application was alien to the rules of the court.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak