From left: Martin Amidu, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, Alfred Agbesi Woyome
“I say with all the strength at my disposal that a cheque drawn by Woyome in favour of the Economic and Organized Crime Office, which was not a party to the action or the judgment creditor, cannot be a cheque in part payment of the unconstitutional monies ordered by the Court to be refunded to the Republic,” says former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Martin Alamisi Burns Kaiser Amidu.
This latest bombshell comes in the wake of claims by government that Alfred Agbesi Woyome, a self-acclaimed financier of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), who the Supreme Court found guilty of defrauding the nation to the tune of GH¢51.2million, has paid GH¢4 million out of the said amount.
Amidu said from the look of things, the Mahama administration has no intention of retrieving the money, saying that the best way out is to kick it out.
Although the Supreme Court ruled against Woyome over the infamous GH¢51.2 million judgment debt scandal which it described as a ‘create, loot and share’ scheme and ordered him to refund the money to the state, the man has been dragging his feet while the Attorney General, Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, has also adopted a somewhat lukewarm attitude in retrieving the money until the recent announcement of a supposed payment of GH¢4 million.
But even that, Mr Amidu, whose fight against corruption in government has earned him the nickname ‘Citizen Vigilante,’ insists it was a façade as it appears more as a cover-up.
Doubts
In a statement released to the media yesterday, Mr Amidu said he was contesting the genuineness of the payment while providing details of the supposed cheque Woyome issued and the acknowledgment of receipt by the Ministry of Justice which was signed by one Dorothy Afriyie-Ansah.
For him, “The acceptance of the Economic and Organized Crime Office cheque by the Attorney General and the deception of the public by the Attorney General that it is part payment for the refund ordered by the Court brings into question the competence of the Attorney General and the government in pursuit of the interest of the Republic” and that “the whole scheme appears to have been cooked to defeat my application for leave to examine Woyome orally on oath.”
That, he said, was evident in fact that “In the hurry of the government and Woyome to defeat my application, they could not even cover their tracks with a cheque drawn on the Ministry of Finance or the Accountant General as custodian of the Consolidated Fund.”
He noted, “The cheque could also have been drawn on the Registrar of the Supreme Court and paid into court for the Republic.”
Suspicion
He therefore believes, “The foregoing is evidence, if evidence be needed, that the Attorney General and the government are determined to kill the non-refund of the judgment debt as an election issue by cooking up the deceptive cheque and receipt to allow the status quo to continue.
“They are purposefully deceiving the electorate that efforts are being made to retrieve the unconstitutional loot by Woyome jointly with Austro-Invest, the client of Lithur-Brew and Co, a law firm in which the Attorney General was a partner. The law firm is also the president’s personal lawyer’s,” he emphasized.
Change Govt
Mr Amidu is pained because, “I fought for two long years for justice for the Constitution and for all of us, and the Supreme Court eventually vindicated the public’s interest by ordering the refund of the unconstitutional loot to the Republic of Ghana. Unfortunately, the government as the leading looter, has put obstacles in our way in enforcing the orders of the Court.”
In spite of being a senior and founding member of the NDC, Mr Amidu said, “I am compelled to put Ghana first and to defend the 1992 Constitution by saying that the only way Ghanaians can have the Woyome/Austro-Invest joint loot refunded is to change the government that created, looted and shared the loot with them during the presidential election this year.”
Confidence
He is confident “a new government will prosecute Woyome under Article 2(3) and (4) of the 1992 Constitution for High Crime, should he delay any further in refunding the unconstitutional loot. The new government will also enforce the Waterville judgment debt of over €47 million loot or prosecute it for High Crime.”
The Citizen Vigilante is convinced, “This is the only way out for Ghanaians to stand up for their constitutional rights and to retrieve the unconstitutional monies created, looted and shared by this government with its political party supporters who are now unconstitutional judgment debtors to the Republic.”
Resolve
As a loyal NDC member, he vowed, “I will support most of my political party’s parliamentary candidates who have shown honesty and integrity to the Constitution. But I cannot in good conscience and in defence of the Constitution, support its presidential candidate to continue leading the looting of the public purse.”
He therefore, made a passionate appeal to all well-meaning Ghanaians to as it were, “help me in the name of the Constitution to retrieve your money that was looted by voting for a new president. Let us protect our Constitutional rights and not be hoodwinked by electioneering ploys.
“Let us get our GH¢51,283,483.59 back. Defend the 1992 Constitution by voting for a new president on 7th December, 2016, to get our money back.”
AG Blasted
In a related remark, Executive Director of the Ghana Integrity Initiative (GII) Victus Adaboo Azeem, says he supports the efforts of Martin Amidu, stressing that he believes Attorney General Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong has not done enough to recover the GH¢51.2 million judgment debt paid to Woyome.
“I don’t think the Attorney General has done enough and that’s why I think the Attorney General should welcome the support of other Ghanaians to help her retrieve the money,” Mr Azeem told Accra 100.5FM yesterday. “Is it not two years now since the Supreme Court ruled that the money should be recovered? Is it not true that the Attorney General has not been able to recover those monies? Why would the Supreme Court be prosecuting Alfred Woyome? They did not initiate the case in the first place…”
In Mr Azeem’s view, “Mr Amidu probably has some other information that in examining the guy [Mr Woyome], he’ll be able to uncover, or as a former Attorney General, he may have other capabilities, skills that the current AG probably does not have and he thinks if he uses those skills, he’ll be able to solicit something that is very important in helping to recover the monies.”
Before filing his application, Mr Amidu said, “I have examined the circumstances surrounding the government’s reluctance to enforce the judgment and orders of the Court with the seriousness the matter deserves. I share the view expressed by objective and reasonable members of the public that because the government was the 1st defendant/respondent against whom the Supreme Court made declarations of unconstitutional conduct in paying the judgment debt to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the government has been pretending for purely political reasons, at each turn, to take steps to enforce the judgment and orders of the court only to deliberately abort them.”
“I agree that the government’s objective has always been to create the appearance and impression in the minds of the unsuspecting public that it is complying with the enforcement orders. The Attorney General’s latest application to discontinue the government’s application to examine its financier, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, is one more such trick to deceive the public and obstruct the course of justice,” according to Citizen Vigilante.
Mr Amidu had said that when the AG served its application on Mr Woyome, he (Woyome) “went to the Attorney General and the president personally, that should the order applied for by the government for his examination not be discontinued, he [Woyome] will have no option … than to disclose truthfully and faithfully to the Court on oath, the names of all NDC and government beneficiaries of the judgment debt.”
However, President Mahama told GBC’s Presidential Encounters on Wednesday that he had nothing to do with the discontinuation, saying: “…I mean, that is a practice in law, and then somebody says: ‘Hey it is the president who asked her to discontinue!’ We have people who are just willing to publish any allegation in the papers against the person of the president
By Charles Takyi-Boadu