WHY MARTIN AMIDU WAS DISMISSED - A DENIAL AND CHALLENGE
RE: WHY MARTIN AMIDU WAS DISMISSED: MARTIN AMIDU’S DENIAL AND CHALLENGE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GHANA
BY MARTIN AMIDU
I read for the first time in the Ghanaian Times of Tuesday, June 25, 2013 and peacefmonline of yesterday what appears to be a Government approved statement giving particulars of the misconduct for which I was alleged to have been dismissed as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Speaking for the Minister for Information, Hon. Mahama Ayarigah, and the Government, the Deputy Minister for Information, Hon Murtala Mohammed is reported as saying that Martin Amidu was dismissed by the late President Mills for failing to mention the names of cabinet ministers in his administration whom he alleged, were directly involved with the judgment debt saga. The Ghanaian Times states that: “Murtala Mohammed stressed that courageous as Martin Amidu is, nothing should have prevented him from telling the late President when he was called at the level of the appointment authority to disclose those who wanted to defraud the nation”.
Since the former Chief of Staff Mr. J. H. Newman dishonourably lied to the media in a press release dated 19th January 2012 that I was dismissed for misconduct without giving particulars of my alleged misconduct, I have challenged him and the Government to publish the particulars of my misconduct. The Mr. Newman is now cowardly hiding at the Council of State without supplying the Ghanaian public those particulars. Joy Online and the Ghana News Agency (GNA) at various times in January 2012 peddled the falsehood that I was sacked or dismissed for “failing to substantiate allegations of ‘gargantuan crimes’ perpetrated against the state by an unnamed colleague.” They did not attribute the statements to any particular source making it difficult for me to respond to them.
Now that the Government through its Ministry of Information has supplied the alleged particulars, I wish to state unequivocally that in letter No D45/SF. 173/10 dated 6th January 2012, entitled “Why the Government of Ghana must be Unequivocally Resolute to set aside the Collaborative or Collusive Default Judgment entered in favour of Alfred Agbesi Woyome in the Case of Alfred Agbesi Woyome v (1) the Attorney-General (2) Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and all Proceedings and Processes commenced by Alfred Agbesi Woyome Against the Republic of Ghana per the Attorney-General”, I reported to the President in detail with the names of all those I suspected of being responsible for the judgment debt Gargantuan crimes against the people of Ghana. It will be recalled that in several press statements I made to the media in 2012, I called upon Mr. Newman (the Chief of Staff) to publish for the benefit of the good people of Ghana my said letter dated 6th January 2012 to enable them to determine whether or not I had misconducted myself simply by being truthful in defending the 1992 Constitution.
I am, therefore, formally by this statement of rejoinder challenging the Government and the Ministry of Information to publish for the purposes of transparency and accountability my said letter of 6th January 2012 so that the good people of Ghana may judge whether I did not name those I suspected of the judgment debt Gargantuan crimes. Mr. Newman (then Chief of Staff) and Mr. Beebako-Mensah (Secretary to the President) are no more at the Presidency. But luckily Lt Col. Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (Rtd.), the National Security Coordinator, was a copy addressee of the said letter and was present when Mr. Newman told me that my letter was a political time bomb. My response was that as Attorney General I had a professional obligation to tell the President the whole truth. The Government should with honour and integrity put this matter to
rest by once and for all publishing my said letter dated 6th January 2012 addressed to the Secretary to the President and the Chief of Staff for the attention of then President and copied to the National Security Coordinator. My said letter also stated clearly who authorized the payments contrary to the rented Daily Posts publication of today 25th June 2013 falsely associating me with it. Let the people of Ghana know where the truth stands in this matter for which I was never issued a query for any misconduct.
The letter appointing me to office gave the Government and I the right to terminate the employment relationship between us by giving each other three months notice or the payment of three months salary in lieu of notice. The Government exercised the latter option when we disagreed over the judgment debt and other Gargantuan crimes. The Government, and my colleague Ministers at the time know that there was no provision for dismissal under my contract of employment as a Minister or that of any Minster.
I reserve the right as a citizen of Ghana to protect and defend my honour and integrity should this civilized challenge for the truth be ignored. This is not the price I should be made to pay by the Government of Ghana for defending the Constitution of Ghana in the Waterville and Isofoton unconstitutional payments declared by the Supreme Court.
Martin A. B. K. Amidu
The purpose of this discourse is, therefore, to caution the public to hold their horses and refrain from speculating on what the Supreme Court decided in Adamtey v Attorney-General until the certified judgment becomes publicly available. Only then can there be an informed discourse on whether the Court really decided that Act 959 is constitutional in its entirety or found portions of it to be unconstitutional, and the reason for the unconstitutionality.
President Mahama, deal with the payroll “economic crime scene” at the OSP which made a favourable decision for your benefit first and establish your credibility to deal with the irregularities at the NEIP, and the annulment of all appointments made by former President Akufo-Addo after 7 December 2024.
Africa has so many examples of chaos that Ghana can learn from, which is why patriotic citizens must speak up against the creeping canker of the politicization of the Office of the Attorney-General and the judiciary branch of government by the NPP and the NDC. I have raised my finger. Join me by raising your finger as a patriotic citizen so that we can together defend the 1992 Constitution against the political hawks from the NPP and the NDC. Non Desistas Non Exieris: Never Give Up Never Surrender.
The Attorney-General’s press release of 4 July 2023 is an attempted smokescreen to gag citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. His insinuation that legitimate criticisms of investigatory and prosecutorial functions of his office “unduly interferes with the work of State Prosecutors performing their constitutional function of prosecuting crime in Ghana” ignores provision under the 1992 Constitution, which proscribes that sovereign people of Ghana may hold to account State Prosecutors who allow themselves to be misused to abuse the very prosecutorial constitutional function they purport to perform in aid of an oppressive Government whose aim is to weaponize the system of criminal justice administration to achieve electoral political objects in an election cycle.
The NDC must be congratulated by all patriotic persons who act apolitically in the national interest and believe in defence of the Constitution and in the sustenance of democracy and the rule of law in Ghana. I take the view that Constitutionalism won in the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General failed woefully in weaponizing the administration of criminal justice, while democracy and the rule of law won massively at the Assin North by-elections.
The statistical data demonstrates beyond every doubt that President Rawlings, Dr. Obed Asamoah, and Martin Amidu, the running mate for the 2000 elections delivered their regions resoundingly to the NDC while Professor Mills and his cohort of talkative-only puppet masters doomed his election defeat by failing to deliver their regions to the NDC. The saying is that “monkey no fine but heem mother lakam” so how does the monkey blame others for its abysmal defeat when its own mother voted against and rejected it at the polls?
The processes culminating in finally accepting the offer to be the running mate to Professor Mills and the formal confirmation of the nomination by the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NDC the same night, demonstrates beyond any doubt that the assertion that a cohort of puppet masters of Vice President Mills to whom the author belonged calculatingly dangled before Martin Amidu a running mate bait which he excitedly swallowed, was and is a pernicious falsehood. The reasons assigned to Ghanaians by Professor Mills for identifying and nominating his running mate also negates the bait dangling fabrications of the author who holds himself out as a Professor of Law.
Kwamena Ahwoi became so addicted to concocting the data for Working with Rawlings that he had to continue doing so, and to fabricate the choice of Martin Amidu, my poor self, as Professor Mills’ running mate not only as a surprise choice but as a bait which Martin Amidu excitedly swallowed. I intend to demonstrate that Kwamena Ahwoi fabricated the data giving rise to his shoddy narratives by stating how I came to reluctantly accept to be Professor Mills’ running mate on 3 September 2000
The real intention of the author, Kwamena Ahwoi, was to paint President Rawlings as an autocrat who did not brook dissent from even his vice president such that Professor Mills was so terrified or afraid of him to engage in a one-on-one discussion with him on the reasons for not accepting Dr. Asamoah as the vice- presidential candidate. The author ended up conveying a picture of Professor Mills as not being his own man. Kwamena Ahwoi was, therefore, solely responsible for the derogatory words – “Mills-Rawlings’ Poodle” and “Vote Mills, Ge JJ free” - that the opponents of the NDC used to describe Professor Mills after his acceptance speech at his Ho coronation.
President Rawlings had only one term left if he won the 1996 election, which the NDC was confident he was going to win whosoever became his running mate. The transition to an NDC Government in the future without Rawlings began with the nomination of Professor Mills as Rawlings’ running mate. The Ahwois hedged their bets as the main pillars behind Professor Mills’ Vice Presidency and his future. Rawlings’ trust in his comrades blinded him from seeing the double agency in the behaviour of the Ahwois. The “Ahwoi Capture” of Professor Mills that will affect and influence the future relationship between President Rawlings and Professor Mills had begun.
Did Mr. Kissi Agyebeng say that he inherited nine employees from me, Martin Amidu, when he knows so well from the official records contained in my handing over notes and my budget submissions to the Ministry of Finance for the 2021 Budget that the Office had more staff working in it as at the time I resigned from the Office? All the issues allegedly raised by him are dealt with in my handing over notes and may be of some use to him if he has not seen or read them already…
My resignation as the first Special Prosecutor was the result of the endemic attitude of President, Nana Akufo Addo’s penchant to usurp the constitutional authority of investigators and prosecutors in criminal justice administration as he tried to do in the Agyapa Royalties Transaction Anti-Corruption Risk Assessment Report implicating him. It had nothing to do with the Members of Parliament double salaries which I never saw nor handled during my tenure. The President’s responses to the media on 13th December 2018 is evidence that this President determines who may be prosecuted for crime and not the Attorney General or Special Prosecutor…
This submission is made as ordered by the Supreme Court on 16th October 2019, to assist the Attorney General by providing available evidence in order to enable the the enforcement of the judgment debt against Waterville Holdings (BVI) Limited.
It is more than one full year since an Arbitration Tribunal brought the arbitration proceedings in the Waterville Judgment Debt Case to an end in a manner favourable to the Republic of Ghana. I am returning to court in my personal capacity as the only person with enough vested interest in the conclusion of the case after having procured the decision, orders and directions of the Court contained in the judgment dated 14th June 2013. Even though I bring this application in my personal capacity as the Plaintiff/Applicant in the above case, I have since 23rd February 2018 been the Special Prosecutor of Ghana with the mandate to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and recover assets and manage proceeds of corruption and corruption-related offences. Consequently, I am also at the time of filing this application responsible for preventing the non-enforcement of the Court’s 2013 judgment which was actuated by an unconstitutional create, loot, and share syndrome as lucidly and ably articulated in this Court’s said judgment.
The jurisdiction of the Office of the Special Prosecutor is strictly provided for under the Act; it is more restrictive than most global anti-corruption agencies, with a limited number of offences that the Office may investigate. Members of the public who are still being misled to believe that the Office may investigate anything beyond the ten offences within its mandate, may start to lose trust. I wish them to understand that my limited jurisdiction means that the balance of criminal offences in the Criminal Offences Act that have not been apportioned to the Office and that deal with several felonies, have to be investigated by various other law and order enforcement agencies headed by among others, the Inspector General of Police, the Director-General CID, the Executive Director Economic and Organized Crime Office, the Director of the Bureau of National Investigations, the Director-General of the Ghana Immigration Service, The Executive Secretary for the Financial Intelligence Center, the National Security Coordinator, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I state again I am committed to fully executing my mandate, and will continue to prosecute all cases under my jurisdiction to the fullest of the powers granted to the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Ghana cannot fight the canker of corruption and corruption-related offences when people expect the Special Prosecutor to have regard to the personalities involved in the commission of corruption offences instead of treating every crime as crime without fear or favour, affection or ill will. I stated clearly on oath at my vetting for this Office that I was not going to tolerate any interference or obstruction from anybody or organ of Government other than the courts of law in the performance of the independent functions of my office.
Professor Assibi Amidu of NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway and Martin Alamisi Amidu of Bawku/Accra are today, the 9th March 2018, celebrating the final transition and exit of their beloved mother, the late Atiisah Amidu, who died on 6th March 2016. The family wish to thank all those who have supported and sympathized with them during her death and final transition and farewell ceremony in accordance with Bulsa custom and tradition.
Any time I have raised issues concerning or relating to the unconstitutional actions or conduct (particularly about corruption and abuse of power) of the Mills/Mahama Government and the John Dramani Mahama Government, the result is a tedious repetition of the same sterile cowardly attacks on my person and multiple attempts at character assassination. The real question is whether it is the conduct of Martin Amidu that has exposed the Party? Or is it the NDC itself acting through the NEC on behalf of the Congress and some members of the NEC in their personal and official capacities that has “exposed the Party to public hatred, ridicule and opprobrium and lowered its reputation in Ghana and elsewhere”? The John Mahama surrogates or faction in the NDC ought to be warned that their modus operandi of personal attacks will not lead to reasoned dialogue, but may push me to invoke my right pursuant to Article 2 and 130 of the Constitution so that the Supreme Court may settle once and for all whether or not under Article 55 of the Constitution a political party can gag a citizen from defending, and upholding the Constitution demonstrated with a Supreme Court judgment simply because he is perceived to be a member of that political party.
Is the fight against bribery and corruption amongst the political elite in Ghana a mere political slogan for winning political power, which signifies nothing? Parliament has concluded proceedings in respect of the allegation of bribery, and transformed it into an allegation and punishment of Honourable Mahama Ayariga for contempt of Parliament. However, there is no express or implied complaint, allegation or charge of contempt of Parliament made in the Terms of Reference against Hon. Mahama Ayariga personally or any other person to ground any power in the Committee to make findings and recommendations of contempt of Parliament. Analysis suggests that the constitutional oaths of the Speaker and of members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, were each abused and violated just to protect the suspected commission of the crime of bribery and corruption in Parliament, instead of transparently maintaining the institutional integrity of the legislature.
The legal advice tendered by the Ashanti Regional Office of the Attorney General to the Ghana Police Service, Kumasi, in the case of R v Mensah Azer & 7 Others, popularly known as the 8 Delta Members Case, is exceptional in the manner it states the facts of the case, and the evidence as disclosed upon the perusal of the police docket, and the legal opinion based on the facts and evidence on the docket. The impression that the regional office of the Attorney General’s Department had to have recourse to the Attorney General simply because the suspects were alleged to be members of the New Patriotic Party is dangerous for our democracy, the rule of law and the prosecutorial discretion delegated by the Attorney General to each of her prosecuting attorneys and particularly her regional representatives.
In this affidavit I contend that the Government of Ghana’s interest is not in enforcing the order of the Supreme Court. Instead, the incumbent Government represented by the Attorney General is merely giving the appearance of enforcing the order of the Court while simultaneously entering into a confidentiality agreement with Alfred Agbesi Woyome as Executive Chairman, a director, and sole shareholder of Anator Holding. This discreet agreement aims to facilitate Woyome’s ability to refund the monies ordered by this Court. Such actions by the incumbent Government negate the letter and spirit of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and the enforcement jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Moreover, I maintain that under Article 2 of the 1992, when the Attorney General is being sued for unconstitutional conduct, and a declaration of unconstitutionality is made against the Attorney General, it will be a negation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution to say that the public interest Plaintiff who has prosecuted the action has no capacity to ensure proper and effective execution of the order, even when the Attorney General’s actions are not of substance for purposes of enforcing the decisions and order of the Supreme Court.
Woyome has accused me in the media of having ordered or authorized the Ministry of Finance to pay him part of the GHC51.2million that the incumbent Government unconstitutionally looted for him. However, the fact that I had nothing to do with the authorizations written to the Ministry of Finance to pay any portion of the looted public purse to Woyome was already determined finally in the declarations made by the Supreme Court on 29th July 2014. Moreover, the Government’s own “Commission of Enquiry Into Payments From Public Funds Arising From Judgment Debts & Akin Matters (2012/C.I 79)” commended my honesty and integrity in the matter. The media and the public are being hoodwinked by Woyome’s outburst and the incumbent Government’s overwhelming silence to set the records straight. Citizens, you have a choice to make. How much longer will we hear stories of inadvertence, mischief and connivance by an incumbent Government that strips the Republic’s coffers bare so that ordinary Ghanaians must suffer financial hardship? PUT GHANA FIRST and let us get our looted money back by voting the incumbent looter Government out on 7th December 2016. Protect Ghana and the government purse by voting for a new President.
Government is 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. Woyome’s part-payment in 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. Unfortunately, the Government as the leading looter has put obstacles in our way in enforcing the orders of the Court. Do not be hoodwinked by electioneering ploys. Let us defend the 1992 Constitution by voting for a new President on 7th December 2016 to get our money back.
Commonsense should have warned the Plaintiff/Respondent that an ordinary bench of this court hearing his Writ of Summons and Statement of Case will have no jurisdiction to declare the ruling of the review bench in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 2) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 606 null and void or in any other manner attempt to review same under the smokescreen of exercising any original jurisdiction in this action.
The nature of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, Abdulai Yusif Fansah Muhammed, from the Supreme Court in this action are clearly stated on three of them to be for the benefit of Alfred Agbesi Woyome and the exoneration of the Attorney-General who unconstitutionally paid the judgment debt to Woyome. Why has the Plaintiff decided to join them as the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this action to create the impression that his interest diverges from theirs? Are they really Defendants or is the Plaintiff their surrogate? That is the answer to look from their responses to the Plaintiff’s case.
I am deliberately exposing the politicization of the White Paper on the Commissioner’s report to enable people capable of rational and dispassionate reasoning see the inherent dangers any Government faces when it usurps the powers of the Attorney-General or when an Attorney-General allows his office to be usurped or abused by the Presidency. It also underscores what happens when a Government acts deliberately and covertly to cover political corruption by besmearing other coordinate organs of Government and political opponents in a manner inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution.
In my whole life I have never courted praise or approbation in playing out my character. I would rather stand for what I believe to be the truth even if it means I stand alone. No insults or name calling will change that after more than 64 years of my existence. I should be able to tell my maker when I get out or up there or wherever it may be, that I served Him or Her to the best of my ability; I served the Holy Catholic Church to the best of my human ability; I served my nation truly and served my people.
A number of Ghanaians have called me to ask how much Waterville is to refund to the Republic of Ghana as a consequence of the decision and orders of the Supreme Court dated 14th June 2013. This is apparently because of late the media has carried the story that Waterville has taken the Government to international arbitration to challenge an order for the refund of €25 million made by the Supreme Court. No explanation appears to be coming from Government sources to indicate the total amount of refund to be made by Waterville is €47,365,624.40. I have therefore deemed it necessary to address this issue relating to the Waterville decision and order as the citizen public interest Plaintiff in this matter.
This rejoinder condemns in no uncertain terms the unconstitutional and unethical conduct of the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayineh, in scurrilously abusing the Court and the Judge that tried the Woyome case and also for the contempt of scandalizing the judiciary as a whole in the media, and in spite of the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeal filed by the office of the Attorney General.
Response to denial by the Attorney General, Mrs Brew Appiah-Oppong, that she did not selectively file an entry of judgment omitting the declarations in respect of the then Attorney General and the fact that the declaration against Woyome was stated to be with Austro-Invest. Soft copy of relevant Woyome Application filed by Martin Amidu on 26 October 2014