GhanaReview International - The Leading Ghanaian News Agency
London New York Accra
GRi Latest News
Friday 29 March 2024

2021-04-07

[N] As Majority Leader be circumspect with your utterances

2021-03-19

[I] Goldman Sachs staff revolt at ‘98-hour week’
[I] Over half of staff go back to workplace
[I] Health chiefs confirm Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab safe to use
[S] Kotoko Signs Second Brazalian Player
[N] It Is A Blatant Lie That I’ve Declared My Prez Ambition-Agric Minister
[S] Accra Mayor to change face of sports in Greater Accra
[S] Ambassador Lutterodt charges GOC prez to tackle Martha Bissah issue
[S] Ben Nunoo-Mensah hits ground running for GOC
[S] Black Stars to Engage Uzbekistan In International Friendly
[N] House of Chiefs calls for collaboration with MMDCEs for development
[N] Baby Harvesting: More suspects picked
[N] Police pledge commitment to bringing Sheikh Maikano’s murderers to book
[B] ARB Apex Bank admitted to Ghana-Sweden Chamber of Commerce
[N] Desist from starting race ahead of time - Obiri Boahen to NPP presidential
[N] Gov’t announces construction of five interchanges in Ashanti
[N] Controversial textbooks: NPP urges NaCCA to enforce rules without fear or favour
[N] Staff working on Tamale interchange call off strike
[N] Newly proposed taxes a huge hindrance to businesses’ recovery
[N] Government can’t take a unilateral decision on salaries for public workers
[N] Ghana records 2 new Covid-19 variants; experts call for immediate action

2021-03-17

[S] First GFA safety and security seminar takes place today
[B] NDPC holds consultation medium term framework for 2022-2025 in Oti
[B] More investments recorded in Western Region despite COVID-19
[N] Ghana records 698 COVID-19 deaths
[N] NDC’s Ofosu Ampofo behaves like a toddler – Allotey Jacobs
[S] Don’t tax sports betting, ban it – Ato Forson to government
[N] Ama Benyiwaa Doe slams Allotey Jacobs; says he has no influence
[N] Approving Akufo-Addo’s ministers ‘regrettable and unfortunate’ – NDC caucus
[S] Don't rush Satellites players, warns GFA coaching boss
[N] Eastern Regional Hospital detains 246 patients for non-settlement of bills
[N] COVID-19 vaccination in Ghana: 1,000 reports received on adverse effects
[N] Ignore reports of rift between local, foreign staff at AfCFTA secretariat – Govt
[N] Remain calm, support our leadership in Parliament – NDC Council of Elders
[N] Ghana hasn’t recorded any case of blood clots from COVID-19 vaccination – FDA
[N] 9-year-old boy burnt to death as stepfather sets house ablaze
[B] Budget cuts for legislature, judiciary won’t be entertained – Speaker
[I] Half of UK managers back mandatory Covid vaccines for office work
[I] Brussels to propose Covid certificate to allow EU-wide travel

2021-03-16

[I] Nick Candy leads £1m drive to oust London mayor Sadiq Khan
... go Back
 
General News

[ 2015-03-27 ]

Deputy A-G's Conduct Sufficient Grounds For His Resignation Or Dismissal - Martin Amidu
Former Attorney General in the erstwhile John Atta
Mills' regime, Martin Amidu, says he feels
scandalized by Deputy Attorney General Dominic
Ayineh's harsh criticism of the judge at the
centre of the controversial Woyome scandal and
believes his recent "conduct is more than
sufficient ground for resignation or removal from
office".

To the "Citizen Vigilante" the Deputy A-G's
remarks is "a sad reflection on the integrity and
oath of the appointing authority to defend and
protect the Constitution of Ghana."

It would be recalled that days after the landmark
ruling which acquitted and discharged business man
Alfred Woyome, the man accused of fraudulently
receiving 51 million cedis from government, the
Deputy A-G went to town and launched a blistering
verbal attack on the presiding judge, Justice
Ajet-Nasam, questioning his impartiality.

He reportedly described the ruling as "a prime
example of poor judicial reasoning leading to
conclusions that are totally untenable” and
further accused the presiding judge of "making up
his mind from day one" even before trial began.

But in his latest rejoinder, Martin Amidu, pointed
that in as much as he believes lawyers have every
right to critique a ruling by a judge, the way and
manner Ayineh went about it was unacceptable and
an affront to the judiciary.

He added that the Deputy A-G's comments "amount to
contempt of scandalizing the Judiciary; secondly
it interferes with the inherent democratic
principle of the independence of the judiciary;
and thirdly and fundamentally, it contravenes
Articles 125(3) and 127(1) (2) and (3) of the 1992
Constitution," and further stressed that Dominic
Ayineh's "conduct is more than sufficient ground
for resignation or removal from office".

"The conduct of Dr. Dominic Ayine, as Deputy
Attorney General, in scandalizing the Judiciary in
the media in the Woyome case has the tendency and
may have been calculated to intimidate members of
the Judiciary who are, or may hear criminal cases
and appeals from the Attorney General’s office:
it offends the rule of law and the inherent
principles of criminal justice. There is a
constitutional presumption of innocence in
criminal justice administration and the benefit of
the doubt in our constitutional and democratic
system inures to the benefit of the accused. Under
any responsible social democratic Government
living to the values of the NDC Constitution the
Deputy Attorney General’s conduct is more than
sufficient ground for resignation or removal from
office," Martin Amidu said.


Read his full statement below:


RE: “DEPUTY AG TAKES WOYOME JUDGE TO THE
CLEANERS” – MARTIN AMIDU’S REJOINDER

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. I had the honour of prosecuting
and securing a conviction in a similar contempt of
scandalizing the court and the judiciary case in
Republic v Mensah Bonsu & Others; Ex Parte
Attorney-General [1995-96] 1 GLR 377 in the
Supreme Court in 1995 as an NDC Government’s
Deputy Attorney General.

On the morning of 15th March 2015 I read a news
item on myjoyonline with the title: “Deputy AG
takes Woyome judge to the cleaners”. I was
immediately stupefied by the office to which the
heading was attributed but assumed it was one of
those cheap journalist gambits to entice readers.

I was, however, dumbfounded by the first sentence
of the news item stating that: “Deputy Attorney
General Dominic Ayineh has shredded the ruling
which acquitted and discharged Alfred Woyome and
had harsh words for the sitting judge.” What? A
Deputy Attorney General of the Republic of Ghana
having “harsh words for the sitting judge” and
shredding “the ruling which acquitted and
discharged” an accused person whom his office
prosecuted or persecuted depending on how one
views the circumstances surrounding the
prosecution? Wait! There was Shock in store for
me!

The Deputy Attorney General is reported to have
described the ruling as a “travesty of
justice” and saying that the Justice’s “mind
was made up from day one”, adding that his
“ruling is a prime example of poor judicial
reasoning leading to conclusions that are totally
untenable.” A Deputy Attorney General whose
office had appealed the verdict of the High Court
had the audacity in public and in the media when
an appeal is pending to use abusive and scurrilous
language on a Justice of the High Court just for
performing his function in pursuance of the
judicial power vested in him under the 1992
Constitution? This is incredible and unbelievable
coming from nowhere than the office of the
Attorney General. It leaves a sad reflection on
the integrity and oath of the appointing authority
to defend and protect the Constitution of Ghana.

First, the conduct of Dr. Dominic Ayineh, the
Deputy Attorney General, amounts to contempt of
scandalizing the Judiciary; secondly it interferes
with the inherent democratic principle of the
independence of the judiciary; and thirdly and
fundamentally, it contravenes Articles 125(3) and
127(1) (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution.
Professionally a Deputy Attorney General is
accorded respect and recognition as a matter of
convention by both the Bench and the Bar as deputy
leader of the Bar. Courtesies are therefore
extended to him in accordance with the hallowed
and time honoured traditions of the legal
profession when he appears in Court. Indeed the
Attorney General, and in her absence her deputy,
speak for the judiciary and the legal profession
on the floor of Parliament.

The Office of the Attorney General normally
prosecutes superior court justices during
impeachment proceedings. It, therefore, has the
burdensome duty of ensuring compliance with the
code of conduct and ethics of the legal profession
and the judicial service. The Attorney General is
consequently a member of the Judicial Council
which oversees the Judicial Service. Dr. Dominic
Ayineh, the Deputy Attorney General was therefore
better positioned to raise any matter of
professional misconduct with any supporting
evidence at the appropriate forum against the
judge instead of cowardly and scurrilously abusing
the Court and the Judge, and scandalizing the
whole judiciary in the media without any
opportunity for the Court or the judiciary to be
heard in its defence.

The conduct of Dr. Dominic Ayine, as Deputy
Attorney General, in scandalizing the Judiciary in
the media in the Woyome case has the tendency and
may have been calculated to intimidate members of
the Judiciary who are, or may hear criminal cases
and appeals from the Attorney General’s office:
it offends the rule of law and the inherent
principles of criminal justice. There is a
constitutional presumption of innocence in
criminal justice administration and the benefit of
the doubt in our constitutional and democratic
system inures to the benefit of the accused. Under
any responsible social democratic Government
living to the values of the NDC Constitution the
Deputy Attorney General’s conduct is more than
sufficient ground for resignation or removal from
office.

It does not matter what I think personally of the
verdict and reasoning in the trial and acquittal
of Woyome who is one of the persons I pursued
stubbornly up to a review decision by the Supreme
Court. He is entitled to a judicial verdict and
that verdict remains binding by law until it is
overturned by the Court of Appeal or on further
appeal by the Supreme Court.

The Attorney General and her deputy may have good
legal grounds to criticize the reasoning of the
Justice in the Woyome case but as the Attorney
General has decorously demonstrated the place for
it, particularly for the Attorney General’s
office, is in an appeal and not scandalously in
the court of public opinion where the majority of
citizens do not have an educated appreciation of
how the criminal justice system works. In any case
the Deputy Attorney General ought to know that it
is because of the fallibility of human nature that
the general and inherent principles of rule of law
and democracy provide for appeals from one judge
to a bench of three and under the 1992
Constitution to the Supreme Court with a minimum
bench of five justices. The increase in the number
of justices sitting on the appellate processes is
simply to ensure that any human biases will as far
as humanly possible cancel themselves out in the
final appellate decision. No human system can be
perfect, so even the Supreme Court is empowered to
depart from its own previous decisions when it
thinks it proper to do so.

If it was the comments of the High Court Judge
about the shoddy nature of the prosecution that
un-nerved Dr. Ayine, so many people including
former president Rawlings and myself think that
the office of the Attorney General and the NDC
Government deliberately lost every opportunity for
purely political convenience to present a holistic
case that would convince a Court to convict Woyome
and his accomplices. The conduct of the case by
the Government from the outbreak of this scam to
the verdict only confirms the perception all along
that the Government was compelled by public
reaction to pretend a prosecution because of the
involvement of some of its Ministers of State and
other card bearing members of the party but it had
determined to conduct the prosecution in such a
manner that nobody was ultimately convicted.

Why did the Attorney General choose to use the
Chief Director instead of the Solicitor General
and other Attorneys with primary knowledge of the
facts who acted upon the instructions of the then
Attorney General as lawyers in the scam in spite
of my letter of 10th June 2013 to the office which
was received by the Deputy Attorney General while
the Attorney General was abroad? I will email with
this statement a Portable document format (pdf)
attachment of my said letter of 10th June 2013 in
the hope that the media will make it available to
doubting Thomas’ to confirm warnings I had
conveyed to the Attorney General on the disturbing
manner the prosecution was being handled. Readers
who are interested in reading again one of my
warnings about the danger of prosecuting Woyome
alone without his accomplices should read my
feature article titled “Amidu’s Perspective On
The Nolle Prosequi In The Woyome Case” on
GhanaHomePage of Monday, 11th June 2012. I have
said already that Government was only interested
in pretending to prosecute Woyome alone and
protecting the others and so ignored all counsel.

The Supreme Court in its judgments of 14th June
2013 and the review decision of 29th July 2014 had
given hints as to who were the principal
accomplices of Woyome in the over
GH₵51million scam. It declared the conduct
of the then Attorney General, Betty Mould-Iddrisu,
in paying or ordering the payment of the money
null, void and without effect whatsoever. It
further declared the conduct of Woyome jointly
with Austro-Invest Management Ltd in making claims
and issuing a writ of summons with the support of
Waterville inconsistent with and in contravention
of Article 181 (5) of the Constitution. More
importantly for the prosecution, the Supreme Court
declared that the High Court which purported to
assume jurisdiction in the action commenced by
Woyome as Plaintiff in suit No. RPC/152/10 against
the Attorney General (then Betty Mould-Iddrisu)
claiming damages for breach of contract in an
international business transaction and entering
judgment in default of defence acted without
jurisdiction and set aside those proceedings and
others consequent upon it as null, void and
without effect whatsoever.

Why did the Attorney General’s office not take
the cue from the Supreme Court decision and charge
at least the other persons whose conduct had been
declared unconstitutional along with Woyome for at
the least causing financial loss to the state?
Would it not have been difficult for the accused
and all those who facilitated the scam after the
declaration of unconstitutional conduct by the
Supreme Court to have escaped a positive verdict
if they were tried together? But where this NDC
Government deliberately and knowingly appointed a
lawyer of one of the culprits, Austro-Invest
Management Limited (represented by its sole
shareholder resident in Ghana, Ray Smith) as its
Attorney General to prosecute Woyome alone, is the
verdict of the trial High Court acquitting Woyome
not a probable outcome? Mrs. Brew Appiah-Oppong,
the Attorney General, just took Woyome’s bait in
confirming publicly for the first time that
Lithur, Brew and Co of which she was a partner
were lawyers for Ray Smith, the sole shareholder
of Austro-Invest, in receiving part of the scam
money on behalf of Ray Smith from Woyome before
her appointment as Attorney General!

Be that as it may, the declaration of the High
Court proceedings as null, void and without effect
whatsoever by Supreme Court created a golden
opportunity for the Republic to have pressed home
the point that the trial Court could not take
account of the null and void conducts and
proceedings in determining the outcome of the
verdict. If the Supreme Court decision was not
brought to the attention of the Judge and his
attention called to the effect of the declaration
of nullity which was made long before the end of
the trial, one can only blame the prosecution and
not the judge. Whether or not a contention based
on an allegation that the trial Judge
misapprehended the application and binding effect
of the retroactive declarations of nullity and
voidness by the Supreme Court in his assessment of
the evidence will succeed at the Court of Appeal
and later at the Supreme Court will depend on how
the submissions are couched and emphasized.

Any contention, in spite of the final decision of
the Supreme Court on the unconstitutional conduct
of the then Attorney General that she took legal
advice from the Ministry of Finance and some
experts is answered by the constitutional fact
that the final responsibility for legal decisions
in the Attorney General’s office stops with the
Attorney General. She cannot legally be bound by
any advice, expert or otherwise of any person or
authority in the performance of her constitutional
duties as the principal legal advisor to the
Government under Article 88 of the Constitution:
she does so at her own peril. Judges receive
medical, engineering, scientific and other
technical evidence from experts in those
disciplines on a regular basis during adjudication
but it is trite that the ultimate decision is for
the judge to make and not the experts. Similarly,
an Attorney General as a quasi-judicial officer
cannot hide behind experts or even the Cabinet for
faulty appreciation of Article 181 (5) of the 1992
Constitution or any other law. In any case the
decision of the Supreme Court which was prior in
time is binding on all other Courts in Ghana. The
foregoing are possible temperate legal arguments
on appeal and do not provide justifiable grounds
for scandalizing the judiciary or a Court in the
media abusively and scurrilously.

I am ashamed of the unconstitutional and unethical
conduct of the Deputy Attorney General who now
occupies a position I once encumbered for upwards
of twelve years from September 1988 to 7th January
2001 for the PNDC and the NDC1 & 2 Governments. I
am a core foundation member of the NDC and this is
not a partisan matter. The unconstitutional and
unethical conduct of the Deputy Attorney General
constitutes an attack on the core values of
democracy, the rule of law, and the independence
of the judiciary which we voted to defend as a
nation at the referendum in April 1992.

I invite every good citizen of Ghana and the world
in general to condemn the Deputy Attorney
General’s conduct in the interest of the
preservation of the rule of law and the
independence of the judiciary in Ghana against
executive governmental impunity.

Source - Peacefmonline



... go Back

 
Add YOUR View here

Ghana Review International (GRi) is published by Micromedia Consultants Ltd. T/A MCL - a wholly Ghanaian owned news agency. GRi is an independent publication and is non-aligned to any political party or interest group, within or outside of Ghana. It is a reliable source of information for Ghanaians and non-Ghanaians alike. This magazine will be of interest to any person with an interest in Ghana, Ghanaians and Africans, wherever in the world they live. This website is the on-line arm of the publication. It contains news and reviews on Ghana and the international communities.

All pages are © Copyright Ghana Review International (GRi) 1994 - 2021