According to him, it was wrong for Parliament to investigate the matter especially when some members of Parliament were complicit in the matter.

“The President of the Republic was elected upon an anti-corruption agenda and it is expected that he will put this matter to rest by setting up a Commission of Enquiry under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution to assuage the public’s suspicion of any perception of unconstitutional cover-up or window dressing in this matter.”

He said: “This is a challenge to the President because his party, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) on whose behalf he promised the fight against corruption is the majority in the Parliament against which the allegations of bribery have been made in the Appointments Committee and which also supervised the unconstitutional investigations. May the anti-corruption wishes of Ghanaians for changing the Government at the polls on 7^th December 2017 not be in vain!”

The former Attorney General, Martin Amidu, made the remark in his latest piece copied to citifmonline.com.

In the piece, Mr. Amidu rubbished Parliament’s investigation of the bribery scandal, saying it was only a whitewashing move to sweep the real matter under the carpet.

“Parliament could not have been unaware of the fact that because prominent members from its ranks were the subject of the allegations of bribery and corruption, the most transparent and accountable way to dispose of those allegations was to use the processes provided for under Chapter Twenty-Three of the Constitution, particularly Article 278 thereof to submit a resolution to the President to appoint a Committee of Enquiry to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption against members of the Appointments Committee.”

[contextly_sidebar id=”AXeLpby5qWWIESjgmdt7Ify50Pw0MSU6″]“Parliament knowingly chose to constitute itself into a prosecutor, jury and judge in its own cause and act unconstitutionally to punish a scapegoat for contempt in the hope of appeasing the public perceived to be a rabble instead of sovereign and intelligent. An impartial and independent Committee of Enquiry can yet be constituted to impartially investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption in the Appointments Committee of Parliament,” he argued.

Agyarko bribed us

The Member of Parliament for the Bawku Central constituency, Mahama Ayariga, had accused Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Joe Osei-Wusu, of handing over some money he received from the Minister of Energy to the Minority Chief Whip, Muntaka Mubarak, for onward distribution to the minority members on the Appointments Committee.

He alleged that the money was aimed at influencing the minority to approve the Minister’s nomination after he realized that the minority members were unhappy with him over some comments he made during his vetting.

The Speaker of Parliament, Mike Aaron Oquaye, subsequently tasked a five member committee chaired by Joe Ghartey to investigate the matter, following a petition by some minority MPs.

The committee after its investigations stated that, Mr. Ayariga could not prove his claims and thus recommended him for contempt of Parliament.

Joe Ghartey committee’s report unconstitutional

In the piece by Mr. Amidu, he stated that the committee’s contempt charge was unconstitutional and void.

He further argued that, the Committee and Parliament exceeded their jurisdiction and acted unconstitutionally, when they tried to convict Mr. Ayariga for “contempt of Parliament on the strength of Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Orders 28 and 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of Parliament.”

“The Committee knew that under Order 197 of the Standing Orders it was enjoined to confine its deliberations to the matter referred to it by the House and any extensions or limitations to it made by the House (in this case the bribery allegations) but nonetheless went beyond to make findings and recommendations for contempt of Parliament,” Mr. Amidu stated.

“Speaking for myself and in exercise of my fundamental constitutional rights pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution I say that Parliament still owes the Sovereign People of Ghana a fair, transparent and accountable investigation into the allegations of bribery and corruption made against the Appointments Committee of Parliament. It affronts the dignity and honour of the people under Article 1 and 3 of the 1992 Constitution to be treated to an unconstitutional process that ends up sacrificing one of its members as a scape goat for very serious allegations that affects the confidence of We The People in the working and integrity of such an important constitutional body established to guarantee to us democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers, transparency, probity and accountability in governance.”

Below is the full statement from Martin Amidu:

PUNISHING HONOURABLE MAHAMA AYARIGA FOR CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT IS UNCONSITIUTIONAL AND VOID:  BY MARTIN A. B. K. AMIDU

INTRODUCTION

I have read, examined and analyzed the “Report of the Special Committee To Investigate The Bribery Allegation Made Against The Chairman And Some Members Of The Appointments Committee”, dated 29^th March 2017 and signed by Hon. Joe Ghartey, Chairman, Special Committee, and Alhaji Ibrahim Gombilla, Clerk to the Committee. I have also followed the proceedings of Parliament of 30^th March, and 7^th April 2017 respectively in connection therewith, and arrived at the considered conclusion that the conduct of the Committee and Parliament in punishing the Hon. Mahama Ayariga for contempt of Parliament is unconstitutional and void.

It would appear that because Parliament belittles the intelligence of the sovereign people of Ghana who voted it into office, it chose to give the ruling on such an important matter of public importance on the last day of its session before breaking for the Easter holidays so that public discussions, reactions, and exceptions to its conduct may take place while it is on recess. I have refused to take the bait and decided pursuant to my constitutional rights under Article 3 of the 1992 Constitution to publish my considered views on the unconstitutional conduct of Parliament on its resumption from the Easter recess.

For the purpose of the convenience of some readers, I state first the conclusions of my examination and analysis of the Report of the Special Committee and the conduct of Parliament in purporting to punish the Hon. Mohammed Ayariga for contempt of Parliament. The detailed examination and analysis of the Committee’s report and the proceeding of Parliament that led me to arrive at those conclusions then follow together with a concluding epilogue.

The detailed examination and analysis of the report of the Special Committee hereunder demonstrates that a casual reading and comparison of the Terms of Reference of the Special or Ad Hoc Committee of Parliament with the purported conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee against Hon. Mahama Ayariga which were accepted, approved and acted upon by Parliament to sanction him for contempt of Parliament shows that the conduct and processes beginning with the appointment of the Committee and leading up to the conviction and sentencing of Hon. Mahama Ayariga are inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 12, 17, 19, 24, 103, 116, 121, 122  and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300), and Orders 28, 30 (2), 31, 102, and 164 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. They are accordingly null, void and without effect whatsoever.

Secondly it shows that the Committee and Parliament exceeded their respective jurisdiction and acted unconstitutionally when they purported to convict the Hon. Mahama Ayariga of “contempt of Parliament on the strength of Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Orders 28 and 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of Parliament”. The Committee knew that under Order 197 of the Standing Orders it was enjoined to confine its deliberations to the matter referred to it by the House and any extensions or limitations to it made by the House (in this case the bribery allegations) but nonetheless went beyond to make findings and recommendations for contempt of Parliament.

Thirdly it puts beyond doubt the fact that the Committee, and Parliament acted unconstitutionally in convicting and punishing the Hon. Ayariga “because Mr. Mahama Ayariga failed to prove that indeed Hon. Boakye Agyarko gave money to Hon. Joseph Osei-Owusu to be distributed to Members of the Appointments Committee with a view to bribe them” when there was no complaint or charge of contempt of Parliament under the Committee’s Terms of Reference against him personally pursuant to which such findings, recommendations and sanctions could even have been exacted under Articles 103 and 122 of the 1992 Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Fourthly, it shows clearly that, the Committee and Parliament deliberately acted unconstitutionally and with impunity in disrespect of the sovereignty of the people under Article 1 of the Constitution. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Committee could not have referred to Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Orders 28, 30 (2), and 102 (2) of the Standing Orders in its report without realizing that it was exercising powers and functions exclusively reserved for the Committee of Privileges in finding and recommending Hon. Mahama Ayariga to be convicted and sentenced for contempt of Parliament for matters that were said outside Parliament. This is why the conduct of the Committee and Parliament affronts and abuses the sovereign people of Ghana to whom it is answerable at all times by virtue of Articles 1 and 3 of the 1992 Constitution.

The examination and analysis herein also shows that a comparison of the Terms of Reference with the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee demonstrate clearly that 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 the findings and recommendations of contempt of Parliament it purported to make in its report to Parliament. It also explains why Hon. Mahama Ayariga boldly and publicly in Parliament (and was widely broadcast and reported on 30^th March 2017 to have) objected to the jurisdiction of the Committee and Parliament to find him guilty of contempt of Parliament.

It further explains why Hon. Mahama Ayariga rendered the type of verbal apology he made on 30^th March 2017 and which he subsequently wrote at the behest of Parliament and read again on 7^th April 2017. It is amazing that reasonable people can call the letter read by Hon. Mahama Ayariga on 7^th April 2017 an unconditional apology simply because the word “unconditional” appears in the letter. The meaning and effect of that letter to any reasonable person should be clear: “Parliament has found me in contempt of Parliament and demanded an unconditional apology from me consequently I unconditionally apologize to Parliament.” No remorse or regret whatsoever expressed by him in the purported letter of apology.

Speaking for myself and in exercise of my fundamental constitutional rights pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution I say that Parliament still owes the Sovereign People of Ghana a fair, transparent and accountable investigation into the allegations of bribery and corruption made against the Appointments Committee of Parliament. It affronts the dignity and honour of the people under Article 1 and 3 of the 1992 Constitution to be treated to an unconstitutional process that ends up sacrificing one of its members as a scape goat for very serious allegations that affects the confidence of We The People in the working and integrity of such an important constitutional body established to guarantee to us democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers, transparency, probity and accountability in governance.

The people of Ghana voted on 7^th December 2016 to change an inept and corrupt Government and its majority in Parliament and to replace it with a President and his party in Parliament which promised to deal with the cancer of corruption that had consumed the body polity. No credit is done to the change voted for by the overwhelming majority of Ghanaians when one of the first allegations of bribery and corruption made against prominent members of the 7^th Parliament is investigated in a manner that leaves a perception of an unconstitutional window dressing and whitewashing intended to deceive the sovereign people of Ghana. The bi-partisan manner and collaboration in Parliament to accept without debate an investigation report which is clearly unconstitutional demonstrates how far the political establishment undermines the Constitution when no voice is raised against its abuses.

Parliament could not have been unaware of the fact that because prominent members from its ranks were the subject of the allegations of bribery and corruption, the most transparent and accountable way to dispose of those allegations was to use the processes provided for under Chapter Twenty-Three of the Constitution, particularly Article 278  thereof to submit a resolution to the President to appoint a Committee of Enquiry to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption against members of the Appointments Committee.  Parliament knowingly chose to constitute itself into a prosecutor, jury and judge in its own cause and act unconstitutionally to punish a scapegoat for contempt in the hope of appeasing the public perceived to be a rabble instead of sovereign and intelligent.

An impartial and independent Committee of Enquiry can yet be constituted to impartially investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption in the Appointments Committee of Parliament.

The President of the Republic was elected upon an anti-corruption agenda and it is expected that he will put this matter to rest by setting up a Commission of Enquiry under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution to assuage the public’s suspicion of any perception of unconstitutional cover-up or window dressing in this matter. This is a challenge to the President because his party, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) on whose behalf he promised the fight against corruption is the majority in the Parliament against which the allegations of bribery have been made in the Appointments Committee and which also supervised the unconstitutional investigations. May the anti-corruption wishes of Ghanaians for changing the Government at the polls on 7^th December 2017 not be in vain!

EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Introduction

On 7^th April 2017 Parliament completed the process of convicting and sentencing Honourable Mahama Ayariga for contempt of Parliament based solely upon the Report of an Ad Hoc or Special Committee of Parliament without the Hon. Ayariga having ever been charged personally with any offence of Contempt of Parliament or offered the opportunity to specifically defend such a charge. The Speaker on this day instructed and compelled Hon. Mahama Ayariga to read a prior agreed written apology letter by him to Parliament dated 3^rd April, 2017. The Speaker of Parliament on behalf of Parliament then purported to accept Hon. Mahama Ayariga’s apology and to forgive him because: “In all circumstances of this case, I have come to the conclusion that the Honourable Ayariga should be shown mercy on this occasion. May he go and sin no more. He is warned never to peddle such expensive rumours in his affairs in this house.” The Speaker is reported by Starr FM to have continued: “I must also extend a warning to some four or five honourable members who deemed it proper to make untoward lies apparently in support of Ayariga regarding the conduct for which the Honourable Ayariga has now apologized.” Parliament thus concluded the theatrics surrounding the acceptance of the investigations report of an Ad hoc Committee of Parliament into allegations of bribery made against the Chairman and other members of the Appointments Committee and a nominee whom it had vetted.

The context of the proceedings of Parliament on 7th April 2017 cannot be understood without the events that took place in Parliament on 30^th March 2017 using Citi FM online as my source. On 30^th March 2017 I read on Citi FM online that the Report of the Ad Hoc or Special Committee purportedly appointed by Parliament to investigate the bribery allegation made against the Chairman and other members of the Appointments Committee of the 7^th Parliament had been laid before, approved and accepted by Parliament. Hon. Mahama Ayariga was reported to have been found guilty of contempt of Parliament with a recommendation for him to be reprimanded by the Speaker of Parliament and to render an unqualified apology to Parliament to purge himself of contempt.

When the alleged contemnor, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, was called upon to render his apology to Parliament he took objection to the jurisdiction of the Special Committee to have found him guilty of contempt of Parliament before stating that he apologizes because the Speaker and the House had asked him to do so. In consequence of the manner and nature of the apology rendered by the alleged contemnor, the Speaker adjourned the proceedings to the next day to enable him make a ruling on the matter. The matter was again adjourned the next day to enable the Speaker to make a ruling in due course; the proceedings of 7^th April 2017 contains the ruling made by the Speaker on the last sitting of Parliament before the Easter break.

After the proceedings of Parliament on 30^th March 2017 I received several invitations and entreaties from the media for my opinion on the report of the Committee and the proceedings of Parliament in connection with it. I declined to hazard any views when I had not seen the Report of the Special Committee based on which Parliament purported to have found the contemnor guilty and exacted the punishment of an apology from him. On 5^th April 2017 one of the media houses made available to me a copy of the 44 pages “Report Of The Special Committee To Investigate The Bribery Allegation Made Against The Chairman And Some Members Of The Appointments Committee” dated 29^th March 2017 and signed by Hon. Joe Ghartey, Chairman, Special Committee and Alhaji Ibrahim Gombilla, Clerk to the Committee. As the matter was still pending before Parliament for a ruling I had to await the delivery of the ruling and conclusion of the matter by Parliament.

Now that Parliament has concluded the proceedings in respect of the allegation of bribery, and transformed it into an allegation and punishment of contempt of Parliament without any findings and recommendations of the Committee of Privileges contrary to the mandatory injunctions of the Constitution and Standing Orders of Parliament, the matter passes into the public domain for the judgment of We The People in whom sovereignty and the defence of the Constitution is vested under Articles 1 and 3 of the 1992 Constitution.

EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS   

Terms of Reference of the Committee

The Terms of Reference of the Committee as stated in paragraph 9 of the Report are as follows:

“i. Establish whether the First Deputy Speaker, Mr. Joseph Osei-Owusu took money from the Energy Minister designate, Mr. Boakye Agyarko and gave it to the Minority Chief Whip, Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka to distribute to Members of the Appointments Committee;

1. Establish whether there were attempts to bribe Members of Appointments Committee, and

iii. Look into the remit of complaints and assertions made by the First Deputy Speaker about the matter.”

The Terms of Reference of the Committee upon which it proceeded to enquire into and make a report to Parliament did not mandate it to make any recommendations to Parliament but simply to establish the facts based on its terms of reference.

The Committee’s Methodology and Immunity of Witnesses in Parliament

The Special Committee appears to have noticed the limitations imposed upon it by its Terms of Reference and consequently decided to spell out in clear terms the methodology upon which to execute its mandate in paragraph 13 of the Report thereof.

In the Committee’s methodology section particularly paragraph 13 thereof the Committee stated that it decided to hold some sittings in public since the matter was of public importance. The Committee identified four key witnesses for the purpose of the public hearings, namely, Hon. Joseph Osei-Owusu, Hon. Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarack Muntaka, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, and Hon. Boakye Agyarko. In the words of the Committee: “All these witnesses, were witnesses of the Committee. None of them was considered as an accused person, plaintiff or defendant.” Hon Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa was later added to the list of four of the Committee’s public witnesses upon the specific request from his lawyers to be permitted to give evidence and “to provide evidence that would assist your Committee to reach a fair and true conclusion on this substantially important matter of public interest.”

In spite of the clear statement by the Committee that none of the witnesses appearing before it was accused of any breaches of law or the Constitution for which a defence had to be proffered at the hearing, the Committee after reviewing the evidence of the witnesses before it decided to evaluate the evidence by some standard of proof as though it had conducted an adversarial adjudication. In this connection it reminded itself at paragraph 81 and 82 of the Committee’s Report of the fact that “Parliament established this Special Committee to inquire into the allegation of bribery” and underscored the fact that “indeed Parliament itself, like Caesar’s wife should be above reproach.”

Again, in paragraph 83 of the Report the Committee repeated the fact that: “the Committee is a fact-finding Committee….this Committee did not conduct a trial in the nature of a court trial. There were no accused persons before us, neither were there plaintiffs nor defendants. All the persons who appeared before the Committee or submitted Memoranda were witnesses assisting the Committee to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation.” Who then was to meet the alleged standard of proof which the Committee had purported to set out in the Report when the Committee had itself decreed that there was to be “no accused before us, neither were there plaintiffs or defendants”? None of the public witnesses!

By stating in the report that there was to be “no accused before us, neither were there plaintiffs or defendants” the Committee had invoked Article 121 of the 1992 Constitution which gives witnesses to proceedings in Parliament the same privileges as if they were appearing before a court. One of the privileges of such a witness appearing as the court’s own witness is that he cannot suddenly be treated by the court as an accused or a person complained against and convicted upon the evidence adduced before the court of which he was a mere witness of that court. This cannot be done even to a witness called by a party to the case.

I believe that it is for this reason that Article 121(2) of the 1992 Constitution states that an answer by a person to a question put by Parliament is not admissible against him in any civil or criminal proceedings outside of Parliament, except proceedings for perjury brought under the criminal law. It stands to reason from Article 121 of the 1992 Constitution that the Committee bound itself by this provision of the Constitution and disabled itself by its own adopted methodology from finding and recommending any of the five public witnesses of the Committee, namely, Hon. Joseph Osei-Owusu, Hon. Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarack Muntaka, Hon. Mahama Ayariga, Hon. Boakye Agyarko, and Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa for conviction and sentencing for the offence of contempt of Parliament.

Evaluation and Observations by the Committee 

The Committee after what it called a critical evaluation of the evidence adduced before it made four observations, namely:  (1) that Hon Mahama Ayariga was the person who gave credence to what was circulating on the social and other media platforms as rumour “that the Appointments Committee had been bribed by the Minister of Energy Designate, Honourable Boakye Agyako; (2) Hon Ayariga failed to ascertain the veracity of the rumour prior to publishing same as a result of which trust and confidence amongst members and inter-party cohesion needed for consensus building at the Appointments Committee has broken down considerably; (3) the reputation and image of the institution of Parliament has been greatly injured by the allegation; and (4) the reputation and dignity of the Appointments Committee and that of the Minister of Energy, equally suffered considerable damage”.

It is important to underscore the fact there is a world of a difference between observations, and the definite findings of facts by a Committees of Enquiry. Instead of making definite findings of fact on its Terms of Reference on bribery the Committee after making its observations then stated that: “the Committee came to the firm conclusion that Mr. Mahama Ayariga is in contempt of Parliament on the strength of Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Orders 28 and 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of Parliament. The Committee came to this conclusion because Mr. Mahama Ayariga failed to prove that indeed Hon. Boakye Agyarko gave money to Hon. Joseph Osei-Owuwu to be distributed to Members of the Appointments Committee with a view to bribe them.” But conclusions of a Committee of Enquiry cannot be a substituted for its constitutional obligations to make findings of fact based upon each of its Terms of Reference on bribery and not on contempt.

Nonetheless, the Committee consequent upon purporting to come to the forgoing conclusions made two recommendations to Parliament which were approved on 30^th March 2017:

• That the Hon. Member for Bawku Central, Mr. Mahama Ayariga, be reprimanded by the Rt. Hon. Speaker in accordance with Section 35 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300), and
• That Mr. Mahama Ayariga, render an unqualified apology to the House, purging himself of contempt.

Unlike the powers expressly conferred upon the Committee of Privileges of Parliament one cannot find in the Terms of Reference of this Committee any power to investigate let alone to make findings and recommendations to Parliament for contempt of Parliament. And it should be obvious to anybody slightly acquainted with the mandatory duties and functions of the Committee of Privileges, and an Ad hoc or Special Committee that Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Standing Orders 28 and 30(2) confer powers upon the Committee of Privileges in executing its Constitutional functions, and not on an Ad hoc or Special Committee to convict a person of contempt of Parliament. One may also ask why the Special Committee omitted to refer to Order 31 of the Standing Orders which makes it abundantly clear that: “31. In all cases of proceedings where complaint is made of a breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament, Mr. Speaker may direct that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.”

Furthermore, it could not have escaped the Committee that Orders 28, 29, and 30 it referred to comes under Part Three Sub-Part Two of the Standing Orders under the heading Contempt of Parliament or Breach of Privilege and includes Order 31 which it omitted. If the omission was deliberate, it demonstrates lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Committee; if it was inadvertent it demonstrates the sloppiness of the investigation conducted by it.

The Committee, unless it did a sloppy job of its terms of reference, cannot be heard to say that it was not aware of Order 201 of the Standing Orders which empowers a Committee of Parliament to request the Attorney General to attend upon it to give such assistance in the examination of witnesses as the Chairman may direct; the mandatory requirement that a person alleged to be in contempt of Parliament may be represented in the Committee by Counsel in proceedings in the Committee of Privileges; and the fact that a witness before any other Committee may also be represented by Counsel. It cannot be doubted from the foregoing that the Committee was aware of its lack of jurisdiction to make any finding of contempt of Parliament under Articles 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and the Standing Orders 28 and 30(2) but chose to act unconstitutionally and with impunity.

Establishment of Parliamentary Committees

The fact that in making its findings and recommendations the Special Committee acted unconstitutionally and outside its jurisdiction is further demonstrable by a casual reading of Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution, Part Three, Sub-Part Two, and Part Twenty of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana (2000) that makes elaborate provisions for the establishment of Parliamentary Committees to facilitate the work of Parliament.

Article 103 of the Constitution specifically provides that: “Parliament shall appoint standing committees and other committees as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions.” In accordance with Article 103 (2) of the Constitution the Committee of Privileges, a standing committee, of not more than thirty members was appointed for the 7^th Parliament at the first meet of Parliament after the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.

Orders 151 to 190 of Part Twenty of the Standing Orders also specifically provide for several subject matter committees of Parliament assigned with specific mandates. In accordance with Article 103 of the 1992 Constitution, Order 164 of the Standing Orders specifically provides for a Committee of Privileges which shall consist of the First Deputy Speaker as Chairman and not more than thirty other members. Order 164 (2) mandatorily provides that: “It shall be the duty of the Committee, by order of the House, to enquire into any complaint of contempt of Parliament or breach of privilege or any other matter of privilege which may be referred to it and to recommend to the House such action as the Committee may consider appropriate.”

I hasten to add that Order 164 (3) and (4) make provision for circumstances in which a member of the Committee is ineligible to participate in any Committee proceedings, and for a Member to disqualify himself from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member which takes care of the situation the First Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Appointments Committee found himself in the present controversy.

Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution provides for what constitutes Contempt of Parliament and the Privileges Committee made up of a Chairman and not more than thirty other members is the specific Committee entrusted under Article 103 of the Constitution with the duty of enquiring into complaints of Contempt of Parliament or breach of privilege and making recommendations to Parliament. Provision has also been made in the Standing Orders of Parliament for specifically dealing with contempt allegedly committed in the face of Parliament or in Parliament.

Order 191 of the Standing Orders under which the five-member Special Committee was appointed to investigate the allegations of bribery is a residual provision for matters or cases of public importance for which the Standing Orders had not assigned to an existing specific subject matter Committee; that is why it is called special or ad hoc committee. A Special Committee appointed under Section 191 of the Standing Orders will thus be acting inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 103, and 122 of the 1992 Constitution and Orders 164 and 197 of the Standing Orders in purporting to hear a complaint of contempt of Parliament.

The Committee of Privileges is the only Committee with the mandate “to enquire into any complaint of contempt of Parliament or breach of privilege which may be referred to it and to recommend to the House such action as the Committee may consider appropriate.” Every citizen of Ghana has a settled expectation in accordance with Articles 103 and 122 of the 1992 Constitution and Orders 28, 30 31, 164, 197, and 201 (2) of the Standing Orders that he can only be convicted of the crime of contempt of Parliament outside Parliament and possibly lose his liberty by the appropriate Constitutional body established in accordance with law to enquire into any such complaint against him.

Consequently, the conclusions made by the Special Committee and its recommendations to punish Hon. Mahama Ayariga for contempt of Parliament were clearly unconstitutional and an exercise of a naked power of impunity by Parliament. It only served as a smokescreen behind which to hide the very serious allegations of bribery made against the Honourable members of the Appointments Committee and is accordingly unconstitutional.

Defamatory statements made outside Parliament not within Parliament’s jurisdiction

The Committee observed at paragraph 138 of its report that Hon Mahama Ayariga defamed both the institution of Parliament and “the First Deputy Speaker, other members of the Appointments Committee and that of the Minister for Energy….” The Committee on the basis of the alleged defamatory statements outside parliament concluded that Hon. Ayariga was guilty of contempt of Parliament. In coming to this conclusion the Committee refused or failed to realize that the only occasion on which the 1992 Constitution gives Parliament the jurisdiction to punish a Member of Parliament for “a statement which is prima facie defamatory of any person” is when the defamatory statement is made in the face (in facie) of Parliament pursuant to Articles 115 and 116 of the Constitution thereof. On such an occasion, “the person presiding shall refer the matter for inquiry to the Parliamentary committee on privileges which shall report its findings to Parliament not later than thirty days after the matter was referred to it.”

It follows from the foregoing that defamatory statements made outside Parliament by any person (including a Member of Parliament) against any person (including “the First Deputy Speaker and other members of the Appointments Committee and that of the Minister of Energy..”) is a matter subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the land and not Parliament. It is pitiful that reasonable members of Parliament were unaware that they did not need the permission of Parliament to vindicate their dignity and damaged reputation in a court of law. Unless of course, the members of the Appointments Committee allegedly defamed outside Parliament did not have any reputation to vindicate or could not in the particular circumstances vindicate one at a public court trial before the whole nation and were merely shopping for their own forum to save-face and whitewash the defamatory allegations.

The specific constitutional provisions in respect of defamatory statements made in Parliament against any person and giving exclusive inquiry jurisdiction to the Committee of Privileges also demonstrates clearly the unconstitutionality of a Special Committee of five members of Parliament purporting to inquire into and recommending the punishment of any person for contempt of Parliament for a defamatory statement made outside Parliament. The Special Committee observed that: “The reputation and image of the institution of Parliament has been greatly injured by the allegation” contained in the defamatory statements made outside Parliament against members of the Appointments Committee as one of the reasons for concluding that Hon. Ayariga was guilty of contempt of Parliament.

But if the Committee and Parliament had respected the intelligence of the sovereign people of Ghana they would not have failed to realize that by unconstitutionally assuming jurisdiction to make conclusions, recommendations, and punishing for contempt of Parliament for defamatory statements outside Parliament in which Parliament had a vested interest of vindicating its own reputation it was wittingly or unwittingly lending credence to the perception that the defamatory statements might be of such high probative credibility and truthfulness to be contested in a court of law.

Honourable Mahama Ayariga the Scapegoat and Smokescreen burying allegations of bribery of grave public importance.

The evidence before the Special Committee, which it accepted, showed that a number of people made and or published defamatory statements outside Parliament about money being given by Mr. Boakye Agyarko to Hon. Osei-Owusu to influence his approval by the Appointments Committee. One Ablordepey, a journalist, purporting to report from Parliament named an amount of GHC100, 000 to be the amount that had been given for the purpose of influencing the Appointments Committee. Radio Gold is also said to have been the first to broadcast the defamatory allegations on its network. Hon. Mahama Ayariga is recorded to have confirmed aspects of the defamatory allegation to Radio Gold later even though it was clear that most of his statements were hearsay, apart from the definite fact (not rumour) that he and other NDC Members on the Appointment’s Committee received from and later returned an amount of GHC3, 000 each to the NDC (Minority) Chief Whip who had given it to them. Joy FM, Peace FM and other media are also said to have variously published the defamatory statements of alleged bribery.

The report of the Committee records the fact that the Committee accepted Mr. Okudzeto Ablakwa’s account denying the allegation made by the First Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Appointments Committee on oath before it that he did not insist on the allegations being investigated because Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa indicated that the allegation was just created to “spread the corruption” and to “level up the allegation against John Mahama.” Prima facie Hon. Ablakwa had established that the First Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Appointments Committee had lied on oath before the Committee. Lying on oath before a committee of Parliament constitutes perjury, a very serious criminal offence in civilized nations. Just imagine what the results would have been if Hon. Ablakwa had not gone to the expense of getting his lawyers to demand that he be invited to refute the perjured evidence given against him and he had also been found guilty of contempt based on the evidence of such a material witness.

Having established his credibility as a truthful witness, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa further made a direct written allegation of fact (not rumour) in Appendix 3 of the Committee’s report against the Chairman of the Appointments Committee. He alleged that the Chairman of the Appointments Committee confirmed to him and two other members of the Appointments Committee of NDC side that the money they received from the minority Chief Whip “was not our allowance as we had thought and that the envelopes containing Three Thousand Cedis (GHC3, 000) each were from Mr. Boakey Agyarko…”

Hon. Ablakwa offered the Committee every opportunity to corroborate his allegations against the Chairman of the Appointment’s Committee, but the Committee side-stepped its mandate as a fact finding Committee by using technicalities as a smokescreen behind which not to summon those witnesses. Why the Committee as a fact finding body and Parliament refused to truthfully and transparently investigate such an uncontroverted piece of evidence of Hon. Ablakwa should be anybody’s conjuncture! But I hope to God it was not because to do so would have greatly injured the reputation and image of the institution of Parliament and equally also damaged the reputation and dignity of the Appointments Committee as the Committee and Parliament appeared at great pains to avoid.

No transparent findings made on second Term of Reference

The Committee’s second term of reference required it to: “Establish whether there were attempts to bribe Members of Appointments Committee”. The evidence of Hon. Mahama Ayariga on oath and the written memorandum of Hon. Okudzeto Ablakwa contained in the report of the Committee state that they were each given Three Thousand Cedis (GHC3, 000) as bribe through the Minority Chief Whip needed to be cleared, even if Mr. Boakey Agyarko and/or the Chairman of the Appointments Committee were not demonstrated to have been the source of the bribe. Ghanaians need to know why a reasonable number of the members of the minority NDC would be lying for their Chief Whip if indeed they did not receive envelopes containing Three Thousand Cedis each from him. Definite statement by members of Parliament that they each received an amount of money from their Chief Whip cannot be a rumour as the Committee and Parliament disingenuously describe it.

Unfortunately, the Committee failed to discharge the responsibility demanded by the second term of reference satisfactorily and transparently. The reputation of Parliament which the Committee sought to protect and the reputation of persons affected by any such defamatory statements outside Parliament has still been left open to question and suspicion of an attempt at an unconstitutional cover up of the facts.

The Terms of Reference of the Committee did not charge or lay a complaint against any particular person against whom the Committee was to establish the bribery facts of public importance. The question may therefore be asked, upon what standard did the Committee find Hon. Mahama Ayariga guilty of contempt without making any finding whatsoever in respect of Ablordepey, Radio Gold, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and others whose defamatory statements and publications were also on the evaluative reasoning of the Committee in contempt of Parliament? The conduct of the Committee and Parliament, from the foregoing, clearly violates Article 12, 17, 19, 24, 103, 121, 122 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution by acting unfairly, capriciously and in a discriminatory manner against Hon. Mahama Ayariga who had also not been charged with any offence of contempt of Parliament before the Special Committee. It also clearly exhibits naked impunity and patent disregard of the Constitution and laws by the Committee and Parliament.

The unconstitutional conduct of Parliament appears to have continued even after punishing the alleged contemnor. The Speaker is reported by Starr FM to have stated in concluding the proceeding punishing for contempt of Parliament that: “I must also extend a warning to some four or five honourable members who deemed it proper to make untoward lies apparently in support of Ayariga regarding the conduct for which the Honourable Ayariga has now apologized.” Nobody including Hon. Ayariga was ever indicted for defamation in facie or ex facie Parliament. The unconstitutional Committee set up by the Speaker did not find any other person guilty of contempt except the unconstitutional conclusion against the scapegoat, Hon Ayariga. So why did the Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament issue a warning to faceless and unknown contemnors in a case in which his First Deputy Speaker was one of the subjects of an investigation. Does this not give credence to the perception that the intention was to intimidate the sovereign public from exercising their right to free speech in making allegations of impropriety against members of Parliament in defence of the Constitution?

EPILOGUE

I have had the privilege of schooling and several years of public service working with many members of the 7^th Parliament who have always been men of great integrity, learning, and experience. I could not believe that they would knowingly condone such unconstitutionality by Parliament. I therefore interviewed some selected Members of Parliament to assure myself that I had not misapprehended the facts.

Each of the Members of Parliament I interviewed from both sides of the House agreed with my analysis of the unconstitutionality of the conduct of the Committee and Parliament. When I pressed my interviewees on why they did not call attention to the unconstitutionality of the report on the floor of the House, the reply was that the procedure adopted on 30^th March 2017 did not give any of them time to read the 44 page report that had been tabled and that if I had followed the proceedings I would have realized that no debate was allowed on the matter.

Each of them referred me to what happened to Hon. Ayariga when he tried to raise objection to the jurisdiction of the Committee to find him guilty of contempt of Parliament. I have no reason to doubt any of them. I do understand the pressure group dynamics can bring to bear on group members not to fall out of line with the group’s goals even when they are unconstitutional.

On 10^th April 2017 Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa was reported to have granted an interview to one Yaa Titi on Top FM in which he “reiterated that the allegation was nothing but the truth.” The interview reported under the title: “We acted to save the image of Parliament – Ablakwa” vindicates the contention that the Special Committee’s report and the conduct of Parliament transforming it into contempt proceedings is not only unconstitutional but also constitutes an unpardonable whitewash of the bribery allegations amounting to a raw abuse of power. It was reported that:

“The North Tongue (sic) legislator Hon Ablakwa, said Honourable Ayariga apologized to save the image of the 7^th Parliament of the country in accordance with the statement by the Rt Hon Speaker about the need for Parliament to move on, on which basis they supported Hon Ayariga’s apology, because to him (Hon Ablakwa) the minority does not want to be seen as problematic in the house.

According to him, if the committee wanted to find out the real truth, they shouldn’t have refused to call the witnesses he mentioned in his memo that he presented to the committee for questioning. He said when he recommended the CCTV camera evidence, the committee insisted it would tarnish the image of the house and that the public would get to know how the CCTV cameras installed in the house operates, which he claims is ridiculous. ‘If that one is not evidence enough, what about the CCTV camera footage that was recommended?’ He added that, if the minority telling the truth to shield the House from further embarrassment is (sic) seen as liars, they have accepted it according to the Speaker’s call.” (See Ghanaweb 10^th April 2017).

The constitutional oath of the Speaker and the oath of members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, were each abused and violated, according to the above report of the interview, just to protect suspected commission of the crime of bribery and corruption in Parliament in preference to transparently maintaining the institutional integrity of the legislature.

The report of the interview also underscores why an independent and impartial investigation consistent with the 1992 Constitution appears to be the only solution to restoring the dignity and reputation of Parliament in this matter as it woefully refused or failed to behave like Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach and above suspicion, as demonstrated in the foregoing examination and analysis. Otherwise, let’s frankly admit that the fight against bribery and corruption amongst the political elite in Ghana has become a mere political slogan for winning political power and signifies nothing. God Save Ghana! AMEN! AMEN! AND, AMEN!

Martin A. B. K. Amidu

(Citizens Vigilance for Justice)

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post Commission of enquiry must investigate MPs bribery scandal – Amidu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The Member of Parliament for the Ningo Prampram Constituency, Sam George, said Mr. Opoku Prempeh called the Tamale North MP, Alhassan Suhuyini “a fool” escalating tensions into a near-brawl.

This was after the Joe Ghartey committee found the Bawku Central MP, Mahama Ayariga guilty of contempt of Parliament, and recommended that he apologizes to the House.

Mr. Ayariga did apologise, but reluctantly, to the displeasure of some members of the Majority who felt the Bawku Central MP disrespected the House.

According to Sam George’s account, “Napo had called him [Alhassan Suyuhini] a fool. During the proceedings, he called him ‘kwasia’ and that is what triggered the whole thing. And this is not the first time Napo was calling somebody a fool. Four weeks ago, he called me a fool on the Floor of the House simply because I’d asked the Speaker to ask him if he was wearing a school uniform or was properly attired to Parliament.”

But Dr. Opoku Prempeh, also the MP for Manhyia South, denied insulting Alhassan Suhuyini in a statement he released on Friday and called on Sam George “to do the honourable thing by swiftly apologizing for his unfounded claim.”

“I absolutely and unequivocally deny that I used that word on Hon. Suhuyini during the proceedings in the House or at any other time in Parliament yesterday. It must be noted that during yesterday’s proceedings, only four members of Parliament spoke,” the statement asserted.

According to him, the only persons who spoke were the Majority and Minority Leaders, Alban Bagbin and Mahama Ayariga.

Others would have heard insult

Dr. Opoku Prempeh also noted that “whilst the Hansard relating to yesterday’s proceedings is not yet available, the proceeding were televised live. Clearly, I would have been heard by the viewers uttering those words if indeed Hon. Sam George heard them, as he sits on the other side of the House.”

“No doubt the Speaker too would have heard and certainly would have swiftly ordered that I withdraw the word. No such thing occurred, as viewers of yesterday’s proceedings would note,” he argued.

–

By: Delali Adogla-Bessa/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post I never called Suhuyini a fool – Opoku Prempeh appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

According to the Member of Parliament for the Ningo Prampram Constituency, Sam George, Opoku Prempeh who is also the MP for Manhyia South called Alhassan Suhuyini “a fool” hence the near-fight.

“…Napo had called him [Alhassan Suyuhini] a fool. During the proceedings he called him ‘kwasia’ and that is what triggered the whole thing. And this is not the first time Napo was calling somebody a fool. Four weeks ago he called me a fool on the Floor of the House simply because I’d asked the Speaker to ask him if he was wearing a school uniform or was properly attired to Parliament,” Sam George explained.

Background

The five-member Joe Ghartey committee investigating the bribery allegations leveled against the Appointments Committee by the MP for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, presented its report to Parliament and recommended sanctions for Mr. Ayariga.

The committee found Ayariga guilty of contempt of Parliament and aside the sanctions also asked that he apologises to the House.

Although Mr. Ayariga apologized, the Speaker of Parliament, Professor Mike Oquaye, adjourned sitting and said he will rule on the matter today, Friday.

But after the adjournment some minority and majority MPs nearly traded blows in the House.

Sam George explained on the Citi Breakfast Show on Friday that, tempers rose in Parliament because some majority MPs earlier during sitting called for the removal of Mr. Ayariga and a by-election held.

“In the course of the conversation and the debates that went on yesterday, there were calls for by-elections. These are things that get any MP on edge because you were hearing that another colleague is pushing for one of you to be sacked from Parliament for by-elections. It’s not something that anyone will be comfortable with.”

“In the course of the conversation also there appeared to have been an exchange of words between the Minister of Education, Matthew Opoku Prempeh and Alhassan Suhuyini. And so that stoke the fire. However, as soon as we finished the sitting and Speaker walked out, we stepped out to talk to our leader and all you could see was a barrage of majority MPs storming the minority side,” Sam George added while questioning the rationale for the majority moving to the minority side.

–

By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post NAPO triggered anger in Parliament, called Suhuyini a ‘fool’ – Sam George appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Considering its observations from the investigation,  the five member Joe Ghartey committee concluded that “Mr. Mahama Ayariga is in Contempt of Parliament on the strength of Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 32 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300) and Orders 28 and 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of Parliament.”

The Committee’s report, which was laid before Parliament yesterday [Wednesday] also recommended that Mr. Ayariga be reprimanded by the Speaker of the House.

The report said, “the committee having established a case of contempt against Mr. Mahama Ayariga as well as having examined the sanctions regime available, recommends to the House… that the Hon Member for Bawku Central, Mr. Mahama Ayariga, be reprimanded by the Rt. Hon. Speaker in accordance with section 35 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300).”

It further recommended that Mr. Ayariga “renders an unqualified apology to the House, purging himself of contempt.”

The Joe Ghartey committee arrived at its conclusion because “Mr. Mahama Ayariga failed to prove that indeed Hon. Boakye Agyarko gave money to Hon. Joseph Osei-Owusu to be distributed to Members of the Appointments Committee with a view to bribe them.”

Sanctions are adequate

The Committee further held that its sanctions against Mr. Ayariga were fair.

According to the report, “the Committee took notice of the fact that the Hon. Mahama Ayariga is not known to have engaged in acts that tend to disrupt the smooth proceedings of Parliament. Neither does he have a penchant or reputation of engaging in activity which can bring the image and dignity of Parliament into disrepute. Accordingly, we view the recommendation relating to the sanctions adequate in the circumstances.”

Background to bribery allegations

The Railways Development Minister, also former Attorney-General, Joe Ghartey, was tasked to lead the five-member committee approved by Parliament, to investigate the bribery scandal.

The genesis of the bribery scandal stemmed from a Minority member of the Committee, Mahama Ayariga, who alleged that Mr. Agyarko, attempted to bribe the ten minority members on parliament’s Appointments Committee with GHc3000 each to ensure the approval of his nomination as the Energy Minister.

Prior the alleged bribery, Mr. Ayariga, the Bawku Central MP, had narrated that Minority members on the committee had confronted the Chairman of the committee about their sitting allowance. This was followed by them taking receipt of the money which they thought it was to cater for the purpose.

But they returned the money when they realised that it was instead coming from Mr. Agyarko, who the Minority had refused to approve because of some alleged derogatory comments he made about former President John Mahama during his vetting.

The MP for Tamale North, Alhassan Suhuyini and the MP for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, backed Mr. Ayariga’s claims and joined him to petition the Speaker of Parliament to thoroughly investigate the bribery claims against Mr. Agyarko.

In the immediate aftermath of the allegations, the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joe Osei Owusu had said he was privy to an admission that the bribery claims were fabricated.

Mr. Osei Owusu, also the Chairman of the Appointments Committee, said a confession had been made to the effect that the allegation was made by some Minority members to settle scores, following prior claims by the Majority side that Mr. Mahama was corrupt.

The Chairman was himself implicated in the scandal with Mr. Ayariga alleging that he served as a courier for the bribe money which was given to the Minority Chief Whip, Mubarak Mohammed Muntaka for onward disbursement; a claim Mr Suhuyini and Mr Ablakwa both confirmed.

But the Chief Whip and the Committee’s Chairman vehemently denied the claims.

–

By: Delali Adogla-Bessa/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Joe Ghartey committee rubbishes Ayariga’s bribery claims appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

According to the Acting Director of Public Affairs of Parliament, Kate Addo, the information was captured in the business statement for the House last Friday.

[contextly_sidebar id=”U73i2jYViVnQCzanm5ThMVNmq0HleJUM”]“The committee chairman had indicated that the committee will lay its report on Wednesday and it was contained in the business statement that was read on the floor on Friday. So we are expecting that on Wednesday the committee will lay its report,” she added.

The Joe Ghartey led Committee reportedly rounded off its work by taking evidence from three more witnesses.

The five-member Committee was set up following allegations that the Energy Minister, Boakye Agyarko bribed some members of the Appointments Committee.

The Energy Minister has since denied the allegations against him.

Joe Ghartey committee’s report won’t be objective – ACEPA

In a related development, the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA) is skeptical over the objectivity of the outcome of committee’s report.

According to a senior associate of ACEPA, Tuinese Amuzu, questions that were posed to witnesses who appeared before the committee were too skewed in a certain way that did not tell the entire story of what transpired.

Speaking at a multi-stakeholder forum on strengthening responsiveness to corruption-related incidents, Amuzu said “the posture of the committee is as a result of the kind of training that members of the committee had. So we are all brought up into a system that say, if you are coming into this committee there are rules by which you should come. We should be more interested in the substantive matter, and coming to the bottom of it.”

–

By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post Joe Ghartey committee to present report this week appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Mr. Osei-Owusu was the first witness before the committee chaired by the Railways Minister, Joe Ghartey and he was alleged to have attempted to bribe each of the Minority members on the Appointments Committee with GHc 3,000 said to have come from the Energy Minister, Boakye Agyarko.

[contextly_sidebar id=”ns5hNECTQATj9Iqqvb2lwWp7sDU65VRH”]The allegations were made by the MP for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga who said  Mr. Agyarko attempted to bribe the Minority members of the Appointments Committee to approve his nomination after a tense vetting session.

The allegation was subsequently supported by two other Minority MPs; Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Alhassan Suhuyini.

Mr. Osei Owusu narrated that he was initially livid at the allegations during a meeting of the committee members but calmed down after he was given the impression by Mr. Ablakwa that the allegations were a mere political retaliation to Mr, Agyarko’s insinuation, during his vetting, that President John Mahama was corrupt.

“Because Agyarko said our President was corrupt, referring to President John Mahama, we were spreading the corruption allegations. So then the mood in the room changed and we all laughed at it,” he recounted.

“I was insistent that matter be investigated before we leave the room but when he [Ablakwa] said that they created that to spread the corruption I dropped my insistence,” Mr. Osei-Owusu added, as evidenced by his submission on the floor of Parliament in the immediate aftermath of the allegations that evening.

He noted that after this, he expected the allegations to die down but  he was on his way to Kofriudua for the induction course for new MPs when  he “received reports that Mahama Ayariga had taken to social media saying that the allegation he made was true.”

But Mr. Osei Owusu was resolute in his innocence saying, “the allegation that I have taken money from honourable Agyarko whether for myself or for any member of my committee is false. Neither have I discussed anything to do with money with honourable Ayariga or any member for that matter.”

–

By: Delali Adogla-Bessa/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Committee hearing: Osei-Owusu vehemently denies bribery allegations appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

A statement from the investigation committee said: “The Special Committee on allegations against the chairman and some members of the Appointments Committee is to start its first public hearing from Wednesday, February 15 – Friday, February 17, 2017.”

The statement also added that the public hearing will be held daily at the Speakers Conference room.

Background

Parliament formed the committee on January 31, 2017 following allegations by the Member of Parliament for the Bawku Central; Mahama Ayariga, who accused the Energy Minister, Boakye Agyarko of bribing the ten minority members on the Appointments Committee with GHc3, 000 each prior to the minister’s approval.

Mr. Ayariga further claimed that the money was handed to the minority chief whip, Muntaka Mubarak, by the Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Joseph Osei-Owusu for onward disbursement, a claim, both Muntaka and Osei-Owusu had rejected.

The Bawku Central MP together with two of his colleagues, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, and Alhassan Suhuyini subsequently petitioned the Speaker of Parliament to investigate the claims.

Composition of the special investigation committee

The special investigation committee is chaired by the MP for Essikado-Ketan who doubles as the Minister in charge of Railways Development, Joe Ghartey.

The four other members [all MPs] include; Ben Abdallah, Ama Pomaah Boateng, Magnus Kofi Amoateng and B.T. Baba.

The Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Mike Oquaye in approving the special committee cautioned members of the House not to interrupt with its work, and also refrain from making comments publicly that will affect the process.

Vetting of regional minister nominees postponed

In a related story, the Appointments Committee has postponed vetting of Regional Minister nominees appointed by the President.

Vetting the ministers which was supposed to come off today [Monday] has been postponed to Tuesday, February 14, 2017.

–

By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post Parliament’s investigation committee begins work on Wednesday appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Speaker Oquaye upheld a proposal by the Majority leader, Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu, for the formation of the Committee despite a call for the matter to be only referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee.

[contextly_sidebar id=”ZyKqf1VW6xudi2TKbpt2a5hV266SgLzj”]The Effiduase/Asokore MP, Nana Ayew Afriyie, had made the Privileges Committee proposal on the floor of Parliament today  [Tuesday] but the Speaker indicated that the corruption allegations stretched beyond matters of privileges.

He further made reference to Parliament’s Standing Order 191 which indicates that the House may at any time, by motion, constitute a special committee to investigate any matter of public importance.

Speaker Oquaye noted that the Standing Order 191 “should also put to rest whether Parliament can inquire into matter A or matter B anytime in the history of this Republic. Parliament, as the representative of the people, is empowered inherently and is recognized in this particular part of our Standing Orders to inquire into any matter from archaeology to zoology, within the republic of Ghana.”

“Parliament has the power to set up a special committee to investigate into a matter that is of public interest and under that order, I will rule that it is fit and proper for such a committee to be set up accordingly into this matter of public interest,” the Speaker said.

Bribery allegations

Mr. Agyarko has been accused of attempting to bribe 10 Minority members on Parliament’s Appointments Committee, with GHc 3,000 each, prior to his nomination being approved.

This was followed by a petition to the Speaker by three Minority MPs namely Mahama Ayariga, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, and Alhassan Suhuyini.

The three have confirmed that the alleged bribery indeed occurred, hence their decision to ask for investigations, despite the denial by Minority Chip Whip and MP for Asawase, Muntaka Mubarak.

The committee constituted to look into the matter has thirty days within which to present its report. It is to be chaired by Former Attorney-General and MP for Essikado-Ketan, Joe Ghartey.

The four other members are MPs Ben Abdallah, Ama Pomaah Boateng, Magnus Kofi Amoateng and Hon. B.T. Baba. The decision to form the ad-hoc committee, was approved by the leadership of both sides of the House.

Prior to the setting up of the committee, the Majority Chief Whip and Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Joe Osei-Wusu, who stands accused for his role in the bribery scandal, requested permission to go to Court, to enable him clear himself of the allegations.

The Speaker cautioned members of the House not to interrupt with the work of the committee, and must refrain from making comments publicly that will affect the process.

–

By: Delali Adogla Bessa/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Speaker approves 5-member committee to probe bribery claims appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The allegations of bribery surfaced when a Minority member of the Appointments Committee, Mahama Ayariga, MP for Bawku Central, accused the Energy Minister, Boakye Agyarko of bribing the 10 Minority members on the Committee with GHc 3,000 to pass him.

[contextly_sidebar id=”ygDHPXBG7ElLPZZUpASVKXy1IIberiTq”]OccupyGhana in a statement described the allegations as damning to the integrity of Ghana’s Legislature and stressed that the allegations must not be glossed over in the name of partisanship.

Thus, the group is adamant the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Police Service must immediately constitute a team to investigate the allegations.

It also called for the “harshest of parliamentary and possibly criminal sanctions” against those making the allegations if the claims are found to be false.

“We call for an independent Police investigation into the damning allegations and a no-holds-barred criminal prosecution of anyone found to be on the wrong side of Ghanaian law in this scandalous development. In the same vein, we demand the harshest of parliamentary and possibly criminal sanctions for those making the allegations if they prove to be false. We respectfully call on the Police CID to immediately empanel a team to commence investigations and establish the truth, or the lack thereof, in any part of the nation-wrecking allegations.”

“We absolutely refuse to allow Ghana’s Parliament to either add itself to the list of the country’s most corrupt institutions or become a citadel of false allegations, and our demand for this probe will settle the matter of whether or not our legislative arm of government can be trusted to uphold the rule of Law in the Ghanaian Republic,” the statement concluded.

Background

Mr. Ayariga alleged that the purported bribe money was given to the Minority Chief Whip, Mubarak Mohammed Muntaka by the Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Joseph Osei-Owusu for onward disbursement to the Minority members of the committee.

Although the Chief Whip and the Chairman have denied the claims, the Mr. Ayariga has insisted he is certain about the allegations.

Mr. Osei-Owusu has also stated that it is impossible for members the Appointments Committee to be influenced by bribes after sittings as the committee never defers decisions on persons vetted, thus leaving no room for external influence.

Find below OccupyGhana’s full statement

OCCUPYGHANA® CALLS FOR POLICE PROBE INTO PARLIAMENTARY BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS

OccupyGhana® has observed with increasing unease, allegations and denials of corruption making the trade between Members of the Ghanaian Parliament’s Appointments Committee.

Having been profoundly disturbed by the exposés of palpable judicial corruption in Ghana’s courts, and working tirelessly over the space of our existence to help stamp out corruption in executive governance and in public service, we are unhappy about the allegations of parliamentary corruption and bribery being made by MPs against some of their number and others.

We are disturbed by the allegations of parliamentary rot and corruption by credible persons of the Ghanaian society against various other Committees selected to work on Bills such as the GIMPA Act, going as far as to accuse MPs of demanding bribes and payments before sitting on bills. We recall Parliament’s abject failure, refusal or neglect to investigate allegations of corruption made against its members by the immediate past Majority Leader, just before his elevation to that high office.

The present allegations of bribery are grave and sobering and impinge on the integrity not only of Parliament but also of the image of the Ghanaian Republic. These allegations must not be glossed over and brushed under the carpet by the usually lackadaisical or complicit workings of partisan politics.

We call for an independent Police investigation into the damning allegations and a no-holds-barred criminal prosecution of anyone found to be on the wrong side of Ghanaian law in this scandalous development. In the same vein, we demand the harshest of parliamentary and possibly criminal sanctions for those making the allegations if they prove to be false. We respectfully call on the Police CID to immediately empanel a team to commence investigations and establish the truth, or the lack thereof, in any part of the nation-wrecking allegations.

We absolutely refuse to allow Ghana’s Parliament to either add itself to the list of the country’s most corrupt institutions or become a citadel of false allegations, and our demand for this probe will settle the matter of whether or not our legislative arm of government can be trusted to uphold the rule of Law in the Ghanaian Republic.

Yours, in the perpetual Service for God & Country

OccupyGhana®

–

By: Delali Adogla-Bessa/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Police must probe vetting bribery allegations – OccupyGhana appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.