Mr. Amidu believes his appointment automatically makes him impartial.

[contextly_sidebar id=”yZIU42HfSWCVMQg327Ccrq36JIQOKTtS”] As a result, he failed to give a specific answer when he was asked whether he had resigned from the NDC or not.

“ If you read Section 3 of the Criminal Offences Act, the definition of a public officer includes a potential public officer, so when the President nominated me and announced it to the whole world, I became a potential public officer, recognized under the Criminal code as a public officer, so as far as I am concerned, since that day , I am neutral, and that is why you have not heard my voice over the air saying anything because I am coming to an office which has to be neutral and impartial.

“One does not need to resign. The Supreme Court has held that while you are a public officer you cannot take part in party politics. I think it involves Dr. Adjei and co. I did that case in the Supreme Court, so I do not need to make a formal resignation of anything.”

Mr. Amidu also clarified that, he knew what neutrality as a public officer entailed, having served as Ghana’s Attorney General for long.

“It is by operation of law. The articles I’ve written have been in favour of all the political divides. I’ll live by the ethics of the legal profession as the Special Prosecutor. I’m the longest serving Deputy AG, so I know what it means to be neutral.”

Mr. Amidu was nominated by President Nana Addo on January 11 for the Special Prosecutor position.

He is being vetted by the Appointments Committee who will subsequently reject or confirm his nomination.

Even before his nomination as Special Prosecutor, some members of the NDC including former Chief of Staff, Valerie Sawyerr, had raised concerns over his membership, asking him to resign from the party, since he had “become a so-called crusader, sinking lower and lower in the NDC as he seems to rise higher in the NPP.”

Valerie had argued that Martin Amidu began this campaign when he was “relieved of his post as Attorney- General after attempting to assault a sitting Head of State.”

Removal from Office

Martin Amidu was relieved of his post on Thursday January 19, 2012, by President John Evans Atta Mills under circumstances described by aids as ‘his misconduct’ at a meeting chaired by the president at the Osu Castle on January 18, 2012.

He made allegations relating to alleged financial impropriety on the part of another cabinet minister, claims he was asked by the then President to substantiate. He challenged his dismissal, and got a court ruling in his favour.

Martin Amidu singlehandedly challenged the legality of the payments after being relieved of his post at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2014 ordered Mr. Woyome to pay back the money as Supreme Court judges unanimously granted the Attorney-General clearance to execute the court’s judgment, ordering Mr. Woyome to refund the cash to the state.

Following the delays in retrieving the money, Mr. Amidu in 2016, filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking to examine Alfred Woyome, on how he would pay back the money, after the Attorney General’s office under the Mahama Administration, led by the former Minister for Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, discontinued a similar application.

In February 2017 however, Mr. Amidu withdrew his suit seeking an oral examination, explaining that the change of government under the New Patriotic Party under His Excellency the President, Nana Addo Dankwah Akuffo Addo and his Attorney General, Miss Gloria Akuffo’s assurance to retrieve all judgment debts wrongfully paid to individuals Mr. Woyome in response prayed the Supreme Court to stay proceedings on the oral examination since he had filed for a review on the case.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post I don’t have to formally resign from NDC – Amidu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The group condemned Valerie Sawyerr’s comments as reckless and called on the NDC leadership to call her to order or expel her from the party “for her treachery”.

[contextly_sidebar id=”bGF9pb3ZwoQsZe2Y8pun6zUAf5ehgx19″]Valerie Sawyerr, in her article which has been castigated by some NDC personalities, slammed Mr. Rawlings for his criticism of the NDC and accused him of turning a blind eye to perceived failings under the governing New Patriotic Party, including the BOST saga and the fallout from AMERI deal investigation.

“This level of inept wanton folly by Valerie Sawyer beats our imagination and we want to state categorically that, John Mahama and his close associates are behind this ridicule to discredit agenda against Mr. Rawlings,” the group exclaimed in a statement.

“We find Valerie Sawyer’s belligerence, and utterances on our party founder, to be very reckless and we are convinced that such unprovoked attack on the former president could only be part of that grand scheme orchestrated by the Mahama bloc to once again ridicule the party founder.”

“We are by this statement sending a signal to all those clowns around Mahama who constantly spew a bunch of wheat due to ignorance in an attempt to make us believe that Mahama is the best thing that has ever happened to the NDC to be wary of the repercussions of their unguarded attacks on JJ Rawlings,” the group warned.

Find below the full statement

Sack Valerie Sawyer now- Action Movement tells NDC

The Action Movement of the NDC wishes to register our indignation at Madam Valerie Sawyer, a discredited and tainted Mahama loyalist who launched scathing attacks on the NDC founder- Flt Lt Jerry John Rawlings in an article she released to the media last Tuesday.

In the said article, Valerie Sawyer, a former policy advisor to President Mahama cast aspersions at the personality of former President Rawlings describing him as an ‘agitated mosquito’ and other cat-calls.

This level of inept wanton folly by Valerie Sawyer beats our imagination and we want to state categorically that, John Mahama and his close associates are behind this ridicule to discredit agenda against Mr Rawlings.

We find Valerie Sawyer’s belligerence, and utterances on our party founder, to be very reckless and we are convinced that such unprovoked attack on the former president could only be part of that grand scheme orchestrated by the Mahama bloc to once again ridicule the party founder.

We are by this statement sending a signal to all those clowns around Mahama who constantly spew a bunch of wheat due to ignorance in an attempt to make us believe that Mahama is the best thing that has ever happened to the NDC to be wary of the repercussions of their unguarded attacks on JJ Rawlings.

We were fooled to believe the claim that Rawlings has outlived his usefulness. It cost us the 2016 elections. Yet Mahama and his ilks have not learnt any lessons. They are obsessed with the Rawlings and their sense of criticism is only limited to tearing the NDC founder apart.

The NDC cannot afford the cost of any human folly that has the potential of keeping the Party in perpetual opposition. Even after such a humiliating electoral defeat and the aftermath of Kwesi Botchwey fact finding committee report, Mahama loyalists are still living in the past.

Valerie Sawyer is just one of the many wretched comedians and among a bunch of noisy ducklings who have lost touch with reality and will do anything to protect the Mahama status quo and their long pockets.

Valerie Sawyer is anti-NDC. She hates to see the NDC succeed. This is the same woman who is alleged to have actively campaigned for an independent candidate against the NDC’s candidate in the last elections at the Klottey Korley constituency. We are calling on the party hierarchy to call Valerie Sawyer to order, or better still sack her from the party for her treachery.

Long Live Founder

Long Live the NDC

SIGNED

Kodzo Hamenya Keglo (0244608497)

NDC Action Movement.

–

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

The post Mahama behind Valerie Sawyerr’s attack on Rawlings – NDC group appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

I read your spiteful piece of writing on Chairman Rawlings posted on the web.

As much as we have been taught in saner climes to respect opinions of persons on the other swing of subject matters, I am compelled to break my silence just so I can bring a few things to your attention.

A daughter of the good old Harry Sawyerr of blessed memory have the effrontery to publicly humiliate Chairman Rawlings? Someone whose father Rawlings brought into political prominence?

Valerie, what exactly is the motivation for this your needless shenanigans against the Rawlings family? No lessons learned in the Klottey Korle debacle? You know what I think? You are an academic who is politically naive with insecurities and self-hatred.

As a true party activist, I feel like chewing you up and spitting you out – as you did to Rawlings. But then again, I sympathise with you largely on humanitarian grounds – the fact you are an old maid who might be having mid-life issues.

Your continual pissing down the necks of the Rawlingses led you to underestimate the people you so despise. You have also overestimated your intelligence and underestimated your own eccentricity.

Now, you’ve been caught up in your own false narrative about the John Mahama government and you want to blame Rawlings for Mahama’s abysmal showings at the polls?

We all knew that the Emperor had no clothes on. Rawlings sounded the alarm bell and admonished us to chart a new course. You and your cohorts berated him for stating the obvious, claiming you could win without him. The scales have finally fallen from your eyes and you can now see clearly to the extent of calling Rawlings names?

If you were as informed as you seem to think you are, you would know that Rawlings actually founded the political movement that you profess to admire.

The bubble your likes live in may never burst but some of us are outside of it. Unlike you, we are not knuckle dragging ingrates who go about beating the hands that fed our fathers.

An ingrate who inherited but never earned the respect that those who came before her struggled to earn?

Valerie, you were the policy advisor to President Mahama, right?

So, you are saying John Mahama is happy sitting in the stands and urging Rawlings to castigate Akufo-Addo for him?

When did Rawlings sign up to be your back up singer?

And why is your boss, John Mahama, mute over the very allegations of corruption you are asking Rawlings to speak on? Rawlings is now your hatchet man? Today, you and your ilk want Rawlings to do your dirty job for you?

Why is John Mahama quiet about the so-called corruption under President Akufo-Addo but you want Rawlings to speak?

Why don’t you urge Mahama to speak on the issues you eloquently espoused? That’s a bit more germane to the current situation, or?

Valerie, you want Rawlings to be critical of the Akufo Addo government? Not so fast. Rawlings won’t fall for the bait. He will not take on a six-month old government with a four-year mandate. You need to get over yourself, old lady. Rawlings will when necessary criticise the excesses of the current regime but certainly, not at your behest.

You were the chief policy advisor to a president whose mantra at the time was “yen tia obia,” and “dead goatism.” Yes, for the good of your parochial interest, your likes isolated the President from well-meaning party folks and caused the likes of Bagbin and Rawlings to advise you in public.

The government of which you were the chief strategist churned out one corruption scandals after the other, week-in-week out. To the extent that a deal as colossal as the “SMARTTYS mess” – had to be cooked right at the presidency. Did SMARTTYS refund money to the state? If yes, what necessitated that action? C, early the contract was inflated and that amounts to corruption, or? So you see, being eccentric and loutish about Rawlings isn’t gonna save your sorry ass. Thankfully, the Akufo-Addo led government has shown interest in tackling the “corruption system” that was supervised by your boss and ‘playmate’. When all is said and done, and the frog dies, we shall see its full length.

And did you actually link Rawlings’ Chevy birthday gift to corruption? The man’s old vehicle that was remolded by the manufacturers and given to him is now a corrupt act? You want to know about corruption and car gifts? Don’t go far, just ask your boss about it. He was a beneficiary of a Ford Expedition gift from a business man on government project. How about that? It is just ridiculous how low you have stooped.

The fact is, Rawlings is unable to criticize this current regime because he probably sees the regime as more credible than the one you were part of. Ghanaians rejected the NDC largely on corruption rhetoric and so why blame Rawlings?

Valerie, you can choose to be the poster girl for crass behaviour. Next time you write a critical essay, make sure it is against gods with clay feet or you end up dancing naked in front of the intelligent public.

I rest my case.

–

Dela Coffie

The post Dela Coffie writes; slams ‘insecure’ and ‘politically naive’ Valerie Sawyerr appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Valerie , in an article on Wednesday asked Martin Amidu to resign from the party because he had “become a so -called crusader, sinking lower and lower in the NDC as he seems to rise higher in the NPP.”

“I am not a soothsayer, neither am I a harbinger of gloom and doom … but once again I say to you … this time with a nation full of witnesses … that your Achilles heel will destroy you!Respectfully Martin, cut the crap! You have achieved your aim … the NDC is in opposition. I challenge you to resign from the NDC since you no longer promote the cause of the NDC. Or do you also subscribe to the agenda to destroy to take over? The agenda that is based on the premise that it is easier to take over the NDC when it is in Opposition!” she said.

While responding to a petition asking for sanctions against him, Mr. Amidu also replied Valerie Sawyerr’s, saying he will continue to defend Ghana’s constitution than be intimidated by members of the National Democratic Congress.

“I was not surprised that the petition followed immediately after Valerie Sawyerr’s lying, incoherent, disjointed and drunken-like diatribes against former President Rawlings and me. Clearly the John Mahama faction, their surrogates like Valerie Sawyerr and the petitioners who admit to being failed parliamentary candidates at the last elections and others mentors within the NDC think they can frighten core NDC members like myself with threats of disciplinary action. I will rather defend the 1992 Constitution than be intimidated by John Mahama, Woyome, and their surrogates’ unconstitutional petitions.”

The full article from Mr. Amidu is below 

SURROGATES AMANKWAH AND ABIGAIL MENSAH PETITION AGAINST MARTIN AMIDU FOR DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF GHANA: BY MARTIN A. B.K. AMIDU

I consider it immoral that Evans Amankwah and Abigail Elom Mensah who were reported on the internet on the evening of 8th August 2017 to have petitioned on 7th August 2017 to the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress under Article 45 of the NDC Constitution to take disciplinary action against, me, Martin A. B. K Amidu pursuant to Article 47 thereof choose to publish their petition to the press to court cheap popularity in the interim. The gravamen of their petition is that in exercise of my rights as a citizen of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution, I wrote four articles published on 2nd November 2016; on or about 15th November, 2016; on or about 29th July 2017; and on or about 7th August 2017 which were “carefully designed by to expose the Party to public hatred, ridicule and opprobrium and to lower its reputation in Ghana and elsewhere.” I am therefore to be disciplined for obeying and defending the mandates of Articles 3, 12, 35, 41, 42 and 55 of 1992 Constitution instead of alleged inconsistent provisions of the NDC Constitution.

One of the petitioners shamefully described himself on the published petition as Lawyer Evans Amankwah 2016 Parliamentary candidate Adansi Asokwa. “Lawyer” is not a title which any one will use to describe himself unless that lawyer has no confidence in his abilities to allow the public to recognize him by using that salutation when referring to him. Therefore I was not surprised when Evans Amankwah and his co-petitioner refused or failed to realize that the NDC Constitution itself recognizes that it is inferior to the 1992 Constitution and does not abolish the right of NDC members to exercise their supreme rights as citizens of Ghana to defend the 1992 Constitution against acts of NDC members and Government and even against the NDC Constitution itself when it is inconsistent with and in contravention of the said national Constitution.

The first two articles I am charged with were written by me as a citizen of Ghana pursuant to Articles 3, 12, 42 and 55 of the 1992 Constitution to defend the right to representation and free and fair elections. My first article referred to by the petitioners was entitled: “The inexperience and incompetence and arrogance of the Electoral Commissioner are becoming very dangerous.” It was an article in defence of representative democracy and a free and fair election pursuant to the national Constitution. I concluded that article in calling on Ghanaians to: “Let us as citizens defend the Constitution by watching her every step during this election.” Since when did a Ghanaian citizen lose his Constitutional right to defend the national Constitution simply because he is a member of a political party whose constitution is subordinate to the national Constitution?

The second of my articles for which the “Lawyer” and co-petitioner indicted me is titled: “Fellow citizens be alert to the Electoral Commissioner’s other tricks.” I concluded this article by telling all Ghanaian citizens including members of the NDC that: “We must defend the Constitution!” Since when did the NDC Constitution take precedence over the 1992 Constitution to forbid NDC members from defending the national Constitution even if it means acting against the subordinate NDC Constitution?

The third of my articles with which “Lawyer” and his co-petitioner are charging me is titled: “Uncultured behavior of some Parliamentarians subverting the Constitutional Order”. Articles 3 and 41 of the 1992 Constitution enjoin me as a citizen of Ghana to defend it against every other citizen seeking to undermine it. I exercise that right to ask members of Parliament to exercise constitutional decorum in and outside Parliament by praising the decorous conduct of the NDC Minority Leader and the Speaker of Parliament. Are “Lawyer” and his co-petitioner saying that I am not entitled to defend the Constitutional order when it is being subverted simply because one or two NDC members of Parliament are bringing the reputation and dignity of Parliament into disrepute contrary to Article 117 of the Constitution simply because of my membership of the NDC whose constitution is subordinate to the national Constitution?

My last and fourth charge is for my article titled: “NDC created the Electoral Commission chaos that now portends a bad omen for the Congress.” This last article refers to previous articles I had written in defence of the 1992 Constitution against the John Dramani Mahama Government in the previous year some of which the petitioners referred to in their petition, particularly charges 1 and 2 in which I expressed my views that the Government designed to rig the elections. Articles 3, 35 and 41 of the 1992 Constitution enjoin every citizen to defend the Constitution; the State and citizens to take steps to eradicate corruption practices and the abuse of power; to uphold the Constitution and the law; and for citizens to protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse and waste of public funds and property. The 1992 Constitution empowers me to defend it against the looting of Governments and abuse of power in appointments which I rightly exercised in reference to the previous Government. The NDC is a political party and cannot use its subordinate constitution to gag citizens from the exercise of their constitutional rights to speak against unconstitutional conduct and actions of a Government even if it supported it to come to power.

The Constitution recognizes a President as the Executive Authority of Ghana and not a political party.
But why is everybody escaping the consequences of surrogate Emmanuel Korsi Senyo’s petition to remove the two Deputy Commissioners appointed by the NDC Government which for me could affect the future of the party? I called attention to this on 31st July 2017 and wrote my article after almost a week of silence. The truth may no more be important to others but I will continue to speak out for it.

Only strangers would be ignorant that my war against the Mills/Mahama Government is rooted in the looting of GHC51million by the Government and Alfred Agbesi Woyome. I have fought and will continue to fight against the looting and protection provided to Alfred Agbesi Woyome by the Mahama Government since the Supreme Court’s review decision against the Government represented by the Attorney General and Alfred Agbesi Woyome by John Mahama’s Government. The Woyome/Waterville case underpins all my actions in the Supreme Court and writings since 2012 and I do so in defence of the Constitution and laws of Ghana which are superior to the NDC Constitution. There are still payments by Agricultural Development Bank cheques issued by Woyome to former Government and party beneficiaries to be retrieved for the State purse. And where is the Attorney General whom the Supreme Court declared to have unconstitutionally authorized the payment of the loot of the public purse to Woyome? So, in as long as the values and principles of the 1992 Constitution which gave birth to the NDC Constitution are undermined by an NDC Government I will continue to defend the national Constitution.

I was not surprised that the petition followed immediately after Valerie Sawyerr’s lying, incoherent, disjointed and drunken-like diatribes against former President Rawlings and me. Clearly the John Mahama faction, their surrogates like Valerie Sawyerr and the petitioners who admit to being failed parliamentary candidates at the last elections and others mentors within the NDC think they can frighten core NDC members like myself with threats of disciplinary action. I will rather defend the 1992 Constitution than be intimidated by John Mahama, Woyome, and their surrogates’ unconstitutional petitions.

I will continue to always put Ghana First before Party as demanded by the 1992 Constitution. Let those who oppose the fight against corruption in the NDC and who also dislike probity and accountability which I stand for with former President Rawlings do their worst. It is for that integrity that on 31st December 2016 I was chosen by the Founder to light the perpetual flame for the fallen heroes of the 31st December Revolution. I cannot betray that cause and the 1992 Constitution out of which the NDC was born.

Martin A. B. K. Amidu
(Citizens Vigilance for Justice)
8th August 2017

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Valerie Sawyerr’s ‘drunken-like’ piece won’t stop me – Amidu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Valerie, in a lengthy article full of barbs targeted at both the former President Rawlings and Martin Amidu asked the former to resign from the party because he had “become a so-called crusader, sinking lower and lower in the NDC as he seems to rise higher in the NPP.”

She said Martin Amidu started toeing this path when he was “relived of his post as Attorney- General after attempting to assault a sitting Head of State.”

“I am not a soothsayer, neither am I a harbinger of gloom and doom … but once again I say to you … this time with a nation full of witnesses … that your Achilles heel will destroy you!Respectfully Martin, cut the crap! You have achieved your aim … the NDC is in opposition. I challenge you to resign from the NDC since you no longer promote the cause of the NDC. Or do you also subscribe to the agenda to destroy to take over? The agenda that is based on the premise that it is easier to take over the NDC when it is in Opposition!” she said.

While responding to a petition calling for sanctions against him, Mr. Amidu, in his latest epistle, also addressed claims made by Sawyerr in her article, saying “I was not surprised that the petition followed immediately after Valerie Sawyerr’s lying, incoherent, disjointed and drunken-like diatribes against former President Rawlings and me. Clearly the John Mahama faction, their surrogates like Valerie Sawyerr and the petitioners who admit to being failed parliamentary candidates at the last elections and others mentors within the NDC think they can frighten core NDC members like myself with threats of disciplinary action. I will rather defend the 1992 Constitution than be intimidated by John Mahama, Woyome, and their surrogates’ unconstitutional petitions.”

The full article from Mr. Amidu is below 

SURROGATES AMANKWAH AND ABIGAIL MENSAH PETITION AGAINST MARTIN AMIDU FOR DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF GHANA: BY MARTIN A. B.K. AMIDU

I consider it immoral that Evans Amankwah and Abigail Elom Mensah who were reported on the internet on the evening of 8th August 2017 to have petitioned on 7th August 2017 to the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress under Article 45 of the NDC Constitution to take disciplinary action against, me, Martin A. B. K Amidu pursuant to Article 47 thereof choose to publish their petition to the press to court cheap popularity in the interim. The gravamen of their petition is that in exercise of my rights as a citizen of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution, I wrote four articles published on 2nd November 2016; on or about 15th November, 2016; on or about 29th July 2017; and on or about 7th August 2017 which were “carefully designed by to expose the Party to public hatred, ridicule and opprobrium and to lower its reputation in Ghana and elsewhere.” I am therefore to be disciplined for obeying and defending the mandates of Articles 3, 12, 35, 41, 42 and 55 of 1992 Constitution instead of alleged inconsistent provisions of the NDC Constitution.

One of the petitioners shamefully described himself on the published petition as Lawyer Evans Amankwah 2016 Parliamentary candidate Adansi Asokwa. “Lawyer” is not a title which any one will use to describe himself unless that lawyer has no confidence in his abilities to allow the public to recognize him by using that salutation when referring to him. Therefore I was not surprised when Evans Amankwah and his co-petitioner refused or failed to realize that the NDC Constitution itself recognizes that it is inferior to the 1992 Constitution and does not abolish the right of NDC members to exercise their supreme rights as citizens of Ghana to defend the 1992 Constitution against acts of NDC members and Government and even against the NDC Constitution itself when it is inconsistent with and in contravention of the said national Constitution.
The first two articles I am charged with were written by me as a citizen of Ghana pursuant to Articles 3, 12, 42 and 55 of the 1992 Constitution to defend the right to representation and free and fair elections. My first article referred to by the petitioners was entitled: “The inexperience and incompetence and arrogance of the Electoral Commissioner are becoming very dangerous.” It was an article in defence of representative democracy and a free and fair election pursuant to the national Constitution. I concluded that article in calling on Ghanaians to: “Let us as citizens defend the Constitution by watching her every step during this election.” Since when did a Ghanaian citizen lose his Constitutional right to defend the national Constitution simply because he is a member of a political party whose constitution is subordinate to the national Constitution?
The second of my articles for which the “Lawyer” and co-petitioner indicted me is titled: “Fellow citizens be alert to the Electoral Commissioner’s other tricks.” I concluded this article by telling all Ghanaian citizens including members of the NDC that: “We must defend the Constitution!” Since when did the NDC Constitution take precedence over the 1992 Constitution to forbid NDC members from defending the national Constitution even if it means acting against the subordinate NDC Constitution?

The third of my articles with which “Lawyer” and his co-petitioner are charging me is titled: “Uncultured behavior of some Parliamentarians subverting the Constitutional Order”. Articles 3 and 41 of the 1992 Constitution enjoin me as a citizen of Ghana to defend it against every other citizen seeking to undermine it. I exercise that right to ask members of Parliament to exercise constitutional decorum in and outside Parliament by praising the decorous conduct of the NDC Minority Leader and the Speaker of Parliament. Are “Lawyer” and his co-petitioner saying that I am not entitled to defend the Constitutional order when it is being subverted simply because one or two NDC members of Parliament are bringing the reputation and dignity of Parliament into disrepute contrary to Article 117 of the Constitution simply because of my membership of the NDC whose constitution is subordinate to the national Constitution?

My last and fourth charge is for my article titled: “NDC created the Electoral Commission chaos that now portends a bad omen for the Congress.” This last article refers to previous articles I had written in defence of the 1992 Constitution against the John Dramani Mahama Government in the previous year some of which the petitioners referred to in their petition, particularly charges 1 and 2 in which I expressed my views that the Government designed to rig the elections. Articles 3, 35 and 41 of the 1992 Constitution enjoin every citizen to defend the Constitution; the State and citizens to take steps to eradicate corruption practices and the abuse of power; to uphold the Constitution and the law; and for citizens to protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse and waste of public funds and property. The 1992 Constitution empowers me to defend it against the looting of Governments and abuse of power in appointments which I rightly exercised in reference to the previous Government. The NDC is a political party and cannot use its subordinate constitution to gag citizens from the exercise of their constitutional rights to speak against unconstitutional conduct and actions of a Government even if it supported it to come to power.

The Constitution recognizes a President as the Executive Authority of Ghana and not a political party.
But why is everybody escaping the consequences of surrogate Emmanuel Korsi Senyo’s petition to remove the two Deputy Commissioners appointed by the NDC Government which for me could affect the future of the party? I called attention to this on 31st July 2017 and wrote my article after almost a week of silence. The truth may no more be important to others but I will continue to speak out for it.

Only strangers would be ignorant that my war against the Mills/Mahama Government is rooted in the looting of GHC51million by the Government and Alfred Agbesi Woyome. I have fought and will continue to fight against the looting and protection provided to Alfred Agbesi Woyome by the Mahama Government since the Supreme Court’s review decision against the Government represented by the Attorney General and Alfred Agbesi Woyome by John Mahama’s Government. The Woyome/Waterville case underpins all my actions in the Supreme Court and writings since 2012 and I do so in defence of the Constitution and laws of Ghana which are superior to the NDC Constitution. There are still payments by Agricultural Development Bank cheques issued by Woyome to former Government and party beneficiaries to be retrieved for the State purse. And where is the Attorney General whom the Supreme Court declared to have unconstitutionally authorized the payment of the loot of the public purse to Woyome? So, in as long as the values and principles of the 1992 Constitution which gave birth to the NDC Constitution are undermined by an NDC Government I will continue to defend the national Constitution.

I was not surprised that the petition followed immediately after Valerie Sawyerr’s lying, incoherent, disjointed and drunken-like diatribes against former President Rawlings and me. Clearly the John Mahama faction, their surrogates like Valerie Sawyerr and the petitioners who admit to being failed parliamentary candidates at the last elections and others mentors within the NDC think they can frighten core NDC members like myself with threats of disciplinary action. I will rather defend the 1992 Constitution than be intimidated by John Mahama, Woyome, and their surrogates’ unconstitutional petitions.

I will continue to always put Ghana First before Party as demanded by the 1992 Constitution. Let those who oppose the fight against corruption in the NDC and who also dislike probity and accountability which I stand for with former President Rawlings do their worst. It is for that integrity that on 31st December 2016 I was chosen by the Founder to light the perpetual flame for the fallen heroes of the 31st December Revolution. I cannot betray that cause and the 1992 Constitution out of which the NDC was born.

Martin A. B. K. Amidu
(Citizens Vigilance for Justice)
8th August 2017

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah

The post Sawyerr’s ‘incoherent’ diatribe won’t frighten me – Amidu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

He described her biting tirade at Mr. Rawlings as disappointing and insulting and said she had soiled herself with this conduct.

On Eyewitness News, Mr. Teye Nyaunu questioned how “she could stoop so low and call JJ names.”

He added that it was especially insulting and shameful for someone with no deep roots in the NDC to “insult the founder like that.”

“As a matter of fact, when the revolution founded, where was she and what role did she play to the extent that she could now insult the founding father like this – I am disappointed in her,” Mr. Teye Nyaunu stated.

Valerie Sawyerr’s comments came in an article where she expressed outrage at Mr. Rawlings for his consistent criticisms of the NDC. She said he was “still flogging a dead horse” even though the party was now in opposition.

She said Mr. Rawlings was so obsessed with the NDC that he was prepared to destroy anyone and anything in the NDC if that will suit his agenda to be in the driving seat.

NDC failing after humiliating election defeat

But if this was the state of tensions within the NDC, Mr. Nyaunu said it did not bode well for the party’s prospects moving forward “following the humiliation of the December election.”

“It  will be difficult for the NDC to come back if this is what is raging at the top… if she could write an article like this then it means we have reached a critical stage in the life of this NDC organisation,” he said.

“We are not ready to rather go back, try to reassess what went wrong with that, draw up new strategies and she is throwing tantrums into the air to the extent that she will go down the drain and insult the founder like that. I am disappointed in her and that is a shame.”

Mr. Teye Nyaunu further rubbished the sentiment that Valarie Sawyerr’s actions were bold, as she purported in her piece, as “there is the difference between boldness and disrespect. This is an insult. It is not a matter of boldness. It is an insult.”

Sack Rawlings from NDC if…

A member of the NDC, Alhaji Bature, also adding to the fallout, called on the party to sack its founder, Jerry John Rawlings because of comments made before and after the 2016 general elections which have brought the party into disrepute.

He said the NDC could learn from the New Patriotic Party, which has demonstrated that nobody is beyond discipline in the political party given it has sanctioned high ranking members in the past.

–

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

The post Valerie Sawyerr shamed herself by ‘insulting’ Rawlings – Teye Nyaunu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Valerie, in a lengthy article full of barbs targeted at both the former President Rawlings and Martin Amidu said the former should resign from the party because he had “become a so-called crusader, sinking lower and lower in the NDC as he seems to rise higher in the NPP.”

[contextly_sidebar id=”esNixdjoj7uwp31s4MUOswt7WkrP2qK1″]She said Martin Amidu started toeing this path when he was “relived of his post as Attorney- General after attempting to assault a sitting Head of State.”

“I am not a soothsayer, neither am I a harbinger of gloom and doom … but once again I say to you … this time with a nation full of witnesses … that your Achilles heel will destroy you!Respectfully Martin, cut the crap! You have achieved your aim … the NDC is in opposition. I challenge you to resign from the NDC since you no longer promote the cause of the NDC. Or do you also subscribe to the agenda to destroy to take over? The agenda that is based on the premise that it is easier to take over the NDC when it is in Opposition!” she said.

Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Amidu who are considered members of the opposition NDC have on several occasions criticised the party for corruption and other issues they believe contributed to the party’s defeat in the 2016 general elections.

Mr. Amidu ahead of the 2016 general elections asked Ghanaians to vote out the then Mahama administration, arguing that it would take off the shield preventing Mr. Woyome from refunding the money.

Rawlings ‘still flogging a dead horse’ – Valerie Sawyerr

Valerie also expressed outrage over Mr. Rawlings’ consistent criticisms of the NDC, saying he is “still flogging a dead horse” although they are in opposition.

Dr. Sawyerr expressed her outrage over what she described as demonizing comments he made against the current leadership of the party.

Rawlings had indicated that the NDC lost bitterly in the December 7, 2016 polls due to huge corruption scandals that rocked the Mahama administration.

He has on several instances rather commended President Akufo-Addo for having zero tolerance for corruption.

While calling for a complete overhaul of the leadership of the NDC, Rawlings said the party had thrown into the gutters the long tenants of the party which included probity, transparency and accountability.

But Dr. Sawyerr in her probably new epistle said Rawlings was not being fair to the NDC in the wake of some scandals that has rocked the Akufo-Addo’s government.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah

The post Resign from NDC – Valerie Sawyerr challenges Amidu appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The Presidential (Transition) Act, 2012 (Act 845) provides in section 14(1) as follows:

‘On the assumption of office of the person elected as President a person holding any of the offices specified in the Schedule shall cease to hold that office, and shall be paid the relevant retirement benefits and the enjoyment of facilities as provided by law.’

The Schedule to Act 845 provides the following categories of persons to which section 14(1) applies

1. Persons holding office under the Presidential Office Act, 1993 (Act 463)
2. Ministers and Deputy Ministers of State
3. Regional and Deputy Regional Ministers of State
4. Special Assistants, Special Aides to the President to the Vice President and to the Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers, Regional Ministers and Deputy Regional Ministers
5. Non-career ambassadors and High Commissioners
6. Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Statutory Boards and Corporations

On January 11, 2017, the Secretary to the President wrote a letter dismissing the Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Cocoa Board.  The letter provided that

‘Pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Presidential (Transition) Act, 2012 (Act 845) and paragraph 6 of the schedule thereto, you ceased to hold office as Chief Executive of Ghana Cocoa Board upon the assumption of office of His Excellency, the President of the Republic’.

On January 20, 2017, a similar letter was sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority –

‘Pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Presidential (Transition) Act, 2012 (Act 845) and paragraph 6 of the schedule thereto, you ceased to hold office as Chief Executive of the Volta River Authority upon the assumption of office of His Excellency, the President of the Republic’.

Issues Arising

It is important to note that

1. Nowhere in Section 14 of the Presidential (Transition) Act does it state that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Government agencies cease to hold office as CEO on the assumption of office of the elected President;
2. Nowhere in Paragraph 6 of the Schedule in question does it state that CEOs of state agencies or companies cease to hold office as CEO on the assumption of office of the elected President;
3. Section 14(1) refers to a Schedule which provides that the following cease to hold office on the assumption of office of the elected President –
4. Presidential Staffers
5. Ministers

iii. Deputy Ministers

1. Regional Ministers
2. Non-career Ambassadors and High Commissioners
3. Special Assistants & Special Aides (to the President, the Vice President, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers, Regional Ministers and Deputy Regional Ministers

vii. Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Statutory Boards and Corporations

The issue arises whether it is acceptable to interpret ‘Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Statutory Boards and Corporations’ to mean that CEOs cease to hold office as soon as the elected President assumes office?  I do not think so!

Statutory Boards & Corporations

There are a number of Boards of Statutory Corporations in Ghana.  Under Section 46 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792), a ‘Statutory Corporation’ is defined as ‘a corporation established by or under an Act of Parliament’.  Each Statutory Corporation therefore has a piece of legislation or Act of Parliament that ushers it into force and provides the basic rules for its governance.

This means that Schedule Paragraph 6 of Act 845 does not cover Government agencies that are set up as Limited Liability Companies, for example Ghana Airport Company Limited, Ghana Water Company Limited, PSC Tema Shipyard Company Limited, Tema Oil Refinery Limited and Ghana National Gas Company Limited.

It further means that Schedule Paragraph 6 of Act 845 does not cover constitutional bodies set up under the 1992 Constitution, for example the Audit Service Board, Statistical Service Board, Lands Commission, Police Council, Prisons Council and the Judicial Council.  As to whether a case should be made that some of these Constitutional bodies whose governing rules have been further detailed by Acts of Parliament should be affected be the January 7th dissolution provisions of Act 845, may be the topic for another day.

I humbly submit that Section 14 and Schedule Paragraph 6 of Act 845 simply mean that on the date on which the elected President assumes office, the Boards of Statutory Corporations (i.e. the Boards of Corporations that are set up by or under an Act of Parliament) are automatically dissolved.

Alternative Arguments

Some have argued that the dissolution provisions apply only to Government Nominees on Boards of Statutory Corporations.

Note that some Boards of Statutory Corporations have institutional representatives as part of its membership.  Almost all Boards of Statutory Corporations have nominees of the President or a Minister of State as part of its membership.  These persons are usually referred to as Government Appointees or Government Nominees on the statutory board.

For example the board of the Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority (GPHA) is composed as follows:

• the Chairman
• the Director-General of the Authority
• two Directors of the Ports of Tema and Takoradi
• one representative of the Ministry of Transport …
• representatives of port users, nominated by
• the Shippers’ Council
• the Chamber of Commerce
• the Private Shipping Companies
• the Managing Director of the Railways Corporation
• two other persons, one of whom is an employee of the Authority

This means the Chairman, and two other persons, one of whom must be an employee of GPHA are Government Nominees. The representative of the Ministry of Transport may also be deemed to be a Government Nominee since he is a nominee of the Minister for Transport.

There are Institutional Representatives from the Shippers Council, Chamber of Commerce, Private Shipping Companies and the Railways Corporation (now Ghana Railways Company). There are also the Directors of the Tema and Takoradi Ports.

The Director or CEO of GPHA is also a member of the Board by virtue of being the CEO of GPHA.  In other words, whoever is the CEO of GPHA at any point in time becomes an automatic board member.

It has been argued, therefore, that under Act 845, those who cease to hold office upon the swearing in of the new President are only those nominated by the President or Minister of State.  In this case, these would be the Chairman, the two other Government Appointees, and the representative of the Minister of Transport.

Indeed, it may be ‘safer’ to accept this interpretation as it would mean that at least some of the Boards of Statutory Corporations would have institutional representatives left on the board after dissolution on January 7th who can carry on the work of the board as an ‘interim board’, provided they form the necessary quorum.  For example on the GHPA Board, applying this interpretation would mean that seven out of the eleven members of the board would still be at post to ensure that the work of the GPHA continues:

• Director-General of GHAPOHA (in this case, whoever has been appointed)
• two Directors of the Ports of Tema and Takoradi
• the representatives of
• the Shippers’ Council
• the Chamber of Commerce
• the Private Shipping Companies
• the Ghana Railway Company

It should, however, be noted that most of the legislation governing the composition of Boards of Statutory Corporations, provide that the President shall ‘appoint’ the members of the board (i.e., both Government Nominees and Institutional Representatives) in consultation with the Council of State.

This means that whether or not the person in question is nominated by the Government or by the relevant institution, it is the President (or sometimes Minister of State of the sector depending on the wording of the legislation) who does the ‘appointing’.  This is the prescribed procedure and usually has nothing to do with the preliminary nominations.

I would therefore still stand by the interpretation that allows for total dissolution of the Boards of Statutory Corporation upon assumption of office of the newly elected President.

To prevent a situation where work of the Boards is literally at a standstill, the new Government must move quickly to populate the Boards starting with the ‘urgent’ ones.

Chief Executive Officer

A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a statutory corporation is usually a member of the board of the corporation.  Dissolution of the Board does not necessarily mean that the CEO must leave post as CEO, because he is a member of the Board by virtue of the fact that he/she is CEO and not vice versa.  He/she is therefore CEO until removed as CEO and he/she cannot be removed as CEO under Section 14(1) and Schedule Paragraph 6 of Act 845.  If a new board is appointed, the CEO becomes a member of the new board unless he is removed as CEO.

Indeed, I humbly submit that the termination of the appointment of CEOs of Statutory Corporations falls under Section 14(3) of the Presidential (Transition) Act, 2012 (Act 845), which states that

‘A public officer whose office is not specified in the Schedule, continues to hold office on the assumption of office by the person elected President subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of the relevant law applicable to that public officer’.

Anyone who seeks to terminate the appointment of a CEO of a Statutory Corporation must be guided by the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, and the relevant law that applies to the particular CEO, including his/her Conditions of Service.

Interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the Schedule

I have read various sections of the Presidential (Transition) Act 2012 (Act 845) over and over again because it is important to be cautious when dealing with what seems to be a ‘glaring mistake’.

I have learnt that to be a step ahead of others, you must presume that whoever you are dealing with is smarter than you or at least just as smart as you.  This means when you see a ‘glaring mistake’, do not rush to criticize … take your time … do not presume negativity … test different angles to see if the mystery will be unraveled.

I have tried interpreting Paragraph 6 of the Schedule in various ways:

‘Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Statutory Boards and Corporations’

Various categories would be:

• Persons appointed by the President as members of a Statutory Board;
• Persons appointed by a Minister of State as members of a Statutory Board;
• Persons appointed by the President as members of a Statutory Corporation;
• Persons appointed by a Minister of State as members of a Statutory Corporation.

I have considered the following categories as well:

• Persons appointed by the President as members of Corporations;
• Persons appointed by a Minister of State as members of Corporations.

However, any reasonably good draftsperson who sought to include ‘corporations’ to ensure that it was not qualified by ‘statutory’ would have reversed the positions of ‘statutory boards’ and ‘corporations’ in the draft.

I have pondered … by stretching it widely … could the draftsperson of the letter have been reading ‘members of a corporation’ to mean ‘members of a company’ under the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179)?  Section 30 of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) provides inter alia that the Subscribers to the Regulations of a company shall be deemed to be members of the company.

Act 179 further provides that every other person who agrees with the company to become a member of the company and whose name is entered in the register of members shall be a member of the company.  In the case of a company with shares, each member shall be a shareholder of the company and shall hold at least one share and every holder of a share shall be a member of the company.

I have, however, been unable to reconcile such a position with the law, since it is largely accepted that incorporated companies are registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) but Statutory Corporations are established under the Statutory Corporations Act, 1964 (Act 232).

Conclusion

My conclusion is that Section 14(1) & Schedule Paragraph 6 of Act 845 refer to persons appointed by the President or Minister of State as members of boards of statutory corporations.

With due respect to the framers of Act 845, it may have been advisable for the Schedule Paragraph 6 to read

‘Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Boards of Statutory Corporations’.

Instead of

‘Persons appointed by the President or a Minister of State as members of Statutory Boards and Corporations’.

If the framers intended CEOs to be included, there could have been a clause (Paragraph 7) covering ‘all Chief Executive Officers of Statutory Corporations’.  I have no doubt, however, that the framers knew they would be treading on shaky ground by adding such a provision, for the simple reason that the conditions of CEOs of state corporations vary from institution to institution.  Some of these CEOS even go through interviews at the Public Service Commission before they are appointed as substantive CEOs with applicable Conditions of Service. It should also be noted that not all state agencies are statutory corporations.

Recommendation

It is important to note that the thrust of this article is NOT that the newly elected President cannot terminate the appointment of CEOs of Statutory Corporations or Government agencies, BUT that he should ensure careful research into the legality of processes applied in these terminations – each one must be treated on its own merits.

It may be the case that the newly elected President needs persons experienced in governance to guide him on the procedural aspects of these grave decisions and to draft appropriate letters on his behalf.

May I humbly recommend that there are some very experienced and competent Civil Servants in the system, who may be sought out to guide these processes without any political sway being brought to bear on same.

The interesting thing about ‘high-level political governance’ is its tendency to ‘catch one off-guard’.  You may be the greatest lawyer on earth, but you will find that your knowledge of the law does not suffice in certain situations.  This may be due to the incredible weight of Government business and its associated stress level.  You may find that you do not have time to ‘breathe’.  It is important to seek the advice of others and look at precedents in the system.

… Just when you think you have one matter under control, another one comes hard at you … if you cannot duck with the speed of lightening, it smashes you in the face.  So as you duck at the sight of missiles, and as you jump over the landmines, you have to read avidly, analyze astutely and think deeply about the correctness of your decisions and the basis thereof.

You need to be as fast as lightening … you must be a born or trained multi-tasker … and, needless to say, you cannot do it without the Grace of God!⁠⁠⁠⁠

–

By: Valerie Sawyerr, Former Senior Policy Advisor & Head of the Presidential Delivery Unit

The post Valerie Sawyerr writes: Fast as Lightning! [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.