{"id":400935,"date":"2018-02-13T06:08:49","date_gmt":"2018-02-13T06:08:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/citifmonline.com\/?p=400935"},"modified":"2018-02-13T13:15:55","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T13:15:55","slug":"parliament-vet-martin-amidu-today-despite-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2018\/02\/parliament-vet-martin-amidu-today-despite-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Parliament to vet Martin Amidu today despite lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Appointments Committee of Parliament will today [Tuesday], vet President\u00a0Akufo-Addo’s nominee for the Office of Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, despite a lawsuit challenging the nomination.<\/p>\n
The former deputy Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, among other things posits that, Mr. Amidu, being 66 years of age, is too old to hold that office.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit, which was filed at the Supreme Court yesterday [Monday], did not place an injunction on the vetting process, but is praying the court to annul the entire process if it\u00a0finds merit in case against Mr. Amidu.<\/p>\n
According to Dominic Ayine, it will be unconstitutional for Martin Amidu to be approved for the position.<\/p>\n
In his argument, he said the Office of the Special Prosecutor falls under the broad category of public officers who by the constitution must retire by age 60 with a possible extension to 65 years.<\/p>\n
Dr. Ayine contends that Amidu\u2019s age thus disqualifies him from holding that office.<\/p>\n
The Special Prosecutor is however under Article 145 of the constitution, given the conditions of service of Court of Appeal judges who retire at age 70.<\/p>\n
But Dr. Ayine says the said provision does not apply to Martin Amidu.\u00a0He is seeking a declaration that \u201cby a true and proper interpretation of Articles 190(1)(d), 199(1), 199(4), and 295 of the 1992 Constitution, the retirement age of all holders of public office created pursuant to Article(1)(d) is sixty years, anyhow not beyond (65).\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued in his writ that, \u201cany other interpretation would result in an unlawful amendment of Article 199 of the Constitution by legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n