Amidu tackles A-G

A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, has accused the current Attorney-General (A-G), Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, of open bias in her effort to retrieve the GH¢51.2 million wrongfully paid to businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

According to Mr Amidu, in the entry of judgement filed to retrieve the money from Woyome, Mrs Appiah-Opong deliberately omitted the Supreme Court declarations that affected Austro-Invest and the then A-G, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu.

Woyome was, on March 12, 2015, acquitted and discharged on two counts of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state, but Mrs Appiah-Opong expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s decision to exonerate the businessman.

She subsequently filed a notice of appeal on Friday, March 13, 2014, a day after Woyome had been freed.

The decision by the A-G to file the notice of appeal challenging Woyome’s exoneration did not sit well with Woyome, who issued a statement on March 13, 2015 demanding that Mrs Appiah-Opong step down.

Mr Amidu had, on July 29, 2014, secured a Supreme Court order directed at Woyome to refund the GH¢51.2 million he received in 2010 on the grounds that the agreement and the contract upon which he received the money were unconstitutional.

What is happening?

According to Mr Amidu, Mrs Appiah-Opong should have attached the names of Austro-Invest and Mrs Mould-Iddrisu to the entry of judgement, but Mrs Appiah-Opong has denied his assertion that she deliberately detached the said names, explaining that “we filed the entry of judgement purposely to retrieve the money from Woyome, as directed by the court”. 

“What was the point in attaching Austro-Invest and Mrs Mould-Iddrisu’s names when the money was paid to Woyome and the Supreme Court had directed him to refund the money?” she asked.

Perception 

Following from that, Mr Amidu said the perception that he got in his handling of the constitutional cases against the A-G, Waterville and Woyome/Austro-Invest was that "the John Dramani Mahama NDC government under its Attorney General, Mrs Appiah-Opong, has, at every step, done everything in its power to impede the success of the cases”.

“I had made it clear to the Mills/Mahama government, as its Attorney General, that no prosecution in the scam involving the over GHc51 million will succeed by targeting Woyome alone without Waterville, Austro-Invest, Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, the Chief State Attorney whose spouse EOCO revealed had received GH₵400,000 from Woyome while he was handling the case as an attorney for the government, and others,” he said in a rejoinder to an interview granted graphiconline by Mr Tony Lithur, a partner of Mrs Appiah-Opong in the law firm, Lithur, Brew and Co.

Lithur, Brew and Co had at one time acted on behalf of Austro-Invest. 

Other dimensions

In his rejoinder, Mr Amidu said the facts, as he knows them, were that there was no evidence to allege that Lithur, Brew and Co were ever lawyers for Woyome.

Referring to Mrs Appiah-Opong, he said, “In making decisions to prosecute or amend charges, she will be more inclined in her official capacity to protect the interest of Austro-Invest. Indeed, she will be inclined to be biased against even Woyome and protect Austro-Invest.”

Bringing to the fore for the first time why he was removed from office, Mr Amidu said, “I had suggested that Mrs Mould-Iddrisu be persuaded to be a prosecution witness in lieu of prosecution. The government disagreed, so I was removed from office.

“But Woyome did not walk into the Bank of Ghana with an AK 47 or a Bazooka to take the over GHc51 million from the government of Ghana.

“Mrs Appiah-Opong had all the opportunity to have done the proper professional thing upon becoming the Attorney General and assuming the prosecution of the case, in spite of her past association with Austro-Invest at Lithur, Brew and Co.

“I find it impossible not to link Austro-Invest, the main accomplice in the over GHc51 million scam, with the kid gloves with which Ray Smith has been treated and protected by the Attorney General and the unprofessional manner in which Woyome alone has been prosecuted in the criminal matter with the role of Lithur, Brew and Co as lawyers for Austro-Invest.”                 

Wonder

 But in response, Mrs Appiah-Opong told the Daily Graphic, "I deny his allegations. In any case, we are working with Chief State Attorneys on this case. I'm not working on it alone."

She also wondered why Mr Amidu was trying everything possible to link Mr Smith to the scam, when it was clear Mr Smith had withdrawn his suit to pursue the payment to Woyome.

“Prosecutors are supposed to be passionate in prosecuting and in the process be biased against accused persons, otherwise how effective will they be in pursuing persons who have worked against the state? The unwarranted attacks on my person and the firm I used to work for must cease. This will get us nowhere. 

“I have filed a notice of appeal and I have enough grounds to believe it will succeed. Writing letters and counter-rejoinders, all laced with allegations directed at my being, will not succeed. I have a clear conscience and will work for the people of Ghana to retrieve the money paid Woyome,” she said.

Entry of judgement

The A-G also explained that “Woyome's lawyers opposed the entry of judgement on completely different grounds and not on the grounds that we had omitted the names of Austro-Invest and Mrs Mould-Iddrisu”.

“On that day, Woyome's lawyers went to the court to withdraw the application but I was informed Martin Amidu was there to insist it should be struck out.

"How do we serve an entry of judgement on an entity which he says had been dissolved and which, by his own statement, its name had been struck out?" she queried in response to Mr Amidu’s insistence that Austro-Invest be attached to the entry of judgement.

Austro-Invest, according to the A-G, consulted Mr Lithur in 2011 to take legal action against Woyome to demand payment for the role it played in association with Woyome to raise funds for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.

She said Mr Lithur took the court action after his client had gathered Woyome had been paid but he (Mr Lithur) quickly advised his client to withdraw the case when his investigations revealed there were serious issues with the money paid Woyome.

Mrs Mould-Iddrisu, at the time, authorised payment to Woyome after he (Woyome) had submitted his claims.

Woyome had also accused the firm of benefitting from the judgement debt because he had paid $1 million to the director of Austro-Invest, Mr Smith, but the A-G said that money was an amount Woyome had borrowed from Mr Smith.

Lithur, Brew not part of process

Denying claims of exhibiting intense bias against Woyome in favour of Austro-Invest and Mrs Mould-Iddrisu, Mrs Appiah-Opong said Lithur, Brew and Co was never part of the process of making the claim on the government and that Austro-Invest only instructed subsequently to issue the writ against Woyome and upon advice was discontinued.

"Neither Tony Lithur nor I have denied that Lithur, Brew and Co was instructed by Austro-Invest in November 2011 to issue a writ against Woyome in respect of the GH¢51 million," she said.

Upon his advice, she said, the action was discontinued in January 2012 after more facts showed that the sum of GH¢51.2 million was not lawfully due.

Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

enoch.frimpong@graphic.com.gh