Former Auditor-General's pension: Court dismisses application for stay of execution
The Fast Track High Court has reaffirmed its directive to the state to pay the monthly pension and all the money owed the former Auditor-General, Mr Edward Dua Agyeman.
Advertisement
That followed the dismissal of an application filed by the state for stay of execution of the court’s earlier order.
The court had, on March 25, 2013, ordered the state to pay the monthly pension and all entitlements of Mr Agyeman with effect from June 2012.
It further directed that the amount should be equivalent to the salary of the current Auditor-General, which is equivalent to that of a Justice of the Court of Appeal.
Displeased with the court’s directive, the state filed for stay of execution pending the outcome of an appeal it had filed against the judgement.
The state had held that its appeal had a likelihood of success and for that reason the court should stay its order, but counsel for Mr Agyeman held a different view and prayed the court to dismiss the application.
In its ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held that the state failed to demonstrate how its appeal against Mr Agyeman would succeed.
According to the court, it was not in the position to exercise its discretion in favour of the state and awarded costs of GH¢600 in favour of Mr Agyeman.
Other Trending Stories
In its March 25, 2013 judgement, the court held that the gratuity and pension due Mr Agyeman were in fulfilment of a constitutional obligation owed him by the Republic, since he was appointed under Article 70 (1) of the Constitution 1992.
Therefore, by the injection of Article 71 (1), his salaries, allowances, facilities and privileges were to be determined by the President, on the recommendations of a committee of not more than five persons appointed by the President, in accordance with the advice of the Council of State.
Granting nine out of 10 reliefs sought by the applicant, the court also awarded costs and damages, totalling GH¢20,000, against the state.
The plaintiff’s gratuity consists of three months’ salary for every year of service he had served in the Audit Service, which was enjoyed by his predecessor.
The court declared that any review of the conditions of pension payable to a former holder of the position of Auditor-General, as will be determined by the report of any Presidential Committee on Emoluments of Article 71 Office Holders, was applicable to Mr Agyeman.
However, it declined to grant the request for the provision of free medical and dental facilities for the plaintiff and his spouse.
Mr Agyeman sued the Attorney-General after several requests for the payment of his gratuity and pension, as conveyed by his letter of appointment, had failed.
The plaintiff retired from the Audit Service on May 19, 2010, and in response to his demand for the payment of his gratuity and pension, he received a letter dated October 18, 2010 and signed by the Deputy Chief of Staff, Dr Valerie Sawyerr, which informed him of the decision of the government not to pay him retirement benefits in accordance with Article 71 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the plaintiff, the letter had indicated that he (Mr Agyeman) was a political appointee and not a career staff of the Audit Service or any other public service and, therefore, did not qualify for pension.
Story: Mabel Aku Banaseh
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh