The Supreme Court has ruled that an application filed by the Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu seeking to compel the Attorney-General (AG) to retrieve some €47 million from Waterville is incompetent.
This follows an application by Deputy-Attorney Godfred Yeboah Dame which said the writ was incompetent.
The Special Prosecutor dragged the AG to the apex court in his private capacity and argued that the State was failing to retrieve the money.
The Supreme Court in response urged Mr Amidu to cooperate with the AG’s office. Mr Amidu proceeded to submit to the AG’s office documents he maintained could assist the office to enforce the court’s order.
Wednesday’s proceedings
When the court, presided over by Justice Baffoe Bonnie, called the case on Wednesday the Deputy AG was the first to speak. He expressed concerns about the documents Mr Amidu had filed. He said while they don’t help the issue of retrieval substantively he didn’t think it ought to have been filed as though it was a written address to the court.
The Panel hearing the case, however, responded to the Deputy AG that the cooperation he called for could take various forms and what had been presented by Mr Amidu satisfied the court.
Deputy AG demands dismissal of case
The Deputy AG then proceeded to urge the court to dismiss the application filed by Mr Amidu since it was incompetent. He explained that the rules of the court do not allow for such an application.
“The application as has been filed is incompetent,” Mr Dame said.
Amidu responds
The Special Prosecutor responded that he filed the application due to the peculiar situation he found himself in. He explained that the case in which the Supreme Court ordered retrieval of the money, he was the plaintiff with the AG, Waterville and Agbesi Woyome as defendants. He proceeded that it was interesting in that one of the losing defendants was in this scenario the one required to enforce the decision which was not being done.
Deputy AG Responds
Mr Dame rebutted that the Special Prosecutor was creating the impression that the AG’s office was not bent on retrieving the money. He also said that was why Mr Amidu leaked the documents he submitted to the AG’s office to the press.
Amidu reacts
Mr Amidu took offence as he remarked that he wasn’t a publisher and could not be held responsible for publications in the press.
“Where is the evidence that I am responsible for the publication?” Mr Amidu asked.
Mr Dame rebutted that the Special Prosecutor indeed told the press that the AG’s office wasn’t working to retrieve the money. He maintained the Special Prosecutor said this in an interview on ‘Time with David.’ He urged the court to rule on his request that the application is incompetent.
The Special Prosecutor reacted once again that he doesn’t like it when he’s tagged as someone who tells lies.
“I don’t want to be tagged as someone who lies,” the Special Prosecutor said.
He added that the court’s decision could well affect the desire of the citizens to expend their limited resources to ensure that laws of the State are respected.
Court intervenes
The Panel raised concerns about instances where lawyers speak to the press while their case is pending. It urged lawyers to desist from such practices as they often are one-sided commentary.
Court rules
The court dismissed the application filed by Mr Amidu and described it as incompetent. Justice Baffoe Bonnie explained that the rules of court do not permit the application as had been filed by the Special Prosecutor.