Posted: Daily Guide |Thursday, 12 August 2010
By Charles Takyi-Boadu
Lawyers for former Chief of Staff, Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani, and Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana @50 secretariat, say they are more than ready to meet the Attorney General (AG) and her prosecuting team in court at any point in time.
They have therefore called the bluff of Attorney-General Betty Mould-Iddrisu to haul their clients back to court on charges of allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
Lawyer for Mr Mpiani, Yoni Kulendi, yesterday told DAILY GUIDE he and his legal team were unfazed by the decision of the AG to appeal against the High Court’s decision to discharge Kwadwo Mpiani and Dr Wereko-Brobby.
Hours after the High Court struck out the case involving the two, the AG issued a statement and granted an interview to several radio stations in which she indicated her preparedness to appeal against the decision.
Though she had not taken time to study the court’s ruling, Betty Mould-Iddrisu insisted that “the discharge of the accused persons by the court is not a determination of their guilt or innocence.”
She therefore indicated that after studying it, she would take such appropriate actions that would address the procedural issues raised by the court.
“I will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the probity and accountability we require from every person entrusted with public money is held accountable and most importantly suffers the penalty for stealing and wasting such funds,” she stated.
“This is an interlocutory proceeding and the court only discharged and not acquitted them. They can therefore be tried again and we will do that by all means,” the Attorney General said in a statement issued in Accra.
Mrs. Mould-Iddrisu was in Namibia at the time the court gave its ruling.
But Mr Kulendi has stated that “they have an uphill task overturning that verdict, we do not. Our responsibility will be to sustain the verdict to show the court was right.
“It is proper for them to go back to their books instead of these unexamined comments they are making in the air when they haven’t even read the judgment.”
Whilst he agreed that the AG had a legitimate option to appeal the High Court’s decision, he said “we will be ready to meet them any day anytime.
But my sense is that anybody who reads the ruling…it’s a very compelling, erudite, lucid reasoning based on the law. I think it’s a correct statement of the law.”
That notwithstanding, Yoni noted “if you are stuck with a very compelling decision and you persist in the way in which the indications are coming, then your good faith becomes questionable.
“It’s the AG’s constitutional prerogative to mount an appeal which is what it sought to do. If it turns out that she is wrong, she is wrong. I think that anytime the law is upheld, the Attorney General wins. The courts have spoken, they have upheld the law.”
He hoped that the AG and her legal team would stick to their legitimate option which was the essence of the rule of law.
In his ruling, which lasted an hour and nine minutes, Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, a Court of Appeal judge, sitting as additional High Court judge, described the Attorney General’s action as “unconstitutional” and said it was an “abuse of the AG’s powers under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution”.
The court said the prosecution of Dr. Wereko-Brobby and Mr. Mpiani was based on the White Paper issued by the government after the Ghana @ 50 Commission of Enquiry report, adding that the constitution frowned on any attempt to mount criminal proceedings against any person who testified before a Commission of Enquiry and the prosecution was based on adverse findings of that Commission.
The judge said the essence of a Commission of Enquiry was to afford the President the opportunity to establish an independent body to investigate any wrongdoing and make adverse findings.
Once the President went ahead to issue a White Paper, the findings became a judgment of a High Court.
“If the intention is to prosecute public officials, then the way to go is not to use findings of a Commission of Enquiry.
The state is at liberty to use the traditional way of prosecuting public officials so that the AG can exercise the powers rightly,” the presiding Judge said.