Dominic Anyine – Deputy Attorney General and Minister of JusticeThere is disagreement over whether the state assisted Mr Martin Amidu, a former Attorney-General (A-G), in his pursuit of the Waterville Holdings judgement debt case at the Supreme Court.
While a Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Dominic Ayine, claims that Mr Amidu received support from the A-G’s Department, Mr Amidu says the claim is false.
Dr Ayine, in a statement released yesterday, said contrary to the impression being created by media reports that Mr Amidu was left on his own to fight the case, the A-G’s Office “researched and supported the filing of processes leading to our identification with and support for
Mr Amidu in the matter of Martin Amidu vs Attorney- General, Waterville (BVI) Holdings, Austro-Invest and Alfred Woyome”.
“These are matters of public record and can be verified from the Registrar of the Supreme Court,” it said.
It said similar support was being offered to Mr Amidu in his case against the A-G, Isofoton SA and A. Agyei Forson for which judgement was expected to be given tomorrow, Friday June 21, 2013.
“In this instance, the A-G’s Office personally researched and supervised the filing of processes in support of Mr Amidu. This is also a matter of public record and can be verified,” the statement said.
However, Mr Amidu, in a statement released to Joy FM, an Accra-based radio station, said, “Did the A-G draft my writ and statement of case in the Waterville/Woyome and Isofoton cases for me? Did the A-G’s office conduct research for me to write my writ, statement of case and legal submissions? Did the A-G pay my filing fees for the two cases? Did not the A-G have to ask for leave out of time to file its defence in the two cases when I was ready for the hearing?”
“Well, why are we fighting over who takes credit for a judgement in vindication of the Constitution? The important thing is that the judgement was given pursuant to an action by the plaintiff in the public interest.
“The A-G was 1st Defendant and remained so till judgement. The office of the A-G would not be helping or supporting the plaintiff if it admitted the plaintiff’s claim because it did not have a defence to his claim.
“Waterville was wrongly paid by an A-G who, instead of protecting the Republic, chose to unconstitutionally arbitrate and paid 25 million euros to them. What prevented the A-G from taking the position I took? They never pursued Waterville for a refund of that money in any court, so how can the A-G now say she supported me in my action?” Mr Amidu asked.
“Was it not the plaintiff who, as A-G, amended the writ and statement of claim at the High Court to plead fraud for the first time and rewrite the whole case now pending in that court? Were the hands of succeeding A-Gs not tied by the pleadings the plaintiff in the two cases left behind when he left office?
“The amendments were purposefully initiated in anticipation of the fact that I was on my way out. Did the plaintiff not go to the Supreme Court precisely because after he left office the A-Gs were trying to compromise the cases? How, then, do you help a plaintiff only when you are failing the people and he decides to sue you at the Supreme Court for the people’s money at his own expense?” he asked.
Mr Amidu said he was saddened by the fact that a government supported by his own political party was spinning even a simple and glaring case and added that he did not want any credit for the Supreme Court decision.
“The Constitution of Ghana has won. The people of Ghana who are sovereign have won,” he said.
According to him, he was not interested in any glory or who must take credit.
“Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not fund his education? Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not give him an opportunity to serve this nation and particularly as Deputy A-G for several years and also as A-G? I claim nothing from the people of Ghana but to use the knowledge they gave me to serve them,” he added.
The former A-G said he had purposefully decided to stay out of the public eye because he did not want the judgement won by the people of Ghana to be about him.
“The government can take all the credit; I do not mind. My satisfaction is that the court has ordered the refund of all monies paid to Waterville to the Republic. The A-G will serve the people well if, instead of claiming to have won the cases, she concentrates on ensuring that every pesewa is returned as ordered by the court.
“Who cares who did what? The Deputy A-G will do well to read Attorney General vs Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited and tell the public whom the Supreme Court selected for praise for excellent submissions in saving the state from a similar situation where the amount involved, when calculated with interest, would have been double the Waterville judgement debt? Did Martin Amidu make noise about it? I am shy of praises, and that is why I have refused to talk to the press or be seen in public. Leave me alone!” the statement concluded.
When contacted for his reaction to Mr Amidu’s statement, Dr Ayine, who signed the A-G’s Department’s statement, said, “I think it is a petty reaction to rather serious matters. I will decline the interview.”
Newer news items:
Older news items: