Lieutenant Colonel Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (Rtd)
Former National Security Coordinator, Lieutenant Colonel Larry Gbevlo-Lartey (Rtd), has jumped into the Alfred Agbesi Woyome controversial GH¢51 million judgment debt saga, attacking former Attorney-General (A-G) and Minister of Justice, Martin Amidu.
This followed claims by Mr Amidu that he advised the Mills/Mahama administration to persuade Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who authorised the Woyome payment, to be used as a prosecution witness in the criminal case against Woyome as stated in his recent press release.
‘I had made it clear to the Mills/Mahama Government as its Attorney-General that no prosecution in the scam involving the over GH¢51 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. I had suggested that Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu should be persuaded to be a prosecution witness in lieu of prosecution. The Government disagreed, so I was removed from office,’ he stated.
At the time, Mr Amidu had taken over from Betty as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice.
However, Gbevlo-Lartey insisted ‘that is not a statement of fact for those who witnessed the episode that led to the firing of Martin.’
In a Facebook post on Samson Lardy Ayenini’s wall, the former National Security Adviser said, ‘Samson Lardy, I can assure you that was not the case on the matter of the sack. Scandalised might be mild!’
Samson had said he felt scandalised by Mr Amidu’s claim that he was removed from office for suggesting that Betty be used as a prosecution witness in the Woyome case in court even though current Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, publicly stated she also virtually went on her knees to beg Betty to be used as a witness in the case; but Betty vehemently refused.
Mr Amidu was sacked as Attorney-General by the late President John Evans Atta Mills, with explanation that it was as a result of insubordination – an allegation he vehemently denied.
But Gbevlo-Lartey would not make a full disclosure of what exactly led to Amidu’s dismissal from government in spite of calls for him to do so. He simply insisted that Mr Amidu’s claims were not a true reflection of what transpired at the time.
That, he said, was because ‘dissemination of a fact accessed by such privilege of office is not, for me, a task at own volition.’
Not even the provocations of other commentators on the platform could make Gbevlo-Lartey tell what happened.
Instead, he said ‘truth stands- suffice it to say that the statement amounts to stating falsehood.’
When DAILY GUIDE contacted Martin Amidu for a reaction, he declined to comment.
Mr Amidu declined to also comment on calls by President John Mahama’s lawyer, Tony Lithur, to report him (Lithur) to the General Legal Council if he (Amidu) claimed to have adverse findings against him (Lithur) on the same Woyome matter.
This was after Mr Amidu stated that the Attorney-General, Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, deliberately left out the names of Austro-Invest and Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, in her entry of judgement, which sought to seek enforcement of the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 order for Woyome to refund the controversial GH¢51 million judgment debt fraudulently paid him by the state.
He said Mr Lithur acted unethically when he represented a liquidated company to make claims from the government.
But Mr Lithur, who is also the managing partner of LithurBrew law firm, felt slighted and therefore noted in an interview that ‘Martin Amidu, as a senior (law) practitioner, knows what to do if he has definite information of unethical conduct of the nature that he accuses me of. If he has any facts to support them, he should take them to the correct forum and he will receive an appropriate response.’
By Charles Takyi-Boadu
This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.