General News of Friday, 29 December 2017
Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu has disclosed that the outcome of findings by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) on a complaint filed against the Finance Minister over the infamous US$ 2.25 billion bond in March this year, vindicates the position of the minority in parliament.
He disclosed in a statement released on Friday December 29, 2017 that CHRAJ in its summary of key findings noted several breaches of statutory regulations governing the issuance of bonds and cited the Minister for conduct bordering on criminality
“Contrary to some publications on a number of online portals to the effect that the Finance Minister has been cleared of wrongdoing, CHRAJ in its decision agrees largely with our stated position from the very beginning that the bond issuance did not follow due process”
According to him, the Minority Caucus in Parliament has become aware of findings contained in the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)
“We will engage the media next week to provide details of our position on the outcome of the investigations and consequential matters”, he added.
CHRAJ on Thursday cleared the Minister of Finance (MOF), Mr Ken Ofori-Atta, of allegations of conflict of interest in the issuance of some bonds.
The Commission, however, after its investigations of allegations made against the minister by a citizen, Mr Yaw Brogya Genfi, gave wide-ranging directives in relation to the bond issuance processes to ensure transparency and clarity.
After five months of investigations, which included interviews with the parties involved, industry players, transaction advisors, security brokers and the Registrar General., and the review of guidelines, regulations, laws, and other documents, CHRAJ concluded that, “On the basis of the evidence available to the Commission, it has come to the conclusion and therefore holds that the allegations by the complainant that the respondent has contravened Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution by putting himself in a conflict of interest situation in relation to the issuance of the 5-year, 7-year, 10-year and 15-year bonds, have not been substantiated.
The decision was contained in a 140-page document detailing the investigations, analysis and conclusions.