1.9 C
London
Tuesday, December 7, 2021

Dame had the ‘effrontery, childlike pomposity’ to sleep on Dr Ayine’s case against me – Amidu explains

Godfred Dame and Martin AmiduGodfred Dame and Martin Amidu

• Martin Amidu says Godfred Dame slept on a case against him

• He stated that, the AG struck his name from the case as a defendant

• Dr Dominic Ayine challenged the age of Martin Amidu as the Special Prosecutor

Martin A.B.K Amidu, has been explaining circumstances in which the Attorney General removed his name as a defendant in a case filed against him at the Supreme Court by Dr Dominic Ayine.

- Advertisement -

Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine filed a suit at the Supreme Court to challenge the eligibility of Martin Amidu as the Special Prosecutor because he was 66-years-old at the time of his appointment and, therefore, his appointment was unconstitutional.

The suit was against the Attorney General (AG) and Martin Amidu, but on February 5, 2019, the court struck out the name of the Special Prosecutor as a defendant after it had held that he was not a proper party to the action.

Per the Supreme Court’s decision, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is not caught by the retiring age of 60, as applicable in the public service.

But in a five-page statement copied to GhanaWeb, the former Special Prosecutor explained that Godfred Dame, who was the Deputy AG “slept on the case for a year like he did in the recent GPGC/Ghana arbitration.”

He said, when Godfred Dame woke up from his sleep, “he was less than fair and candid to the Court, the plaintiff and to me by refusing or failing to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Attorney General was not, in fact, a nominal defendant as Mr. Dame claimed in his submission but a substantive defendant answering substantively for supposedly nominating the Special Prosecutor under section 13(2) and subsequently the Deputy Special Prosecutor under section 16(2) of Act 959, respectively.”

Martin Amidu further indicated that the Court strangely and unfortunately, failed or refused to hear from him on this issue even though he was present and had announced himself to the Bench and had been recorded in court as appearing for himself.

“My name was struck out from the suit as a 2nd Defendant the same day. But my pleadings remained on the case docket, and I had no doubt that the judges would or had already read them and would take them into account in their consideration of the merits of Dr. Ayine’s case.

“My Amended Statement of the 2nd Defendant’s Case was published for the benefit of the public and can still be found on my website. Anybody may judge for him or herself whether my defence was not far more matured, reasoned, lucid, robust, and stronger than anything Mr. Godfred Dame thinks he filed on behalf of the Attorney General as the then 1st Defendant to have won the case for the Government.

“Mr. Godfred Dame deliberately got my name struck out from the suit (almost a whole year after it started) so that the Attorney General and he (Godfred Dame) could bask in my name, integrity and reputation and take credit for the outcome of the case as he now dishonourably caused to have been done first in his profile published on 9th February 2021 and at the interview, he granted on Metro TV on 24 June 2021,” Amidu stressed.

Martin Amidu in his statement further stated that the Attorney General, Godfred Dame, in the said interview on Metro TV “had the effrontery, childlike pomposity, and arrogance” to have said:

“What I can say is that when his office was threatened by a legal suit, his own status as the Special Prosecutor was threatened by a legal suit; Dr Dominic Ayine instituting an action against the attorney general and himself, I rather defended him [Amidu]; defended him to the best of my ability and my defence was actually upheld by the Supreme Court and that resulted in him continuing as Special Prosecutor…So, in a way, I’m responsible for his being Special Prosecutor, which he so much touts about”.

Latest news
Related news