The Attorney
General has put up a spirited defence of the controversial findings of the
Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice.
Pressure group,
Dynamic Youth Movement of Ghana (DYMOG) is contesting portions of the report
authored by CHRAJ on the petition against the processes that governed the issuance
of the controversial 2.25 billion dollars bond.
The CHRAJ investigative
report on the petition filed by Yaw Brogya Gyamfi concluded that the Finance
Minister did not engage in conflict of interest even though he placed himself
in a potential conflict of interest situation by not declaring his interest in
some companies.
DYMOG in a suit
before the Supreme Court argues that CHRAJ overstepped its jurisdiction and
ended up interpreting Article 287 of the 1992 constitution, a privilege
preserved for the apex court of the land.
The Attorney
General in a 13 page response intercepted by radiogold905.com and filed by Chief
State Attorney Sylvester Williams however believes CHRAJ only exercised powers
conferred on it by the 1992 Constitution in investigating the matter and making
findings of fact, recommendations and conclusions.
The AG is of the
opinion that CHRAJ needed to define what constitutes a conflict of interest
situation in order to make the findings it put out.
The AG is of the
opinion that Act 456 the mother regulation of CHRAJ, gives the commission the
authority to investigate issues of conflict of interest without resorting to
the Supreme Court for a working definition of what constitutes the offence.
“The fact that
CHRAJ attempts to define what constitutes a conflict of interest situation;
should not and could not be construed as interpreting article 284 of the
Constitution as canvassed by the Plaintiffs,” the Attorney General argues.
One of the reliefs
DYMOG relates to CHRAJ’s conclusion that Ken Ofori Atta failed to declare his
interest in Databank Financial Services Limited, Data Bank Brokerage Limited and
Data Bank Financial Holdings Limited in declaring his assets to the Auditor General
thereby putting himself in a potential conflict of interest situation.
DYMOG believes
that the Finance Minister in failing to declare his shares in the companies in
question flouted Article 286(1)(a) of the 1992 constitution.
Article 286(1) of
the 1992 constitution states; “A person who holds a public office mentioned in
clause (5) of this article shall submit to the Auditor-General a written
declaration of all property or assets owned by, or liabilities owed by him
whether directly or indirectly. (a) Within three months after coming into force
of this constitution or before taking office, as the case may be.
The AG however
holds the opinion that the Supreme Court does not need look into a matter that has
already been established as fact by CHRAJ hence no issue of the interpretation Article
286(1)(a) of the 1992 constitution has arisen to warrant the attention of the
apex court of the land.
The Attorney General
also dismissed the claim that the Finance Minister contravened Article 78(3) of
the 1992 Constitution by holding the position of Director in Venture and Acquisitions
Limited whiles serving as Minister without permission from the Speaker of
Parliament.
The biggest question
that has arisen from the floatation of the controversial 2.25 billion dollars
bond is whether the relation between Ken Ofori Atta and Trevor Trefgarne influenced
the offloading of majority of the bond to Franklin Templeton.
CHRAJ found that
the relationship between the two men did not affect the issuance in anyway even
though Databank and Enterprise group Limited were notified of the availability
of the bond.
DYMOG however
argues that the Minister flouted Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution by
overseeing the issuance process without disclosing his relationship with Trevor
Trefgarne who is a Director of Franklin Templeton and his interests in
securities.
The Attorney
General however dismissed the assertion as an attempt by DYMOG to question the
CHRAJ report through the backdoor.
Comments
Post a Comment