I will always put Ghana First before Party as demanded by the 1992 Constitution. Indeed, the NDC Constitution itself recognizes that it is inferior to the 1992 Constitution. It does not abolish the right of NDC members to exercise their supreme rights as citizens of Ghana to defend the 1992 Constitution against acts of NDC members and Government and even against the NDC Constitution itself when it is inconsistent with and in contravention of the said national Constitution. The Woyome/Waterville case underpins all my actions in the Supreme Court and writings since 2012 and I do so in defence of the Constitution and laws of Ghana which are superior to the NDC Constitution. I will rather defend the 1992 Constitution than be intimidated by John Mahama, Woyome, and their surrogates’ unconstitutional petitions.

Thank you, Mr. Kweku Baako, for not allowing the matter of “the missing link” in the Woyome criminal saga to die a natural death for lack of any public voice. If the present Government was really bent on fighting corruption, there are other aspects of the Woyome case which it could pursue. One of the problems faced by some of the appointees of the current Government is the ability to go beyond the biased advice being proffered to them by senior public officers they inherited from the previous Government. Unfortunately, some officers who earned their mid-night promotions protecting the looting and covering up of the activities of the previous Government, are still at work. They have no interest in pointing out residual matters in the Woyome case – and in the end, it will depend on the personal commitment, the energy and industry granted by the present Government to fish out those “missing link” matters.

Does the Africa Court have jurisdiction to hear a purely civil case between a private citizen, Amidu, against the Republic as a nominal defendant and another private citizen, Woyome, by admitting Woyome as the applicant and substituting the Republic as the defendant before the Africa Court? Until execution is completed I am still the plaintiff and the case continues to be a civil case between two private citizens. Woyome’s present scheme of using the side door to eliminate me from the case at the Africa Court allows him to procure sweet victory under the regime of President Nana Akufo Addo, and will mean that the people of Ghana will lose the benefit of the judgment I obtained against Woyome at the Supreme Court.

The Major Mahama Trust Fund Bill that was laid on 24th October 2017 and passed by Parliament on 8th November 2017 for the President’s signature suffers from several constitutional, legal and policy defects. It also seriously undermines and puts to naught several provisions of the Armed Forces Act, 1962 (Act 105) as revised, and Regulations made thereunder to compose and regulate the conduct of the Ghana Armed Forces. I am therefore writing to add my voice to three written and published appeals by three well-meaning citizens to His Excellency the President, Nana Akufo Addo to think long before appending his signature to the Major Mahama Trust Bill.

The words “time dependent pseudonym” in cyber language and criminal investigations have a fixed and known meaning and a mere claim of authorship of the article by Ohenenana without more does not criminally exonerate Ablakwa from responsibility for using the time dependent pseudonym in real time in cyber security theory and law. It does not mean that no person called Andrews Krow in real life exists. It simply means that in real-time Ablakwa depended on that name as his pseudonym. The use of the time dependent pseudonym Andrew Krow by Ablakwa cannot, therefore, be speculated to be an inconsistency or an error even by Modern Ghana who published the article with the time dependent pseudonym article carrying Ablakwa’s real name and rank name at the tail end of the article. The claims and denials are clearly a criminal enterprise in cyber space. I act upon legal evidence and actionable intelligence not speculation, so kindly publish my rejoinder to Ablakwa.

Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, you are characteristically continuing your efforts to draw attention away from the evidence of your previous bad character on which I adduced documentary evidence in my article on your insulting behavior with the mischievous denials in your latest post, which I have read. You are boldly attempting to surpass even Paul Joseph Goebbels in the art of denying the obvious in God’s name. Kindly just explain to the public how your article “On Development In Kenyan…” published on myjoyonline.com in your real name and Parliamentary rank on 4th September 2017 was published on modernghana.com on the same day in your time dependent pseudonym Andrew Krow and stop your childlike and mischievous denials (Emphasis supplied). I am done with responding to your continued mischief. Truth always stands!

Hon. Ablakwa is a son who must be put right when he goes wrong. I cannot therefore refuse to accept his greetings and well wishes as that would be taboo in northern custom and tradition. While I am ready to over-look this incident completely after calling him to order as a father should do, I cannot from my investigations before I wrote my article accept his mischievous denial of the authorship of one of the articles or any of them written insultingly against me. Hon. Ablakwa is fast learning the art of covert operations and deniability in international relations, intelligence, and security. Unfortunately, he left too many foot prints that have exposed him and convince me with the precision of mathematics that he was the author of the two articles. I would rather wish to believe that Hon. Ablakwa’s partial denial signals a new beginning conveyed in the tone of the mischievous denial.

Okudzeto Ablakwa is the person whom while claiming to be entitled to the title Honourable Deputy Minister at age 28 years without having done any public service in his life has made himself notorious for insulting everybody old enough to be his father and other elders including former President Rawlings and former President Kuffuor. When a child is cursed by a father who brought him up from age three because of disrespect and insults to him the child grows up to become the type of Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa: with sharp teeth, both figuratively and physically and a scourge on all elders of the whole Ghanaian society except those who feed his greedy political stomach.

Despite my preference for strengthening the traditional, common law and conventional independence of the Attorney General under our Anglo-American-Ghanaian system of jurisprudence; upon my examination, analysis and critique of the provisions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017, I have concluded that the establishment of a permanent Office of the Special Prosecutor is legal under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution so long as it is done under the authority of the Attorney General. However, the feasibility of establishing a permanent Office of the Special Prosecutor to deal specifically with corruption and related offences by law is premised on the exemplary moral compass and integrity of the Executive Authority personified by the elected President and his determination to give law enforcement authorities, including the Attorney General, the expected constitutional support to operate strictly in accordance with their oaths of office to be fair, transparent and impartial in the execution of their duties without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Absent such a President and public officers, no number of enactments can achieve the objective of fighting systemic corruption in Ghana. My hope is that this paper will help civil society, the active public, the Government and Parliament to give due consideration to all the factors that need to be taken into account to make the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 now being discussed by the Committee of Parliament during the vacation, capable of being enacted in a bi-partisan manner when Parliament resumes in October 2017.

For the first time in the history of Africa, the Kenyan Supreme Court made all students and activists of free, transparent and fair elections in the emerging democracies in Africa proud by having the faith of their conviction to declare the Presidential election held in that country null and void. The Supreme Court cited irregularities in the vote, particularly the tampering with the electronic transmission of the results of the elections from the polling stations, and ordered a new one within 60 days. The Kenyan Supreme Court decision is a land mark decision in Africa and must be acknowledged without any attempt to intimidate the Court. May other Supreme Courts or Constitutional Courts in Africa be bold to follow such independent steps in the future where the facts dictate similar outcomes.

Any time I have raised issues concerning or relating to the unconstitutional actions or conduct (particularly about corruption and abuse of power) of the Mills/Mahama Government and the John Dramani Mahama Government, the result is a tedious repetition of the same sterile cowardly attacks on my person and multiple attempts at character assassination. The real question is whether it is the conduct of Martin Amidu that has exposed the Party? Or is it the NDC itself acting through the NEC on behalf of the Congress and some members of the NEC in their personal and official capacities that has “exposed the Party to public hatred, ridicule and opprobrium and lowered its reputation in Ghana and elsewhere”? The John Mahama surrogates or faction in the NDC ought to be warned that their modus operandi of personal attacks will not lead to reasoned dialogue, but may push me to invoke my right pursuant to Article 2 and 130 of the Constitution so that the Supreme Court may settle once and for all whether or not under Article 55 of the Constitution a political party can gag a citizen from defending, and upholding the Constitution demonstrated with a Supreme Court judgment simply because he is perceived to be a member of that political party.

There is an unsavory development in which some politicians - particularly some Members of Parliament and other political office holders – have cultivated the dishonourable habit of under-rating the intelligence of We the People by filling the press with half-truths. They misrepresent the injunctions of the Constitution and laws of Ghana to court cheap public sympathy any time one of the law enforcement agencies executes the law against one of them for the suspected commission of crime. I hate the hypocrisy, double standards and audacity of the Minority in Parliament to unlawfully and unconstitutionally impede police in the performance of their duties contrary to their very oaths of office as Members of Parliament, simply because their colleague is now under suspicion of crime in relation to the stinking AMERI contracts. Being a Member of Parliament cannot be used by former Government Ministers as an insurance against the commission or suspected commission of crimes. Ghanaians, be alert!

Yaw Donkor, it does not lie in your mouth to be whining when the police bent over backwards to only invite you to the police station. Do you remember any of those people whose fundamental rights and freedoms you violated without compunction the right to counsel, yet which you are lucky to have been given by the police? Your predicament is Karma for abuse of the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens as a public officer during your oppressive service in the Security and Intelligence services of Ghana. Stop whining for the respectful treatment from the police when you refused to grant to your fellow citizens similar respect when you had the opportunity to serve our motherland Ghana.

One cannot claim the rights of an Honourable Member of Parliament when as a Minister one created suspicion of looting the national purse and deliberately running to Parliament (in anticipation of one’s his Government being voted out of office) to escape justice through the subterfuge of immunity. The President was elected with a national mandate to fight corruption. The Speaker and the Parliamentary Minister have created the impression that there is a mismatch between their perception of who must be investigated and prosecuted for suspected looting of the public purse, and the President’s vision and determination to prevent future looting by fighting corruption within his first four-year term. However, the Speaker and the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs have no national mandate to undermine the President’s executive authority to enforce the law through the instrumentality of his policing and prosecutorial powers. Only the courts of law can contest his authority.

The reputation and dignity of the Speaker of Parliament has deliberately been brought into serious inexcusable opprobrium and disrepute both in and outside Parliament by those indecorous Members of Parliament who rioted, banged desks, wagged their figures at the Speaker and granted interviews to the media to bring the high office of the Speaker into disrepute and contempt before reasonable members of the public. We elected the 275 Members of Parliament to show exemplary conduct to the nation in discharging their functions on our behalf in Parliament. Consequently, those who are calling for mere apologies to assuage the deliberate contempt are not helping to uphold the Constitutional order. The reputation, dignity and honour of the office of Speaker (bi-partisanly elected) must not be allowed to be used for partisan, cheap and uncouth posturing in any way.

There is an unsavory development in which some politicians - particularly some Members of Parliament and other political office holders – have cultivated the dishonourable habit of under-rating the intelligence of We the People by filling the press with half-truths. They misrepresent the injunctions of the Constitution and laws of Ghana to court cheap public sympathy any time one of the law enforcement agencies executes the law against one of them for the suspected commission of crime. I hate the hypocrisy, double standards and audacity of the Minority in Parliament to unlawfully and unconstitutionally impede police in the performance of their duties contrary to their very oaths of office as Members of Parliament, simply because their colleague is now under suspicion of crime in relation to the stinking AMERI contracts. Being a Member of Parliament cannot be used by former Government Ministers as an insurance against the commission or suspected commission of crimes. Ghanaians, be alert!

Is someone sabotaging the President’s fight against corruption? The current enactment of the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor Bill, 2017, raises questions around the inclusion of Clause 3 sub-clause 4 of the Bill. If, as it states, the Special Prosecutor is not to investigate and prosecute corruption offences relating to the Public Procurement Act, 2003 and the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 – this lays down vague and ambiguous exceptions that can be exploited. Whoever inserted the sub-clause is legalizing an undefined species of corruption as not being serious enough to warrant prosecution ever or at all. The Bill before Parliament also has consequential amendments in Section 78 (1) that remove the offence of corruption from the jurisdiction of the Economic and Organised Crime Office. Who will then investigate and prosecute categories of corruption offences by public officers and politically exposed persons not meeting the standards in Clause 3(4)? We cannot justify any form of corruption. Let us take a keen interest in the passage of the Bill through Parliament so that Ghanaians are not short-changed in the actualization of the promise by the President to fight corruption as corruption, and crime as crime.

Is the fight against bribery and corruption amongst the political elite in Ghana a mere political slogan for winning political power, which signifies nothing? Parliament has concluded proceedings in respect of the allegation of bribery, and transformed it into an allegation and punishment of Honourable Mahama Ayariga for contempt of Parliament. However, there is no express or implied complaint, allegation or charge of contempt of Parliament made in the Terms of Reference against Hon. Mahama Ayariga personally or any other person to ground any power in the Committee to make findings and recommendations of contempt of Parliament. Analysis suggests that the constitutional oaths of the Speaker and of members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, were each abused and violated just to protect the suspected commission of the crime of bribery and corruption in Parliament, instead of transparently maintaining the institutional integrity of the legislature.

The legal advice tendered by the Ashanti Regional Office of the Attorney General to the Ghana Police Service, Kumasi, in the case of R v Mensah Azer & 7 Others, popularly known as the 8 Delta Members Case, is exceptional in the manner it states the facts of the case, and the evidence as disclosed upon the perusal of the police docket, and the legal opinion based on the facts and evidence on the docket. The impression that the regional office of the Attorney General’s Department had to have recourse to the Attorney General simply because the suspects were alleged to be members of the New Patriotic Party is dangerous for our democracy, the rule of law and the prosecutorial discretion delegated by the Attorney General to each of her prosecuting attorneys and particularly her regional representatives.

I invite fellow patriotic citizens to join me in condemning recent unwarranted attacks and shameful insults on the British High Commissioner and his Government, who only sought to defend the honour and dignity of Parliament as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution by pointing out past misconduct and suspected crime of some members of Parliament. The insults coming from MPs from both sides of Parliament give the impression that Parliament is more hysterical about its reputation being brought into disrepute through the exposure of dishonourable conduct by its members rather than maintaining the honour and dignity of the institution of Parliament through a transparent, fair and credible constitutional process of dealing with members who bring the reputation of the institution into disrepute.