Africa has so many examples of chaos that Ghana can learn from, which is why patriotic citizens must speak up against the creeping canker of the politicization of the Office of the Attorney-General and the judiciary branch of government by the NPP and the NDC. I have raised my finger. Join me by raising your finger as a patriotic citizen so that we can together defend the 1992 Constitution against the political hawks from the NPP and the NDC. Non Desistas Non Exieris: Never Give Up Never Surrender.

The Attorney-General’s press release of 4 July 2023 is an attempted smokescreen to gag citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. His insinuation that legitimate criticisms of investigatory and prosecutorial functions of his office “unduly interferes with the work of State Prosecutors performing their constitutional function of prosecuting crime in Ghana” ignores provision under the 1992 Constitution, which proscribes that sovereign people of Ghana may hold to account State Prosecutors who allow themselves to be misused to abuse the very prosecutorial constitutional function they purport to perform in aid of an oppressive Government whose aim is to weaponize the system of criminal justice administration to achieve electoral political objects in an election cycle.

The NDC must be congratulated by all patriotic persons who act apolitically in the national interest and believe in defence of the Constitution and in the sustenance of democracy and the rule of law in Ghana. I take the view that Constitutionalism won in the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General failed woefully in weaponizing the administration of criminal justice, while democracy and the rule of law won massively at the Assin North by-elections.

Did Mr. Kissi Agyebeng say that he inherited nine employees from me, Martin Amidu, when he knows so well from the official records contained in my handing over notes and my budget submissions to the Ministry of Finance for the 2021 Budget that the Office had more staff working in it as at the time I resigned from the Office? All the issues allegedly raised by him are dealt with in my handing over notes and may be of some use to him if he has not seen or read them already…

My resignation as the first Special Prosecutor was the result of the endemic attitude of President, Nana Akufo Addo’s penchant to usurp the constitutional authority of investigators and prosecutors in criminal justice administration as he tried to do in the Agyapa Royalties Transaction Anti-Corruption Risk Assessment Report implicating him. It had nothing to do with the Members of Parliament double salaries which I never saw nor handled during my tenure. The President’s responses to the media on 13th December 2018 is evidence that this President determines who may be prosecuted for crime and not the Attorney General or Special Prosecutor…

This submission is made as ordered by the Supreme Court on 16th October 2019, to assist the Attorney General by providing available evidence in order to enable the the enforcement of the judgment debt against Waterville Holdings (BVI) Limited.

It is more than one full year since an Arbitration Tribunal brought the arbitration proceedings in the Waterville Judgment Debt Case to an end in a manner favourable to the Republic of Ghana. I am returning to court in my personal capacity as the only person with enough vested interest in the conclusion of the case after having procured the decision, orders and directions of the Court contained in the judgment dated 14th June 2013. Even though I bring this application in my personal capacity as the Plaintiff/Applicant in the above case, I have since 23rd February 2018 been the Special Prosecutor of Ghana with the mandate to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and recover assets and manage proceeds of corruption and corruption-related offences. Consequently, I am also at the time of filing this application responsible for preventing the non-enforcement of the Court’s 2013 judgment which was actuated by an unconstitutional create, loot, and share syndrome as lucidly and ably articulated in this Court’s said judgment.

Professor Assibi Amidu of NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway and Martin Alamisi Amidu of Bawku/Accra are today, the 9th March 2018, celebrating the final transition and exit of their beloved mother, the late Atiisah Amidu, who died on 6th March 2016. The family wish to thank all those who have supported and sympathized with them during her death and final transition and farewell ceremony in accordance with Bulsa custom and tradition.

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.

In this affidavit I contend that the Government of Ghana’s interest is not in enforcing the order of the Supreme Court. Instead, the incumbent Government represented by the Attorney General is merely giving the appearance of enforcing the order of the Court while simultaneously entering into a confidentiality agreement with Alfred Agbesi Woyome as Executive Chairman, a director, and sole shareholder of Anator Holding. This discreet agreement aims to facilitate Woyome’s ability to refund the monies ordered by this Court. Such actions by the incumbent Government negate the letter and spirit of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and the enforcement jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Moreover, I maintain that under Article 2 of the 1992, when the Attorney General is being sued for unconstitutional conduct, and a declaration of unconstitutionality is made against the Attorney General, it will be a negation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution to say that the public interest Plaintiff who has prosecuted the action has no capacity to ensure proper and effective execution of the order, even when the Attorney General’s actions are not of substance for purposes of enforcing the decisions and order of the Supreme Court.

Woyome has accused me in the media of having ordered or authorized the Ministry of Finance to pay him part of the GHC51.2million that the incumbent Government unconstitutionally looted for him. However, the fact that I had nothing to do with the authorizations written to the Ministry of Finance to pay any portion of the looted public purse to Woyome was already determined finally in the declarations made by the Supreme Court on 29th July 2014. Moreover, the Government’s own “Commission of Enquiry Into Payments From Public Funds Arising From Judgment Debts & Akin Matters (2012/C.I 79)” commended my honesty and integrity in the matter. The media and the public are being hoodwinked by Woyome’s outburst and the incumbent Government’s overwhelming silence to set the records straight. Citizens, you have a choice to make. How much longer will we hear stories of inadvertence, mischief and connivance by an incumbent Government that strips the Republic’s coffers bare so that ordinary Ghanaians must suffer financial hardship? PUT GHANA FIRST and let us get our looted money back by voting the incumbent looter Government out on 7th December 2016. Protect Ghana and the government purse by voting for a new President.

Government is purposefully deceiving the electorate that efforts are being made to retrieve the unconstitutional loot by Woyome jointly with Austro-Invest, the client of Lithur-Brew and Co, a law firm in which the Attorney General was a partner. Woyome’s part-payment in a cheque drawn by Woyome in favour of the Economic and Organized Crime Office, which was not a party to the action or the judgment creditor, cannot be a cheque in part payment of the unconstitutional monies ordered by the Court to be refunded to the Republic. Unfortunately, the Government as the leading looter has put obstacles in our way in enforcing the orders of the Court. Do not be hoodwinked by electioneering ploys. Let us defend the 1992 Constitution by voting for a new President on 7th December 2016 to get our money back.

Commonsense should have warned the Plaintiff/Respondent that an ordinary bench of this court hearing his Writ of Summons and Statement of Case will have no jurisdiction to declare the ruling of the review bench in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 2) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 606 null and void or in any other manner attempt to review same under the smokescreen of exercising any original jurisdiction in this action.

The nature of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, Abdulai Yusif Fansah Muhammed, from the Supreme Court in this action are clearly stated on three of them to be for the benefit of Alfred Agbesi Woyome and the exoneration of the Attorney-General who unconstitutionally paid the judgment debt to Woyome. Why has the Plaintiff decided to join them as the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this action to create the impression that his interest diverges from theirs? Are they really Defendants or is the Plaintiff their surrogate? That is the answer to look from their responses to the Plaintiff’s case.

I am deliberately exposing the politicization of the White Paper on the Commissioner’s report to enable people capable of rational and dispassionate reasoning see the inherent dangers any Government faces when it usurps the powers of the Attorney-General or when an Attorney-General allows his office to be usurped or abused by the Presidency. It also underscores what happens when a Government acts deliberately and covertly to cover political corruption by besmearing other coordinate organs of Government and political opponents in a manner inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution.

A number of Ghanaians have called me to ask how much Waterville is to refund to the Republic of Ghana as a consequence of the decision and orders of the Supreme Court dated 14th June 2013. This is apparently because of late the media has carried the story that Waterville has taken the Government to international arbitration to challenge an order for the refund of €25 million made by the Supreme Court. No explanation appears to be coming from Government sources to indicate the total amount of refund to be made by Waterville is €47,365,624.40. I have therefore deemed it necessary to address this issue relating to the Waterville decision and order as the citizen public interest Plaintiff in this matter.

This rejoinder condemns in no uncertain terms the unconstitutional and unethical conduct of the Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayineh, in scurrilously abusing the Court and the Judge that tried the Woyome case and also for the contempt of scandalizing the judiciary as a whole in the media, and in spite of the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeal filed by the office of the Attorney General.

Response to denial by the Attorney General, Mrs Brew Appiah-Oppong, that she did not selectively file an entry of judgment omitting the declarations in respect of the then Attorney General and the fact that the declaration against Woyome was stated to be with Austro-Invest. Soft copy of relevant Woyome Application filed by Martin Amidu on 26 October 2014

The purpose of this rejoinder is to state that the impression the Daily Graphic's online article of 15 January 2014 has conveyed to the public about my role in any payments to Mr. Woyome is not borne out by the records before the Supreme Court or any official records. If anybody has any evidence that I authorized, endorsed, or facilitated the payments to Woyome then who can better give primary evidence on such a material fact than me. I accordingly welcome an invitation from the Attorney-General and/or Mr. Osafo Buabeng, lawyer for Woyome, if my role is important to either case.

I have read the online reportage in citifmonline, of 23rd June 2013, a vilifying statement made about me by one Victor Kojoga Adawudu of the NDC Legal Team, where I am expressly and by implication accused of having taken away some documents from the Attorney General’s Department resulting in the latter’s inability to pursue claims against Waterville and Woyome. I write to refute the allegations as baseless, false, malicious and libelous publications intended by the office of the Attorney General to vilify me for fulfilling my constitutional obligation of defending the 1992 Constitution pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 thereof.