I am a proud offspring of all those initial eleven “Otafor” Members of Parliament who defended democracy in the infant Ghana. They were men of impeccable honour and integrity despite their Certificate A and B teacher training certificates because the British did not consider education worthy of the NT who were to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. I am an offspring of those gallant leaders of the NT which became an inseparable part Ghana. I am an “Otani” and a citizen of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution till I am buried in the bosom of my motherland….

The Government may wish to invite a trusted and friendly anti-corruption country such as Singapore or the United Kingdom or the United States or Denmark to send independent anti-corruption officers to replicate my analysis and anti-corruption assessment work giving rise to the report using the same source letters and documents. I am confident professionally and ethically that they will arrive at the same anti-corruption assessments contained in the Agyapa Royalties Limited Transactions report. I explained this to my dear friend the Minister of Finance when he visited me as early as 5:36 am on the morning of 22nd October 2020 in the company of a mutual friend. I pray that the President takes up this challenge so that the concerted effort he is leading to throw me under the bus and bringing my reputation into disrepute for acting professionally in the Agyapa anti-corruption assessment report in which the President has a personal interest comes to an end.

The concerted efforts led by the President of Ghana and his Government to discredit my integrity for producing a professional report on the analysis of the risk of the prevention of corruption and anti-corruption assessment is bound to fail because the Ghanaian of 2020 is not the Ghanaian of 2016 who believed the mere rhetoric of fighting corruption. The attempt to divert attention from the serious suspected breaches of corruption and corruption-related laws disclosed in the anti-corruption assessment contained in the Agyapa report by making false and frivolous allegations against my person will fail because truth shall always triumph over falsehood.

On Monday, 3rd February 2020, the Office of the Special Prosecutor received from the Secretary to the President a letter referring allegations of bribery of Ghanaian Officials in the aircraft deal, as disclosed in litigation taking place in the UK and USA. The Special Prosecutor has determined that the said referral and deferred prosecution agreements and judgments accompanying them raise reasonable suspicion of the commission of corruption and corruption-related offences of bribery of public officers and the use of public office by public officers for private profit. A preliminary investigation has accordingly been opened. The Office of the Special Prosecutor appeals to the public not to speculate or politicize the disclosures so as to allow this Office to treat these as suspected crimes simpliciter, pending the conclusion of the investigation.

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.

Is the hearsay falsehood being put out by the Acting Director of Public Affairs of Parliament alleging claims of sabotage simply a misguided or malicious reaction to the Special Prosecutor’s latest trending video interview with David Ampofo? Even though this Acting Director has signed a press release allegedly on behalf of the Parliamentary Service, the truth is that she did not attend the meeting and her commentary is simply hearsay. Let anyone of the Leadership of Parliament who was present at the meeting with the Special Prosecutor and his Deputy on 4th June 2019 rather speak up about what transpired at the meeting so that the Office of the Special Prosecutor can publish its contemporaneous memorandum (in which the meeting events were recorded) for those interested to judge as to what truly and really transpired at the meeting.

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.

Presented at Annual Conference of the Internal Audit Agency, Accra Conference Center, 14 - 15 August 2019. Lessons learned since 1957 show that the extent to which the role played by the Office of the Special Prosecutor in protecting the nation’s resources succeeds or fails, will depend on how the President and his Government’s anti-corruption vision is either supported or obstructed by his political and other public office appointees. In the past eighteen months there has been latent resistance and, currently, massive bi-partisan pressure is being exerted to tacitly influence decisions of the Courts around the Special Prosecutor’s qualifications for his appointment and interpretation of his execution mandate. If these actions succeed, they will only demonstrate to the electorate in Ghana and the international community the absurdity of Ghana’s commitment to the goal of combating corruption and protecting the nation’s resources through the instrumentality of an independent and impartial Special Prosecutor.

The jurisdiction of the Office of the Special Prosecutor is strictly provided for under the Act; it is more restrictive than most global anti-corruption agencies, with a limited number of offences that the Office may investigate. Members of the public who are still being misled to believe that the Office may investigate anything beyond the ten offences within its mandate, may start to lose trust. I wish them to understand that my limited jurisdiction means that the balance of criminal offences in the Criminal Offences Act that have not been apportioned to the Office and that deal with several felonies, have to be investigated by various other law and order enforcement agencies headed by among others, the Inspector General of Police, the Director-General CID, the Executive Director Economic and Organized Crime Office, the Director of the Bureau of National Investigations, the Director-General of the Ghana Immigration Service, The Executive Secretary for the Financial Intelligence Center, the National Security Coordinator, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I state again I am committed to fully executing my mandate, and will continue to prosecute all cases under my jurisdiction to the fullest of the powers granted to the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

I have never been paid any money by any Government in my official capacity or because of my position as the Special Prosecutor as a judgment debt. Your intentional, malicious and deliberate defamatory words used to describe any payments to me of any part of the outstanding orders of the Court given on 4th September 2014 were understood by ordinary and right thinking members of the public to mean and you intended them to mean that the Government unlawfully had colluded with me in my capacity as the Special Prosecutor to dubiously pay me some money and other benefits resulting from Court orders.

The lies being bandied in the media should stop. I never consulted any person or political party before accepting my nomination to be put forward for approval as Special Prosecutor. Moreover, nobody is going to push or make me jump from the challenges of fighting public office corruption unless the Supreme Court declares the provisions of the Act under which I was appointed unconstitutional, I am impeached or I become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the mutual promises and undertakings made with me at my nomination to fight the canker of corruption were not intended to be actualized in practice.

I wish Hon. Yaw Buaben Asamoa to understand that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is governed by statute and I am mandated to lead it in the achievement of that mandate. I do not need any direct or indirect instructions from any office holder of any political party like him. It is time for him and others like him from other political parties to stop confusing the fact that I was appointed by the President of the Republic to mean that it created a vested right in the political party which supported him to win the elections to instruct or direct me as the Special Prosecutor. I was appointed by the President in his capacity as the Executive Authority of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution and not as the flag-bearer of any political party. Should he think that I am talking too much and not doing my job the simple solution is for him to have me removed from office. Until then he should leave me alone to continue to exercise the independent duties of my office in accordance with my oath before Parliament and my oath at my appointment as the Special Prosecutor.

Who is really sleeping on the job when it comes to dealing with the canker of corruption? Heads of institutions wantonly disregard statutory requests made by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for information and production of documents to assist in the investigation of corruption and corruption-related offences. Public officers have been charged, arraigned before the High Court and their pleas taken only for them to return to their workplaces and work normally as though they have never been suspected of committing any corruption offences. Despite all the powers conferred on the Office of the Special Prosecutor by the law, when heads of institutions continually refuse or fail to support the fight against the canker of corruption by not vigorously applying regulations intended to aid the fight against corruption and other crimes, they ultimately undermine the work and impact of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Members of Parliament who wish to gain exception from investigation and possible prosecution for suspected corruption offences will not succeed by applying bi-partisan pressure upon the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Alleging that there is a tall list for possible prosecution of parliamentarians only enables the creation of an artificial bi-partisan smoke screen for purposes of unduly delaying or running away from justice for those accused of the commission of corruption offences. The only way to get the first Special Prosecutor out of office in a bi-partisan manner is by impeachment or to allow the appropriate independent constitutional institution to do so.

Good religious bodies are the moral and ethical compass of social and political organizations and are better adapted to the preventive role of fighting corruption: they have over the years effectively served as corruption prevention social and political organizations in Ghana. Their contributions to the establishment of the Office of the Special Prosecutor attest to their positive preventive role in the fight against corruption. The Office still needs the active support of good religious bodies not only in the prevention of corruption but also to protect its independence and give it the free room to treat corruption and corruption-related offences as purely criminal offences without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Good religious bodies cannot afford to let this last experiment in fighting corruption and corruption-related offences in Ghana be captured again by the political elite just for political point scoring. They have a spiritual and temporal obligation to ensure that the wellbeing of the nation is put above the greed and avarice of the political elite as good religious bodies have tenaciously demonstrated in Ghana over the years.

To correct recent factual misrepresentations in media and on WhatsApp, herewith my response to assure the public that while I occupy the role of Special Prosecutor, crime will always be treated as crime and no political party card can act as an insurance against investigating and/or prosecuting any offences that fall under my mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).

The resignation of former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General have generated a debate about what is now called the Whitaker scenario of reducing the budget of the Mueller investigations “so low that his investigation grinds to a halt”. The Whitaker scenario reinforces the fact that an effective way of stifling the fight against corruption in Ghana is to apply the Whitaker scenario. It reminds one of the almost utter hopelessness in which the newly established Office of the Special Prosecutor finds itself almost one year after the President caused its establishment as his flagship and vision to fight corruption in Ghana with an overwhelming national consensus and support. There is a missing link in Ghana provided by the Whitaker scenario to which civil society and all patriotic citizens should wake up or forever stop blaming the President for any failure in the fight against corruption. Prevent corruption now! Act now! Save Ghana now!

The Office of the Special Prosecutor is Ghana’s new anti-corruption agency. With its prosecutorial powers, it is being seen by many as an expected solution to the problem of corruption in Ghana. However, the nation’s inability to adequately resource and guarantee the independence of law enforcement from politics has affected the fight against corruption over the years. Unless there is a change of attitude in practice, the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act may soon be seen by the public to be, like its predecessors, a delusion and not an achievement.

All citizens and public officeholders should know their obligations concerning banking transactions. I am sharing my most recent experience in this matter with the public as part of my prevention of corruption duty to let citizens know that the responsibility is upon citizens to instruct their bankers to return suspicious payments of public funds into their accounts. A Bank is under penal statutory responsibility to report suspicious transactions to the appropriate agency of Government and the customer is under a banking responsibility to call the Bank’s attention as soon as he notices any suspicious transactions or payment into his account or to give the Bank such standing instructions as will protect the account holder.

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.