Former Attorney-General Martin Amidu, has released yet another statement, defending his claims that investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, colluded with government to cover up a corruption scandal he captured on video, which indicts some Members of Parliament.
Read it below:
MARTIN AMIDU’S ANSWERS TO THE CEO OF THE DUMMY TIGER EYE: BY MARTIN A. B. K. AMIDU
I write this answer for publication today alongside my other published statement of today on the legal status of Tiger Eye PI which I had written simultaneously with my earlier one on the Ghanaian’s Sense of Justice dated 9th November 2015 so that the CEO of the dummy and fraudulent Tiger Eye or its other illegal variant can have it for his perusal.
It will be recalled that the CEO of an unlawful dummy entity called Tiger Eye dared me to respond to denials he raised about my article on using the judicial corruption undercover investigation to suppress Gargantuan political corruption in a face book post on 9th November 2015. I answer as follows:
1. There is no entity existing under the Constitution and laws of Ghana known as Tiger Eye or Tiger Eye PI. It only exists in a webpage created by the alleged CEO as a dummy with which the international and Ghanaian public has been conned for financial gain all these years. Any letter signed in the name of Tiger Eye or Tiger Eye PI is a fraud on the public.
The only reason that the scam has survived all these years is because it is an undercover paid Government of Ghana agent doing the covert operations the police, security and intelligence agencies cannot do under the law, particular surveillance without a warrant from a High Court – See Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1992 (Act 526).
The values underpinning the constitutional and other legal exclusionary rules on evidence was to prevent such unconstitutionality by using unlawful and fraudulent private anti-corruptionpreneurs like the CEO of the dummy Tiger Eye or its other illegal variant. Sydney Abugri and Sydney Casley-Hayford raised this alarm in 2011 in publications on Ghana web but we were all engaged in the dialogue of the deaf.
2.The CEO of the fraudulent dummy or shell Tiger Eye or other illegal variant has admitted in paragraph 2 of his response that he has been a paid undercover agent of the Government in several operations. This corroborates my assertion on pages 4 and 5 of my article on defending the citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Once he admits to being a covert unlawful Government agent, I have discharged my burden that he has always been one and the onus does not lie on me to prove that in the particular case of the judicial corruption undercover operations he was not acting as an agent for the Government in spite of foot notes 16 and 17 of my article on judicial and political corruption. The operation is called covert because of the element of deniability when the agent is exposed.
The covert government agent CEO cannot, therefore, admit my statements of fact and evidence in true obedience to the literature governing covert operations. The American public got to know the extent of Presidents Nixon and Reagan’s covert operations both domestic and international only after an independent investigator was appointed –Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals. This may be our Judicialgate.
3.The CEO of the dummy Tiger Eye or other illegal variant has for the first time told the public of some 20 affected judges he referred to the Chief Justice because he was unable to procure the desired footage of his undercover operations. These are precisely the judges I referred to as still sitting as judges and that he should be accountable and transparent in telling the public.
Is it not selective to submit those names to the Chief Justice for further investigation when a petition to the President would have compelled an investigation all the same? Why must the Chief Justice pick up from the carelessness of his paid undercover operations? But the CEO believes those 20 judges are all corrupt, so is it not discriminatory for them to still be sitting judges of the courts or has he been able to have them suspended without the knowledge of the public? Is there no problem of the integrity of his investigations and its fairness in choosing who to petition against and who not to?
4.The CEO of the dummy Tiger Eye or other illegal variant admits publicly for the first time that he screened a 20 minute film for the leadership of Parliament. He however contends that it was not about parliamentary corruption. My contention has been that the screening was in secret and without public knowledge which he now admits publicly. Only a fool will expect a self- confessed covert government agent operator to admit straight forward that the 20 minute film was on Parliamentary corruption. Covert operations are all premised on deniability.
That is why he cannot admit or deny my allegation which technically means an admission. Unfortunately for the CEO the 275 members of Parliament who were informed at a closed session could not all keep quiet, particularly the incorruptible ones amongst them and are nauseated by his conduct of compromising his integrity with his principal, the Government. Several respectable ones from both sides of parliament have spoken and are still talking secretly to me and have spoken to others as well because of the prohibition in the standing orders of disclosing matters from closed sessions of parliament even when the subject at the closed session is unconstitutional. One day, one day, they will speak out publicly!
5.I may not sound logical but the CEO of the dummy Tiger Eye if indeed he was properly trained as a lawyer should know that the life of the law is not logic but experience. I talk from my experience of the law and not necessarily from logic. The Government issued him a biometric Government Service Passport in 2013 for 5 years on which he has travelled abroad, most recently to Canada, USA and to Norway. Were his mentors at Legal Resources Center not in this Government and in the Presidency when the service passport was issued to him on the orders of the Presidency? True, the undercover operations might have begun in earnest in 2013 but it was a carry- over from the determination to prove that the judiciary was wrong in asking for proof in 2010 and 2011 when I was Minister of the Interior and the Attorney General.
I did not expect that an anti-corruptionprenuer like the CEO will be used for the vendetta against the Chief Justice and the Judiciary. There is more to say but I will leave it here for the meantime.
6.Roger George, (2013) writing a chapter on Intelligence and Strategy in Strategy in the Contemporary World (ed. by Baylis, Wartz, and Gray, Oxford, 2013) says that covert action is in fact the covert use of the instruments of military, economic, informational, and diplomatic power. Known as ‘special activities’ covert action is run at the request of the President.
He concludes with reference to the USA as follows: “These actions are kept secret in order to achieve important strategic objectives, without directly associating them with the US Government.” For US Government substitute NDC Government in the case of the judicial covert operation by the dummy and fraudulent Tiger Eye PI or its other illegal variant. It is only a rabble who will expect either of the conspirators in this judicial covert operation to admit the research evidence I have adduced and their own previous statements in the media without an independent investigation such was the case in the Watergate or the Iran Contra scandals in the USA. The wise, intelligent and rational read between the lines and do not allow partisan emotions to becloud their judgment of obvious facts and truths like rabbles.
My intention is to stand up for principles underpinning the Constitution which every citizen is enjoined to defend and not to attack any individual personally that is why I have avoided mentioning people by name in my latest articles where I can avoid it.
I insist that it is unconstitutional for this Government to use any covert agent for operations against citizens to hide its Gargantuan political corruption like Nerquaye-Tetteh’s golden handshake of GH₵400,000 when it knows that the Constitution and the laws of Ghana proscribes it from using the executive powers of policing, intelligence and security entrusted to it by the Constitution except in compliance with the existing law.
The conduct of the CEO of the dummy and fraudulent Tiger Eye PI and the Government are inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution and laws of Ghana and must be exposed. This is the paradox of a fraudulent person who has himself committed several crimes under the criminal law being protected and touted by his complicit principal, the Government as a an anti-corruption crusader of some integrity. Articles 2, 3, 12 of the Constitution enjoin that the Constitution be defended as a matter of principle against the unconstitutional Orwellian Big Brother threat to its letter and spirit.
MARTIN A. B. K. AMIDU
10th November 2015