Parliament rejects Martin Amidu’s claim
Parliament says it has not done anything to sabotage the work of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Martin Amidu.
It has, therefore, advised him, against drawing the legislative body into his personal issues.
Advertisement
A statement issued by the Parliamentary Service last Thursday, and signed by the Acting Director of Public Affairs of Parliament, Ms Kate Addo, said contrary to Mr Amidu’s recent allegations, “Parliament will like to state that it is not seeking to sabotage the work of the Special Prosecutor nor any law enforcement agency”.
In a recent interview broadcast widely in the local media, Mr Amidu is said to have questioned the position of Parliament regarding the prosecution of a former Minister of State and National Democratic Congress Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mr Mahama Ayariga.
But Parliament said its “engagement with the Special Prosecutor on the matter involving Mr Ayariga was a follow up to a letter dated May, 23, 20 I 9 which he wrote to the Speaker, in which Mr Amidu requested the release of Mr Ayariga to be arraigned before the High Court in Accra on June 4, 2019”.
It said on May 31, 2019, Parliament wrote to the Special Prosecutor recognising his role in the fight against corruption and, therefore, invited Mr Amidu for further discussions on the matter.
The statement quoted from the letter that the meeting was to "dialogue with your high office as to how your office and the court could be availed of Mr Ayariga for arraignment with due regard to his privileges, the presumption of innocence and in a manner which will enable him to continue to efficiently perform his parliamentary duties".
Meeting
The statement indicated that at the meeting with the Special Prosecutor, his attention was drawn to Articles 117, I 18 (I) and 122 of the 1992 Constitution which provided that “Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served, or executed in relation to the Speaker or a Member or the Clerk of Parliament while he is on his way to attending at or returning from any proceedings of Parliament”; and that “Neither the Speaker, nor a member of nor the Clerk in Parliament shall be compelled, while attending Parliament, to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament”; and “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a Member or Office of Parliament in the discharge of his duties or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result, is contempt of Parliament”.
The statement pointed out that it was clear from the onset that the Special Prosecutor knew the purpose of the meeting and, therefore, chose to come.
“Indeed, he was accompanied by an official from his outfit at an open meeting in the Speaker's Conference Room, with the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Ranking Member of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, and the Clerk to Parliament.
“To suggest, therefore, that the Speaker had a private meeting to get him to approach the prosecution wrongfully is unfounded. During the meeting, the Speaker emphasised that MPs were not above the law. However, there was the need to respect their privileges as provided for in the 1992 Constitution,” the statement said.
“It is pertinent to recount that at the meeting, Parliament suggested to the Special Prosecutor that it was not in any way saying that an MP could not be prosecuted, but just as it happened in the trial of Mr Dan Abodakpi, the MP could be tried on Mondays.
In addition, it was suggested that the long three-month vacation was coming soon (August to October) and the MP could be tried day to day,” the statement said.
It added: “The Special Prosecutor did not see the benefit of the suggestion to use the vacation time in Parliament to do a trial. The time is almost gone and the prosecutor has done nothing.”
Cooperation
The statement said “Parliament had cooperated with the Special Prosecutor during the investigation stage of the case in question. Indeed, Parliament has in the past collaborated with other law enforcement agencies in similar matters, as the Commissioner of Police and Director of the Criminal Investigation Department will testify.
As the law making arm of government, Parliament will under no circumstance attempt to break the laws of Ghana.”
