Before I deal with Freddy Blay's cash 'spraying' antics ahead of NPP's conference on Saturday, let me take, hopefully, a last bite at the case involving Charlotte Osei and her two deputies removal from office by President Akufo Addo.
Since this issue came up for discussion, two very important things have happened subsequently. First, we are being told the presidency has forwarded or will forward the CJ's report to the Attorney General for possible prosecution of Charlotte Osei and her two deputies for allegedly breaching the procurement law. Secondly, a pressure group, Centre for National Affairs, an obvious offshoot of the NPP, has petitioned the Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, to prosecute Charlotte Osei and her two deputies on same charges of alleged breach of procurement law.
So we have two departments being called upon to prosecute Charlotte Osei and her deputy. We all know the two prosecutions cannot run concurrently. Definitely, one must give way to the other. The point as to which of the two prosecutorial departments should initiate criminal charges against the trio does not bother me that much. The point in this 'new' arrangement to prosecute the trio which is lost on virtually everyday is, will the AG or Special Prosecutor use the CJ's report as basis to prosecute them? From all indications, it appears the AG or SP, if they decide to go ahead with any prosecution, will base it on the CJ's report. In other words they will not conduct 'fresh' investigation into the claims of alleged breach of procurement law.
On the basis of the above, it will not be wrong to say the CJ's committee investigated a litany of allegations and came up with supposed findings which turned out to be allegations. I hold this view because, if the CJ's committee says Charlotte Osei breached the Procurement law, the committee must be in a position to apply sanctions for breach of the law. You cannot breach procurement law and walk about freely. Unfortunately, the committee had no such powers so it only came up with findings that Charlotte breached the procurement law. Charlotte has vehemently denied this. As a result of this denial, the findings of the committee has turned out to be allegations.
If the AG or SP presents the committee's report to court for prosecution, Charlotte and co will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it stands, Charlotte and co are innocent awaiting a court to determine their guilt or otherwise. If that is the case, which it is, why should someone be removed from office when his/her guilt has not been established?
In order to determine whether or not Charlotte Osei and her deputies are guilty of any breach as the committee alleged, invitation must be thrown to a court of competent jurisdiction. That is the main reason why the AG and SP are being called upon to begin that process to establish the guilt or otherwise of the trio. But this is where the problem lies. Assuming after the prosecution, the court finds that Charlotte did not, in fact, breach the procurement law, then it would mean she was wrongly fired on the basis of allegation engineered by the CJ's committee. Such pronouncement will be injurious to the CJ and President and could form a basis for their removal from office. The element of 'incompetence' as used in article 146 would have been glaring.
It was this read that Thaddeus Sory made the point, during the committee hearing that, the power to determine whether the procurement law has been breached or not is vested in the PPA Board and not the committee. The Procurement Law itself is clear on this. The committee ignored this and went ahead to present its supposed findings to the president. The President, in a hurry to 'kill' Charlotte and co quickly fired them without taking a second look at the issues. We know the President had no option than to act on the recommendations of the CJ. But there is no time limit to act on the recommendations. He could have waited to seek wise counsel for his principal legal adviser.
If the President had taken time to study the report, he would have realized that he needed to test the guilt or otherwise of Charlotte and co in court before firing them. He needed a court to make a definite pronouncement on the alleged breaches before the removal of Charlotte and co. Since the CJ's committee itself realized it could not do that, it squarely fell into the hands of the court. So this is what we have now: Charlotte was removed on the basis of allegations; a petition signed by a dead man; unsigned petition etc. Indeed, ibi Ghana we dey.
Amos Blessing Amorse
Domeabra Obom constituency
[email protected]
Amorse B Amos
Comments