Following the #Number12 exposé by Tiger Eye PI, investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas has begun an online petition to get former President of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) Kwesi Nyantakyi prosecuted.

Anas believes, the online petition will compel the appropriate authorities to make the former member of CAF Executive Committee to face the criminal charges he deserves.

This development by Anas has received missed reactions as a man, only identified as Shefphobia, has told the Tiger Eye PI boss that getting people to sign an online petition cannot change the laws of the land.

In his lenghty write-up, the man, Shefphobia said: "What you are doing amounts to the provocation of violence contrary to section 200 of Act 29 of the criminal offences act. A person who does an act with intent to provoke riot commits a misdemeanour."

Below is the full write-up:


I hope this piece finds you well ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS .I have a lot to do but I think this topic cannot end without my take.

I have seen an online petition circulating calling on people to sign to force the state to prosecute Mr Kwesi Nyantakyi.I'm not Kwesi Nyantakyi's fan, but I think you are going overboard.

What you are doing amounts to the provocation of violence contrary to section 200 of Act 29 of the criminal offences act. A person who does an act with intent to provoke riot commits a misdemeanour.

This is not different from what lead to the recent developments in Algeria where the people are demanding under no particular law, that President Abdul Aziz Butaflika must not contest elections again.

I have read your article which suggests Mr Kwesi Nyantakyi can be charged for money laundering, corruption and other offences. You have also posited that Fifa took actions based on your video so you are surprised the government is unable to take action.

I am petrified by your assertions and wondering whether you are really a lawyer as we have been made to believe. You are, yes you are.

The Ag is saying the law on corruption in Ghana deals with only public officers and as such can not be used on Kwesi Nyantakyi and you don't believe? Why do you think the state had to go under the companies act to commence the unaccomplished liquidation of the FA?

Don't lose hope if you still want to get action against Mr Kwesi Nyantakyi who was shamed in your video and also relieved of his position at Fifa.

If the Ag says there is no law why don't you try Commission on human rights and administrative justice? Chraj has the mandate to investigate public officers both private and individuals on instances of alleged or suspected corruption and misappropriation of public money.

The Attorney General I don't think would cow to any amount of signatures if there is no cause of action.
The rules of law are not ornamental pieces, they are there to be adhered to.
Your confusion should not be equalled with that of an unlegal mind.

You may also proceed to the Supreme court if you think there is an ambiguity for interpretation to cure your confusion.

Public officer the definition of a public officer,
Section 3 (1) is construed by reference to the definition of the office in article 295 of the constitution and includes a person holding an office by election or appointment under an enactment or under powers conferred by an enactment.
Offences relating to public officers are contained in sections 236 to 261 of Act 29.

A public officer is then, according to article 295, A person holding public office and whose emoluments are paid directly from the consolidated fund or directly out of monies provided by parliament and in office in public corporation which I'd established solely by public or monies provided by parliament.
Which act established the GFa?
Is it the government who pays them?
From which fund?
How many times must we say GFA is a private organisation.
Don't confuse National sports council with GFA.
The sports act,2016 from section 1 to 31 has not mentioned the GFA

The Supreme court refused to let go of the opportunity to settle the dust. Her ladyship, Adinnyra JSC put it this way in the case of Rockson v GFA. 2010 page 450,

"The GFA is a voluntary association even though it may receive subventions or grants from National Sports Authority under section 4(1) of sports act, 1976 (SMCD 54).

The Statutes of the GFA is definitely not an Act of parliament and nothing in the Statutes of the GFA made at Congress on December 2005 suggests that the GFA is a statutory body nor were its statutes made by any person or authority under the constitution "

Accordingly," the statutes of the GFA are not part of the laws of Ghana but a private agreement or arrangement between members of a voluntary association to regulate the conduct of their affairs.

It is, therefore, our considered opinion that any challenge against it and its members must be made at another platform. " she stated.

I hope you have seen the argument. I trust you and believe the intention of your petition is not to galvanise pressure group to seek for what does not exist in law.

Better still you can peruse through the over 24 corruption fighting statutes and specifically choose another apart from the money laundering. How can the receiver get more than you gave him?

How come you who carried the money to Dubai cannot be suspected for money laundering? Did he receive more than you gave him?
If what we watch is what you are describing as money laundering paaa de3 like ibi serious paaa..

Signatures don't change laws

Thank you