Leave Me Alone! Martin Amidu Shames Gov’t Over Waterville

• Posted on June 20, 2013June 20, 2013
• by Nana Kwesi Coomson
• Comment

Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Martin Alamisi Benz Kaiser Amidu, has refuted claims by the Mahama administration that it  assisted him in pursuing the case against the payment of a whopping €40million to Waterville BV, a payment which the Supreme Court says  should be refunded.

Mr Amidu, who was reacting to a statement issued by the Attorney General, Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, said he received no support from the government contrary to the claims by the AG.

The Attorney General, he said, was the first defendant and, therefore, could not have provided support for him.

The government statement, which was signed by the Deputy Attorney General, Dr Dominic Ayine, among others, claimed “contrary to the impression created by various media reports that Mr Martin Amidu was left on his own to fight this case against Waterville, the Attorney General’s office researched and supported the filing of processes leading to our identification with and support for Mr Amidu in the matter of Martin Amidu vrs Attorney General, Waterville (BV) Holdings, Austro Invest and Alfred Woyome”.

Infuriated by these claims, Mr Amidu issued a counter statement blasting the government. “Who cares who did what,” he fumed.

“The Deputy Attorney General will do well to read Attorney General vs. Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited and tell the public whom the Supreme Court selected for praise for excellent submissions in saving the state from a similar situation where the amount involved when calculated with interest would have doubled the Waterville judgment debt? Did Martin Amidu make noise about it? I am shy of praises that is why I have refused to talk to the press or be seen in public. Leave me alone!” the one who calls himself ‘Citizen Vigilante’ said.

Mr Amidu wondered why government was fighting so hard to take credit for a judgment in vindication of the Constitution.

This, he said, was because “they (referring to government and the Attorney General’s office) never pursued Waterville for a refund of that money in any court,” thereby asking rhetorically “so how can the AG now say she supported me in my action?”

Punches

“Did the AG draft my writ and Statement of Case in the Waterville/Woyome and Isofoton cases for me? Did the AG’s office conduct research for me to write my writ, statement of case, and legal submissions? Did the AG pay my filing fees for the two cases? Did not the AG have to ask for leave out of time to file its defence in the two cases when I was ready for the hearing?” he asked.

For him, the fact remained that “Waterville was wrongly paid by an Attorney General, who instead of protecting the Republic, chose to unconstitutionally arbitrate and paid €25m to them.” He expressed surprise asking “what prevented the AG from taking the position I took? They never pursued Waterville for a refund of that money in any court, so how can the AG now say she supported me in my action?”

“Was it not the Plaintiff, who as Attorney General, amended the Writ and Statement of Claim at the High Court to plead fraud for the first time and rewrite the whole case now pending in that court? Were the hands of the succeeding AG’s not tied by the pleadings the plaintiff in the two cases left behind when he left office?” he wondered.
In view of this, Citizen Vigilante, as he is affectionately called, stated that “the amendments were purposefully initiated in anticipation of the fact that I was on my way out” with a question in toe, “Did the plaintiff not go to the Supreme Court precisely because after he left office, the AG’s were trying to compromise the cases?”

He, therefore, queried, “How then do you help a plaintiff only when you are failing the people and he decides to sue you in the Supreme Court for the people’s money at his own expense?”

Anxiety 
The former Attorney General could equally not believe the fact that “a government supported by my own political party is spinning even a simple and glaring case.”

Mr Amiddu said “I do not want any credit for the Supreme Court’s decision” since according to him, it was the Constitution of Ghana that had won.
“I am not interested in any glories or who must take credit. Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not fund his education? Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not give him an opportunity to serve this nation and particularly as Deputy Attorney General for several years and also as Attorney General?” he submitted.
For him, “the important thing is that the judgment was given pursuant to an action by the plaintiff in the public interest” since in his own words “the AG was the first Defendant and remained so till judgment” for which reason “the office of the AG would not be helping or supporting the plaintiff, if they admitted the plaintiff’s claim because they did not have a defence to his claim”.

All this while, he noted “I have purposefully decided to stay out of the public eye because I do not want the judgment won by the people of Ghana to be about me,” saying “the Government can take all the credit. I do not mind,” noting with emphasis “my satisfaction is that the Court has ordered the refund of all monies paid to Waterville to the Republic.”

He, therefore, noted “the Attorney General will serve the people well if instead of claiming to have won the cases, she rather concentrate in ensuring that every pesewa is returned as ordered by the court.”

By Charles Takyi-Boadu