Ghana’s Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, created the impression that, his office is financially handicap, and unable to pay employees but, about Gh¢60.47 million is still in the office’s account. The amount includes compensation to employees
According to government, Martin Amidu was given financial clearance to recruit 249 staff but blatantly refused, forgetting that, it will even help the country to reduce the unemployment rate, befitting office complex of his choice as requested, has been fully completed awaiting his own schedule date to be handed to him officially, but still, he painted the government as one that deliberately decided to under-resourced and handicapped his office.
His deliberate refusal to allude to these facts in his resignation letter and press release shows clear deception and dishonesty, how can he do this to the Ghanaian populace?
Contrary to his claim, it must be emphasized that, a government that is not committed to helping you, will certainly not continue to corporate and secure your office after your numerous acceptance and rejection of many offices. _If you are a man and you truly love a lady, you defy all odds to cater for her needs_, same applied here as the government undoubtedly shown such commitment, this reaffirms that, the government is ever ready to help his office to function fully as expected.
Indeed, you can not seek to accuse and prosecute by grossly ignoring the principle of _audi alteram partem_, therefore, if you finish an assessment on corruption-related matters, you ought to willingly accept responses from the accused in fulfilment of the principle of fair hearing.
Why is he mad at a call, which even didn’t force him but suggest to him to willingly consider responses from the accused? When he rejected the responses from the accused which is not fair in the spirit of natural justice, did anyone restricted him from doing what he suppose to do?
Calling to listen to other side of the story doesn’t mean that the independence of his office is being undermined.He should note that, any action in violation of the (audi alteram partem) rule is completely void and of no value. So what he was asked to accept shouldn’t imply and erroneous suggest that, his independence as special Prosecutor is at stake.Tolerance of divergence views is needed in running public office.
To be fair and transparent, one-sided story shouldn’t be entertained. To draw any conclusion on the matter, it should be carefully analysed by considering the reactions from those concerned.
I. K. Boahen