The Minority has communicated stun at the Special Prosecutor’s case that he can’t research money related and monetary wrongdoings.
Refering to the ongoing Power Distribution Services (PDS) concessionaire which has been suspended over speculated extortion, Martin Amidu said area 79 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959) puts “exceptionally constrained ward” on his office.
He stated, in the previous week, the PDS adventure has, most likely with every single well meaning goal, been distorted, to people in general and making in their psyches the conviction that the Office of Special Prosecutor has the ability to examine and indict extortion, and general budgetary and financial wrongdoings.
“Such proceeded with deception of the purview of the Office to the open is dependable to some degree for the acknowledgment by certain individuals from the open that the Office isn’t meeting the desires for which reason they upheld for its foundation and the arrangement of the Special Prosecutor,” Mr Amidu said in an article concerning the issue.
He said the decision of the High Court on account of the Republic v Ayariga and 1 Other by an Accra High Court, underscored his point on the dispatch of the Office to a restricted degree just dependent on absence of nitty gritty specifics and ought to be a manual for general society.
Bawku Central MP, Mahama Ayariga is being indicted by the Special Prosecutor for dodging expense and managing in remote cash without a permit.
Be that as it may, the Minority can’t help contradicting the Special Prosecutor.
Positioning Member on Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, Inusah Fuseini, said the law setting up the workplace gives Mr Amidu the order to examine defilement and debasement related offenses.
“The law did not make another range of offenses. It basically indicated the region of offenses which in the perspective on the administrators are defilement related offenses… so to state that ‘I don’t have the order to arraign monetary violations’ is to make a deception to make one wonder,” he said.
Mr Fuseini who is likewise Tamale Central MP, in reference to the Ayariga case stated, the court did not say the Special Prosecutor can’t examine Ayariga.
“What the court said in the Ayariga case is that Martin Amidu can’t go to court to indict an individual exclusively on them however can’t arraign him exclusively on the commission of a money related wrongdoing or on monetary wrongdoing.”
The concession concurrence with PDS has been suspended
This implies Mr Amidu needs to exhibit in court that the commission of that wrongdoing will prompt defilement or is debasement related.
“That is the weight that is forced on him by the law,” Mr Fuseini clarified.
In a reaction to the topic of whether it was essential for the Special Prosecutor to research the PDS issue when the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Service is as of now working on it, the MP said nothing prevents Mr Amidu from mentioning for an exchange of the case as the law gives him the privilege to.
“Act 959 gives the exceptional investigator the expert to request the exchange of a case to the workplace of the Special Prosecutor if in his view that case is defilement and debasement related.
Yet, a private lawful expert, Martin Kpebu says the Special Prosecutor has a point.
He said the meaning of defilement and debasement related offenses in Section 97 Act 959 of the Special Prosecutor’s Act confines Mr Amidu.
“The controlling word there (in the Act) is Means… it says defilement and debasement related offenses mean offenses under… at that point there is a rundown. There is a Supreme Court choice that says that with regards to the meaning of words and the word means is utilized then it implies you are confined to what has been recorded there.
“In the event that they had said debasement and defilement related offenses incorporate, at that point there is space however once they said mean, so far I imagine that Mr Amidu has a point,” he clarified.
The most ideal approach to settle the issue, in Mr Kpebu’s view is to look for a more clear significance in court.