Dear Dr Velarie Sawyer…
Permit me for this admonishment but at this juncture, I am doing this to save you from serious embarrassment. Woman, few weeks ago you wrote an article to describe the forensic Audit report as “awam” and then proceeded to attack Prof.Dua Agyeman who was only a secretary to the committee constituted under the authority of the senior minister to coordinate the work between the Economic And Organised Crime Office and the private Audit firms. As if that wasn’t enough, you dared Nana Akufo-Addo government to put you before any competent court of jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
I had the opportunity to peruse the said article of yours on social media. In the article you again wondered why the report was put in the public domain. Let me make this clear to you that, my admonishment to you is not in any way seeking to pre-empt the outcome of the case in court. Every citizen of Ghana has a constitutional right to go to court and challenge whatever decision (s) he thinks is inappropriate and not in tandem with the law. It is against this backdrop that, the framers of the 1992 constitution inserted Article 125(1) (2) as a provision. It reads and I quote” (1) Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution.
(2) Citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.
The fact that we have the right to move to court doesn’t mean that, we have to abuse the entire process. Right indeed goes with a responsibility and so once we have the right to go to court, we owe it a responsibility to go there on reasonable grounds. I got a copy of your writ on same social media last two weeks. I went through your statement of claim and i was surprised. Your writ is seeking to block the anti-graft agency from inviting you on the findings of the forensic Audit report. The very report you called bluff out of it on the basis that, some of you weren’t invited during the ordinary course of the forensic audit by those audit firm.
Isn’t it intriguing that, the apostles of probity and accountability are now running away from the very principles that gave birth to their political organisation? When I went through your writ, i saw a claim that, the forensic Audit report breached the audi alteram patterm principle which says, a party to an issue should be heard. One thing you failed to appreciate is the fact that, the said principle is only applicable to adjudicating bodies and not investigative agencies. One relief you sought from the court was a declaration that, since the forensic Audit report breached the audi alteram patterm principle, the court should block the Economic and Organised Crime Office from further relying on the report as their basis for your invitation for probe.
Any Auditor is an investigator and during the ordinary course of Audit, it is a discretion of the Auditor to invite or not to invite anybody during the audit. You were once a board member of the Ghana Gas Company and under your auspices as a member, the company procured a helicopter under procurement violations according to the report. Again and according to the report, the cost of the air craft was also inflated as well. Records/ documents are the first point of focus during audit engagement so it is wrong to assert that, because you were not invited during the audit, your right to be heard was unjustifiably violated.
Common sense should have reminded you that, once an investigative body isn’t an adjudicating body, audi alteram patterm principle isn’t applicable to Audit firms. This government has indeed been lenient to you because, the findings of the report should have gone straight to the Attorney General for prosecutable dockets to be built for you to be put before court for serious prosecution. Today, EOCO wants to give you the leniency to present your side of the case before them and you are fighting not to allow that to happen because you are afraid. “If you aren’t in possession of smuggled goods, why should you fear when you are approaching a barrier”?
The time has come for you to account for your stewardship so seeking to block the move raises reasonable doubt on your innocence. Your case before the high court is incompetent and lacks merit so to speak. You are only giving your lawyer an opportunity to chop your money. Even though, you aren’t a lawyer to know whether or not your case has merit, but you should have used simple common sense to evaluate your case on the face of logic. Unfortunately as a PhD holder, you failed to do that. You have done something a first degree holder wouldn’t have done.
I know very soon, you and your cohorts would be put before court for serious prosecution. I won’t be surprised if the court throws out your case on grounds of frivolity and incompetence. Let me pause and relax for now. You will hear for me when your case is finally thrown out of court.
Dawda Eric (Equity)
Citizen Vigilance for Justice