Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh has refuted claims made by former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu suggesting that he is part of some conspiracy orchestrated by the Presidency to malign Mr Amidu following his resignation.
According to him, his comments on the former Special Prosecutor’s decision not to investigate and prosecute former President and National Democratic Congress flagbearer, John Mahama were in no way meant to assassinate the character or question the integrity of Martin Amidu.
“In all of my public commentary since Mr Amidu’s abrupt resignation as Special Prosecutor, I have endeavoured to examine the issues arising from his resignation from a broader governance perspective, avoiding the ad hominem,” he said.
Martin Amidu in his 27-page letter to the President, November 27, accused the Executive Director of CDD Ghana of peddling falsehoods in an interview on JoyNews NewsFile.
“I heard and read Dr. Henry K. Prempeh, the Executive Director of CDD Ghana, peddle the same falsehoods you have repeated in your paragraph 10 on Joy FM which was reported on 14th November 2020 online under the title: “Airbus Scandal: Martin Amidu had no excuse not to prosecute Mahama,” Mr Amidu said.
“This was after I had seen him in the Presidency in the company of two other lawyers on a working day before his Saturday the 14th November 2020 engagement on Joy FM damning my legitimate exercise of discretion as the Special Prosecutor after taking all relevant matters in consideration. Dr. Henry K. Prempeh knows that I know he is a friend to the President, and I have told him so in two meetings that the CDD held with me in my former office to use that influence to assist the Office.”
Reacting to this assertion by the former Special Prosecutor, Prof. H.K Prempeh stated, “Needless to say, I am surprised to see my name make such an unprovoked appearance in Mr Amidu’s latest release, with the wild suggestion that I may have been part of some conspiracy orchestrated from or by the Presidency to malign Mr Amidu in the wake of his resignation.
“There is no substance whatsoever to that suggestion or conclusion. Indeed, it would be out of character for me to do that which Mr. Amidu’s paragraph 34 suggests.”
In addition, Prof. Prempeh stated in his letter that Mr Amidu had mistaken his visit to the Jubilee House in the company of other lawyers as him conniving with the President to attack his integrity when it was only a visit by the Law Reform Commission to the Presidency of which Prof. H.K Prempeh is a member of.
“I sit on the Law Reform Commission, and on that Tuesday afternoon the Commission was at the Presidency for a pre-scheduled appointment with the President to discuss the business of the Commission.
“That was the only item on the agenda, and the meeting took place with some media and the Deputy Attorney-General and two staffers of the President present. It wasn’t a long meeting. I think we were out of the place within 45 minutes. We went to Jubilee House together as a Commission and exited together, though in our separate cars.
“At that meeting, I did not have the opportunity or privilege of a one-on-one moment or side meeting with the President, and I had no reason to expect one. I do not have that kind of access to or relationship with the Presidency, contrary to the insinuation in Mr Amidu’s paragraph 34,” the Professor clarified.
He found it rather sad that Martin Amidu would make such damaging insinuations against him, and that; “this post hoc detour by Mr Amidu is in no way helpful to the fight against corruption. In fact, it hurts that fight immensely.”