Amidu punches holes in CHRAJ report

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OPS) has given a conflicting report of the amount quoted by the Commission on Human Rights and Administration Justice (CHRAJ) on monies found in the bank accounts of the sacked Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Public Procurement Authority, Mr Adjemin Boateng Adjei.

The Special Prosecutor, Martin Lamisi Amidu, who resigned shortly after critiquing the CHRAJ report, said it understated the amount disclosed by the bank statements of Mr Adjei.

Although he commended the Commission for the report on the conduct of the dismissed PPA Boss, he believes CHRAJ could have done a better job to state the fact as disclosed by the bank statements from three bank accounts of Mr Adjei as reviewed by the Auditor-General.

In the Statement, Mr Amidu said “The Commission on Human Rights and Administration Justice ought to be commended for the report. The only problem with the CHRAJ report is that for some reason it understates the amounts disclosed by the bank statements from three bank accounts of Mr Adjei exhaustively reviewed by the Auditor-General for this Office.”

Thus, while CHRAJ quoted GH¢14million for a period of 31 months that Mr Adjei occupied the top position of PPA, the OSP on the other hand quotes separate amounts of GH¢15,691,559.30, US$4,467,055.00 and 54,5000 Euros.

According to Mr Amidu, if these amounts are tabulated, it would be beyond the figure put out by CHRAJ.

“You will see that the monthly deposits/receipts into Mr Adjei’s account between 2015 and 2016 ranged from GH¢9,000.00 to GH¢188,000.00 and $200 to $1,000.00,” he said.

On the issue of his resignation letter to the president, Mr Amidu admitted that “I should not ordinarily be announcing my resignation to the public myself, but the traumatic experience I went through from October 20, 2020 to November 2, 2020 when I conveyed in a 13 page letter, the conclusions and observations on the analysis of the risk of corruption and anti-corruption assessment on the Report On Agyapa Royalties Limited Transactions,” compelled him to do so.

“In undertaking the analysis of the risk of prevention of corruption and anti-corruption assessment I sincerely believed that I was executing an independent mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Act, 2017 (Act 959) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (Operations) Regulations, 2018 (L. I. 2374).

“The reaction I received for daring to produce the Agyapa Royalties Limited Transactions anti-corruption report convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt that I was not intended to exercise any independence as the Special Prosecutor in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and recovery of assets of corruption. My position as the Special Prosecutor has consequently become clearly untenable.

“It is essential for me to state for the purpose of the records, and contrary to public perceptions, that my appointment letter was received on 5^th February 2020 (almost two (2)-years after my appointment).

“The copy addressees made no efforts to honour any of the conditions of appointment in terms of emoluments and benefits of the appointment ever since my warrant of appointment was issued on 23^rd February 2018 to the date of my letter of resignation.

“I accepted the offer on 10^th January 2018 to be nominated to be Special Prosecutor because Mr. President and Ghanaians knew I have been an anti-corruption crusader all my life and not an anti-corruption entrepreneur.

“This explains why I have never put the emoluments and benefits of the Office as central to my commitment and my passion for the establishment of an independent, effective, efficient and impartial anti-corruption Office of the Special Prosecutor before the end of the first term of Mr. President. This has not been possible for several reasons”, he said.