Parliament, Judiciary Deadlocked �Over Right To Prosecute Public Officers For Financial Malfeasance
There appears to be deadlock between Parliament and the Judiciary, over the court responsible for the prosecution of public officers found culpable of financial malfeasance by the Auditor General’s Report on public accounts.
Although the Financial Administration Courts (FAC) have been established in Accra, Kumasi, Sekondi-Takoradi and Tamale, in February 2014 to among others, adjudicate case of impropriety emanating from findings of the Auditor General’s Report, the Public Accounts Committee has reservations about composition of the court.
Speaking to The Ghanaian Times, Hon. Kwaku Agyeman Manu, Member of Parliament for Dormaa Central and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, said the composition of the Financial Administration Court was not the same as stated in the Financial Administration Act, 2003 Act 645.
He said Parliament, through the Speaker of Parliament, had written to the Judiciary to enquire about the composition of the FAC, but said “the response was not clear,” even though he could not remember the contents of the response.
“The composition of the Financial Administration Court does not fit into the previsions of the Financial Administration Act, 654, which provides for the establishment of a Financial Tribunal to be manned by financial professionals,” Mr. Agyeman-Manu told The Ghanaian Times by phone.
The Act 645 provides for the establishment of a Financial Administration Tribunal by the Chief Justice in consultation, with the Judicial Council, and approved by the President, to be composed of a High Court Justice who shall be the chairperson, and a Chartered Accountant or a professional value.
The tribunal is expected to enforce recommendations of the PAC on the Auditor General’s report as approved by Parliament, by making such orders it considers appropriate for recoveries of assets or other property due to the state.
A letter by The Ghanaian Times to the Judicial Service for further clarification on the issue over two weeks ago has not yet elicited a response from the judiciary.
<<Print>>