<<Print>>

Former Attorney-General Martin Amidu has disputed claims by the Attorney-General's Department that it provided him with the needed support leading to the landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court ordered Waterville Holdings to refund tens of millions of Euros to the state. In denouncing the assertions, Martin Amidu, in a statement he issued on Wednesday in reaction to an earlier one from the A-G's dept that he (Martin Amidu) was not left alone in the fight to retrieve the judgment debt paid to Waterville Holdings, the former A-G wondered why the country was "fighting over who takes credit for a judgment in vindication of the Constitution." To him, "the Constitution of Ghana has won. The people of Ghana who are sovereign have won." The A-G's on Tuesday released a press statement signed by the Deputy Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, who pointed out that �the Attorney General�s office researched and supported the filing of processes leading to our identification with and support for Mr. Amidu.� However, in a sharp riposte, Martin Amidu, who clearly appeared beside himself with shock at attempts by the A-G's office to bask in the joy of his triumph, said he is "sad that a Government supported by my own political party is spinning even a simple and glaring case", and questioned what kind of support the A-G gave to him. "Did the AG draft my writ and Statement of Case in the Waterville/Woyome, and Isofoton cases for me? Did the AG's office conduct research for me to write my writ, statement of case, and legal submissions? Did the AG pay my filing fees for the two cases? Did not the AG have to ask for leave out of time to file its defence in the two cases when I was ready for the hearing?...How then do you help a plaintiff only when you are failing the people and he decides to sue you in the Supreme Court for the people's money at his own expense?" he asked. He was emphatic that he is "not interested in any glories or who must take credit", adding that "the Attorney General will serve the people well if" she rather "concentrates on ensuring that every pesewa is returned as order by the Court". "Who cares who did what?...I am shy of praises that is why I have refused to talk to the press or be seen in public. Leave me alone!" Martin Amidu said. Below Is Martin Amidu's Full Statement.... Well, why are we fighting over who takes credit for a judgment in vindication of the Constitution? The important thing is that the judgment was given pursuant to an action by the plaintiff in the public interest. The AG was 1st Defendant and remained so till judgment. The office of the AG would not be helping or supporting the plaintiff if they admitted the plaintiff's claim because they did not have a defence to his claim. Waterville was wrongly paid by an Attorney General who instead of protecting the Republic chose to unconstitutionally arbitrate and paid 25m euro to them. What prevented the AG from taking the position I took. They never pursued Waterville for a refund of that money in any court, so how can the AG now say she supported me in my action. Did the AG draft my writ and Statement of Case in the Waterville/Woyome, and Isofoton cases for me? Did the AG's office conduct research for me to write my writ, statement of case, and legal submissions? Did the AG pay my filing fees for the two cases? Did not the AG have to ask for leave out of time to file its defence in the two cases when I was ready for the hearing? Was it not the Plaintiff who as Attorney General amended the Writ and Statement of Claim at the High Court to plead fraud for the first time and rewrite the whole case now pending in that Court? Were the hands of the succeeding AG's not tied by the pleadings the plaintiff in the two cases left behind when he left office. The amendments were purposefully initiated in anticipation of the fact that I was on my way out. Did the plaintiff not go to the Supreme Court precisely because after he left office the AG's were trying to compromise the cases? How then do you help a plaintiff only when you are failing the people and he decides to sue you in the Supreme Court for the people's money at his own expense? I am sad that a Government supported by my own political party is spinning even a simple and glaring case. I do not want any credit for the Supreme Court�s decision. The Constitution of Ghana has won. The people of Ghana who are sovereign have won. I am not interested in any glories or who must take credit. Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not fund his education? Who is Martin Amidu if the people of Ghana did not give him an opportunity to serve this nation and particularly as Deputy Attorney General for several years and also as Attorney General? I claim nothing from the people of Ghana but to use the knowledge they gave me to serve them. I have purposefully decided to stay out of the public eye because I do not want the judgment won by the people of Ghana to be about me. The Government can take all the credit. I do not mind. My satisfaction is that the Court has ordered the refund of all monies paid to Waterville to the Republic. The Attorney General will serve the people well if instead of claiming to have won the cases she concentrated in ensuring that every pesewa is returned as order by the Court. Who cares who did what? The Deputy Attorney General will do well to read Attorney General vs. Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited and tell the public whom the Supreme Court selected for praised for excellent submissions in saving the state from a similar situation where the amount involved when calculated with interest would have been double the Waterville judgment debt? Did Martin Amidu make noise about? I am shy of praises that is why I have refused to talk to the press or be seen in public. Leave me alone!