<<Print>>

�With the exception of the disclosure about the GH₵400,000 paid into the accounts of the wife of the Chief State Attorney, Mr. Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh and the reference to the President�s attempt on two occasions to stop the payment of the Woyome judgment debt, there is nothing new in the EOCO Interim Report presented to President Mills,� argues Malik Kweku Baako, Editor-In-Chief of the New Crusading Guide . To him, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO�s) Interim Report is simply a rehash of what media commentators and social media have had to say in the last couple of months on the Woyome saga. According to him, there is nothing new apart from the President�s intervention and the monies payment of the GH�400,000 that has not being in the public domain already. The EOCO on Thursday, February 2 submitted an interim report on investigations into the controversial payment of judgment debt to NDC financier, Alfred Woyome to President Mills. The report indicted Mr. Woyome for manipulating documents to dupe the state of money which he was clearly not entitled to. President Mills subsequently ordered for the arrest of Mr. Woyome who was processed for court on Monday and is currently languishing in police cells. Contributing to discussions on Joy FM�s �News File� on Saturday, Malik Kweku Baako despite the EOCO report, a lot of questions still needs to be answered. For instance, he said, even though the EOCO report talked about the GH�400,000 paid into the account of the Chief State Attorney�s wife, it did not indicate if the spouse was interrogated as to how Mr. Agbesi Woyome gave her that kind of money just around the same time some of the monies were paid to Woyome. He also raised concerns over the revelation of President Mills� twice intervention to stop the payment, asking, �Who told EOCO about the president�s intervention, was it verbal or documented, did witnesses appeared before them from the government�s side and did they establish it with any documentary evidence that the President indeed ordered that the money should not be paid? Was it the president himself who indicated this because we are not told if the president was one of the people invited before EOCO?� He said for good governance practices, there should be a documentary indicator to the fact that the president did order his appointees not to make any payment, stressing that there are implications if the President indeed ordered that no payment is effected and his officials went ahead to do otherwise.