The truth, however, is that not all politicians are heartless. Not all of them are crooks. Not everybody goes into politics to steal. Like any of us, they may have their bad sides, but there are politicians who mean well for their people. The arrogant and flamboyant ones have become the conspicuous mascots of the political class. But there are politicians worth celebrating.

MANASSEH’S FOLDER: Righteous politicians, bad civil servants!

I had passed in front of that building several times, but I didn’t know it housed a minister of state. My friend, Hamdia, lived in that house. I had been a friend of Hamdia and her husband to be since my day as an SRC President but I didn’t know she was the daughter of a minister of state.

Well, she didn’t behave like one. How could a minister’s daughter who had completed a tertiary institution and was working be boarding trotro? And why would a minister of state be living in that modest Agege suburb of Accra? I know such larger than life personalities live in East Legon and the plush suburbs of the capital.

It was when Hamdia was getting married that I knew she was a minister’s daughter. It was then that I realized that the house was owned by the Minister of Roads and Highways then. He is a sitting member of parliament for Sissala West Constituency in the Upper West Region, an engineer and former university lecturer. He had served as Regional Minister, Ghana’s ambassador to Egypt and held other high positions in government. Alhaji Amidu Amin Sulemana is his name. He is Hamdiya’s father.

When she was about to get married and said she wanted me to emcee her wedding reception, I went to the house. When I visited her one evening in the course of the planning, I realised Mahama had visited them. I mean there was power outage or “dumsor.” Everywhere was dark, including their house. When I asked why their generator was not on, she said, “Don’t mind my father. He said nobody has generator in this area so when there is no light, we should all sleep in darkness. He doesn’t understand why we alone should have light when all others are in darkness.”

When Alhaji Amidu Sulemana came home that evening, I realized he was not accompanied by a police escort. He was driving himself. And when he was leaving home to have a haircut, he opened the gate himself.

During the period he was the roads and Highways Minister, Alhaji Amidu Amin Sulemana lived in this house. Not even a pesewa was charged the state as accommodation allowance. No painting or renovation cost accrued to the state. He lived in his private residence and worked until he was transferred. It was when he was leaving the family for the Upper West Regional Minister that I learnt he finally bought a generator for the family because they were worrying him.

As a matter of principle, Alhaji Amidu Sulemana never applied for a state scholarship for any of his children to study abroad. Though his colleague MPs, Ministers and other top government officials often use their influence to get such scholarships, he said he could pay for his children’s education so he would not meddle in a scheme meant to help the poor.

I witnessed a similar act of modesty and high sense of responsibility by a politician when Dr. Epraim Avea Nsoh was the Regional Minister for the Upper West. Dr. Avea, in my opinion, was one of President Mahama’s best appointments. He wanted to make an impact in the lives of the people of the region. He said he was going to make the Upper West Region a model region. He drew up a development plan, and got donor agencies and other stakeholders to buy into his plan. He was transferred to the Upper East Region when he was about to take off.

He quickly set to work in developing a similar initiative in the region. He was still consulting stakeholders in the region when he was removed from government. For the first time in the Upper East Region, there was agitation in the region against his removal. The people of Bongo where he comes from demonstrated. When the MP for Bongo, Albert Abongo, was removed from being a minister, nobody raised a flag. So what was so special with Dr. Avea?

He was selfless.

When I first visited the Upper West Region while he was the regional minister, I realized that the saloon car that was parked in the Minister’s parking space was one of the smallest and probably cheapest cars parked there. The car was five years old, and had a serious dent. One of its front lights was broke. I was wondering who had parked in the Minister’s space until I was told that was the car the minister used. Didn’t he have any other vehicle?

He did.

As a minister of state, he was entitled to one Toyota Land Cruiser and a saloon car. The saloon car was obviously faulty but he still used it. His reason was interesting when I asked him.

The Toyota Land Cruiser consumed too much fuel, he said. The Regional Coordinating Council was facing financial challenges. Sometimes it was difficult to procure A4 sheets of paper for administrative work in some of the assemblies and government agencies there. Instead of spending the meager resources at the regional coordinating council’s disposal on his personal comfort, Dr. Avea said he was prepared to live modestly and use the money to develop.

He had been advised to buy a new saloon car or repair the existing one but that was not his priority. “When we tell the people we are leading that there’s no money, we ourselves should be seen to be making sacrifices. We cannot live like kings and expect the people we govern to understand us when we say there’s no money,” he told me. Some journalists said if he had to go to the hinterlands, he travelled with the journalists in the same bus in order to save fuel.

Alhaji Amidu Sulemana and Dr. Avea are not the only politicians who are making sacrifices in order to serve. Politicians have all been tarred with the same brush because some have muddied the waters of politics and want to stay there that way. The truth, however, is that not all politicians are heartless. Not all of them are crooks. Not everybody goes into politics to steal. Like any of us, they may have their bad sides, but there are politicians who mean well for their people. The arrogant and flamboyant ones have become the conspicuous mascots of the political class. But there are politicians worth celebrating.

Unfortunately, we tend to concentrate so much on the politicians, leaving the real crooks, the civil servants. Let me add that not all of them are crooks.  As an anti-corruption journalist, I have come to realize that the corrupt politician is a temporary thief. They are relevant only when they are in government.  A corrupt civil servant, however, is a permanent thief. They steal and sometimes set up the politicians. They create artificial barriers, and jam the system and profit from it.

To win the war against corruption and other ills in the country, we need to keep an eye on the civil servants and public servants who are not politicians. We need to celebrate the good politicians too in order to encourage those with good intentions to agree to serve. An irresponsible civil or public servant can hurt the society more than the politician. We ought to begin to look at the civil and public servants very keenly because a lot of those people think so much of what to make of the state, thanks to the weak institutions that harbour them.

When the former Commissioner for the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice, Madam Lauretta Vivian Lamptey, was questioned on Joy FM in the wake of her wasteful expenditure, she said something that I would never forget. One of her defences was that “it is the responsibility of the state to accommodate me.”

One of our biggest problems as a nation is that the working class seems to know the responsibility of the state towards us but we do not seem to care about our responsibility towards the state. We know our rights but we don’t seem to care about our responsibilities.

The sad thing is that such dedicated people who are not prepared to conform don’t often last in politics or public service. There is more incentive do the wrong things than to be good. The good thing, however, is that the benefits of such selfless dedication to the service of humanity always outlives the people who are committed to it.

Such virtues outlive the greedy and selfish thieves who destroy society in order to build empires and live like kings. 

Source Source: Ghana/ Manasseh Azure Awuni/ © Shared from Ghana Online App:

GO GHANA GO. GO AFRICA GO. GO BLACK RACE GO. -Lawrence was born in Ghana, and said that one of his driving passions right now is to bring Internet access to the world’s developing countries. He has been instrumental in trying to extend high-capacity fiber optic cable along Africa’s west coast.


National Inventors Hall of Fame announces 2016 inductees
1 Comment
Nov 17, 2015 6:00 AM EST

National Inventors Hall of Fame
Think of it as the Oscars for inventors. Every year, a distinguished group of men and women whose technological innovations have made a significant impact on the world are inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. It’s an exclusive club that includes the likes of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla — and today, the hall is announcing the names of 16 inventors who are the latest to receive the honor.

They will be formally inducted at a ceremony on May 5, 2016, hosted by “CBS Sunday Morning” correspondent Mo Rocca at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National Portrait Gallery.

This new class of inductees is a diverse group of groundbreaking scientists, past and present. It ranges from Per-Ingvar Brånemark, who pioneered Osseointegration, or modern dental implantology, to Harriet Williams Russell Strong, who received a patent in 1887 for a system of dams and reservoirs for flood containment and damage control. For each inventor being lauded — some posthumously — the honor is recognition of scientific achievement that has moved beyond the research lab and made a tangible impact on society.

Inventing the Internet

“I was so humbled when I found out. I did not believe it, because this is such a great honor,” 2016 inductee Victor B. Lawrence told CBS News. “For me, this is something that I was really not expecting, it is really a big honor for me.”

While Lawrence himself might not necessarily be a household name, his invention of signal processing in telecommunications has had far-reaching impact. An electrical engineer who spent the majority of his career at Bell Laboratories, Lawrence’s work essentially made the modern Internet we know today possible. He improved Internet transmission, made high-speed connections more widely available, and kick-started the spread of the web globally.



“This work that I’ve done has really filtered almost every aspect of our modern lives. You can find it in communications in DSL, in phones, in EKG machines in medicine – it really infiltrates all aspects of our lives,” he said.

Lawrence was born in Ghana, and said that one of his driving passions right now is to bring Internet access to the world’s developing countries. He has been instrumental in trying to extend high-capacity fiber optic cable along Africa’s west coast.

“I have this passion of brining the Internet to the far off nations of this world, and connect a number of countries that have no or limited Internet access,” he said.

Lawrence developed his signature achievement in the 1980s as the world started moving away from data transmissions bogged down by masses of wires and cords to a more wireless future. After completing his PhD from the University of London, he was recruited by AT&T with the aim of finding ways, he said, “we could go from the analog world to the digital world.”

Perhaps the central theme uniting Lawrence’s and the other the inductees’ work is how their brilliant ideas have spread from the confines of the lab to have a global reach.

Powerful idea

Bantval Jayant Baliga, another new inductee, did not necessarily know his invention of the insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) would leave such a mark when he devised it while working for General Electric in the 1980s. Baliga initially pitched his idea for the device — a semiconductor power switch that is used in many modern appliances from electric cars to air-conditioners — to GE management as something of a utility invention that could be implemented across the board in the company’s signature products.


Roger Winstead, N.C. State University

“It really blew everyone away that this could be used for all of the appliances like lighting and air-conditioning,” Baliga said. “After being in-house for awhile, the device started getting exposure when companies from all over the world started manufacturing the IGBT and using it in an enormous range of applications.”

The IGBT is particularly notable for its roles as a significant energy saver.

The switch has reduced gasoline consumption by about 10 percent and improved electrical efficiency by more than 40 percent, eliminating carbon dioxide emissions by over 100 trillion pounds globally for the past quarter century.

“I’m just delighted in the impact this has had all over the world,” he added.

Photo finish

Steven Sasson knows how that feels. Sasson was inducted into the hall of fame in 2011 for inventing the digital camera, a device he’s seen move from the lab into the hands of millions of people around the world.

The ceremony, he said, is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to share a love of innovation and discovery with some of the most influential inventors of all time.

“Honestly, the last thing we want to talk about when we are there is our own work. You really want to hear about what the other people are doing,” Sasson said. “The men and women inducted into the hall by their very nature are curious people who want to learn about the other people.”

Innovators and inventors are teams
For Sasson, another highlight is the opportunity to connect with the next generation of inventors. Since 1990, the hall of fame has sponsored the Collegiate Inventors Competition as well as Camp Invention, a daytime summer camp that has programs in 49 states.

“The inventors love meeting the kids, they are terrific, they are so full of energy, and they have so much creativity. I think I can speak for everybody in the hall of fame when I say we really love to see the energy that these young people have,” Sasson added. “You can learn so much from that spark and that enthusiasm.”

Many fellow hall-of-famers fostered a love of science and technology at a young age.

“It’s great that the hall of fame encourages these students to be interested in problem solving and embrace the STEM skills,” Lawrence said.

The hall of fame was established in 1973, and relies on a panel of experts from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to vet the final inductee selections. Inductees most hold a United States Patent that has “contributed significantly to the nation’s welfare and the advancement of science and the useful arts,” according to the organization’s website.

The 2016 inductees are: J.D. Albert, Roger Angel, Roger Bacon, Bantval Jayant Baliga, Per-Ingvar Brånemark, Barrett Comiskey, Joseph Jacobson, Sheldon Kaplan, Victor Lawrence, Radia Perlman, John Silliker, Harriet Strong, William Sparks, Ivan Sutherland, Welton Taylor, and Robert Thomas.

What makes this event important? Sasson said it is crucial to recognize the scientific achievements that shape the way people live day to day.

“You know, it’s important to have the hall of fame because it changes the way people look at inventors. These people are usually quiet and not outgoing a lot of times. The induction ceremony makes it a big deal, and it is a big deal to have people in that room who changed your life, and you don’t necessarily know what they look like, but you know that their work has changed the world,” Sasson said. “We always promote sports stars and TV and movie stars, but it is important to recognize the inventors and the people who changed the way we live.”

© 2015 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2015 CBS Interactive Inc.

All rights reserved.

CBS News App for Android®

ARE WE ACCURSED, SADDLED WITH POOR LEADERS? Patrick Awuah: I’m sad our leaders don’t listen

Patrick Awuah: I’m sad our leaders don’t listen Ashesi University Founder, Dr Patrick Awuah, has said he sometimes feels sad for Ghana because the country’s leaders do not listen to good advice.

Dr Awuah, who was named Social Entrepreneur of the Year 2014, by the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship told Albert Ocran on Joy FM Sunday that he wished Ghanaian leaders could listen to technocrats, who proffer advice on Ghana’s development.

“I have had instances where public officers have come and asked for advice, we’ve given it, and they’ve ignored it,” he revealed.

“And I’ve seen that exact same advice implemented in other countries in Africa and be very successful, and when I see that I feel a little sad for Ghana that the people in charge don’t always listen, and don’t even pay attention to the evidence in front of them, and I wish they would,” he added.

The Elon University Entrepreneurship Medal winner said there were a lot of lessons Ghana could learn from Singapore in order to develop.

“In Singapore the Government had clearly identified things that they were doing and they also created a lot of space for the private sector to operate and the Government also made a point to not promise an easy path for the people, so they didn’t promise that things were going to be free; they didn’t say electricity is free, fuel is free, this and that is free.

“They chose a path of pragmatism of saying people will have to pay an economic price for what they use and their Government is also not obstructionist against the private sector,” the Haas School leadership award winner said.

He, however, added that the “leadership has to convince people that they can do that and create the space, and create the enabling environment for people to do that.”

Source © Shared from Ghana Online App:


. It is on these bases that we also challenge Mr. Amidu (and all well-meaning Ghanaians ought to do the same) to substantiate his allegations against us with evidence. He must back those unfortunate assertions with facts. And those facts or evidence must be more than simply trotting out the offices he held between 2009 and 2012, and the rather hollow assertion that “I therefore know what I am talking about.” – See more at:


President Mills commissioned judicial corruption investigation – Martin Amidu writes

The late President John Evans Atta Mills

By: Martin AmiduMonday, 09 November 2015 07:30

Published in General News

‘Citizen Vigilante’ and former Attorney-General has written an article, detailing what he describes as the ‘genesis’ of the undercover investigation undertaken by journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, which revealed widespread corruption in the judiciary

According to him, it was the late President John Atta Mills who commissioned Anas to carry out the investigation upon suspicion that there were corrupt elements in the judiciary.

 Mr Amidu wrote: “I have said that the undercover investigation that led to the judicial corruption expose was commissioned by the Government of Ghana and has its genesis in the acrimonious relationship between the Government and the Judiciary on the assumption of power in 2009 by the Government and the constant demand by the Judiciary for proof of judicial corruption from Government and its associates.

“I was Presidential Advisor on Legal Affairs in the second half of 2009, I was Minister for the Interior in 2010, and the Attorney General in 2011 before I left office in 2012. I therefore know what I am talking about.”

He alleged that the anti-corruption investigation was a two-pronged one involving the judiciary and parliament, but President John Mahama has chosen to suppress the parliamentary one.

RelatedAmidu accuses Prez Mahama of compromising and suppressing Anas’ Parliament corruption video 

Read the article below:

The Ghanaian Sense of Justice: Corrupt Judges Removed, Corrupt Attorneys Rewarded And Corrupt Politicians Protected: By Martin A. B. K. Amidu

Genesis of the corruption undercover investigations

Judicial corruption or corruption by judicial officers is no news to any honest and respectable member of the legal profession and the judiciary itself. It is a subject of on-going discussions within lawyers and judges; sometimes names are mentioned privately but reports are not made for disciplinary action because witnesses refuse to testify. 

The constitutional history of this nation shows collaborative efforts between the legal profession, some judges, and some governments, particularly military regimes, to cleanse the judiciary of people with low moral character and low integrity – the last time was when the PNDC dismissed over 12 judges for perceived corruption.

The years 2010 and 2011 were acrimonious ones in the relationship between the Government and the judiciary with accusations of corruption and partisanship made by Government and party supporters, and the judiciary calling for proof. When the Wereko Brobey and Mpiani acquittal and discharge and cleansing the judiciary (several ways of killing a cat) controversy sapped the energies of Government and Party on one side, and the Judiciary and its sympathizers on the other, I was the Minister for the Interior with a part to play.

In 2011 I was the Attorney General when statements at a National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) symposium alleging that most judges take bribes, judicial corruption is not a perception and other allegations of bribery and corruption against the judiciary were made and met with demands from the judiciary for proof. All the four speakers at the occasion were banned by the judiciary from appearing in any court as lawyers and a complaint made to the lawyers’ disciplinary committee for action.

I wondered alongside my Government what the judiciary would have done if the speakers were not also incidentally lawyers. The last grievance against the judiciary was the acquittal of all the suspects in the Ya Na Murder case in 2011after a submission of no case to answer. But it was the judiciary unfortunately which always dared this Government and its predecessor for proof. Now they have it. It is big news! This is so because catching judges or judicial officers in flagrante delicto, fili fili, discussing and taking bribes is evidence which the judiciary and its protagonist thought the Government was incapable of producing. There are many ways of killing a cat indeed!

Disclosure of the Judicial Corruption Scandal

I was elated when news broke out that 34 judges and about 180 other judicial officers were caught red handed on video tape discussing with third parties and taking bribes to sell justice. I became, like many Ghanaians, a staunch supporter of the Petitioner or Petitioners and their results. I had complete empathy with the undercover investigators because of my own previous experiences as a lawyer, a Deputy Attorney General, and as Attorney General. As Attorney General I had suspected three of the judicial officers of having been compromised or about to be compromised in decisions they made or about to make against the Republic. I had gone to the Supreme Court to nullify two such decisions and also to take the sting out of a possible acquittal in one of the two cases should the suspect be acquitted at the end of the on-going trial against the preponderance of the evidence or on grounds of an alleged weakness of the prosecution’s case. In the third case, I could only refer the Attorney to the disciplinary committee and to the police for further investigations. My animal nature reaffirmed by belief that those particular judges had never been fit to be on the bench, even though my suspicions still remain a conjuncture since I can offer no concrete proof of corruption in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court vindicated my position in the Woyome and Isofoton cases.

Support for the Chief Justice’s disciplinary actions 

When contentions begun to surface first that the culprits could not be disciplined unless they were first convicted of a criminal offence and secondly that they could not be liable for disciplinary proceedings because the petitioners entrapped them into the misconduct I disagreed vehemently. I am on the side of the Chief Justice on this. I contended that the argument that the judicial officers from circuit judges and below could only be removed after a conviction was based on an erroneous appreciation of Sections 16(d), 17(a), 18 and 19 of the Judicial Service Act, 1960 (CA 10) dealing with summary  and formal disciplinary proceedings.

 In summary proceedings a conviction was enough to remove summarily from office. In all other cases a major penalty of removal from office could not be imposed unless after formal proceedings. The Chief Justice is proceeding formally and not summarily: she did not have to wait for a criminal conviction to remove a judge or judicial officer from office. In any case the governing disciplinary provision for junior judicial officers was not CA 10 but Article 151 of the Constitution. It does not tie the hands of the Chief Justice to any conviction and does not state that proceedings be formal or summary but entitles the judicial officer to be heard in his defence by himself or lawyer or other expert of his choice which supposes a formal hearing.

CA 10/60 cannot derogate from Article 151 which requires a 2/3 vote of the Judicial Council for removal. How the Judicial Council proceeds to reach the resolution by not less than 2/3 votes is not stated. The removal procedure for superior court justices is covered by Article 146 and not CA 10.

On the entrapment charge I contended that since the coming into force of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) the evidential rule in relation to improperly obtained evidence is that relevant evidence was admissible notwithstanding that it was even obtained illegally subject only to any exclusionary rule of law or discretion.

I took the view that the Evidence Act followed the exclusionary rules in Miranda v Arizona, and its derivative on custodial interrogation and confessions, and Mapp v Ohio 367 US 643 and its derivatives on unreasonable searches and seizures. But my position has been that the rule inBurdeau v Mcdowell 256 US 465 (1921) and its derivatives support the proposition that the exclusionary rules do not apply to the conduct and activities of private individuals in improperly obtaining evidence even though they might have obtained the evidence through the commission of crime. The rule in Burdeau v McDowell has, however been subjected to the qualification that the exclusionary rule applies when the private individual is acting as an agent of Government or other sovereign authority. On a third argument that the constitutional right to privacy might have been violated by the petitioners, I took the view that privacy cannot be invaded upon an invitation or permission to a private person by the complainant as he can be said to have voluntarily invited the person into his privacy. Secondly, consent by deception has been held to constitute valid consent for purposes of the invasion of privacy in the prosecution of crime.

In my considered opinion it was urgent for the Chief Justice to complete the disciplinary process first to restore the image of the system before releasing the judges and judicial officers to the police for investigation. The disciplinary standards are lower than prosecutions and the administrative removal will restore the image of the service even if no prosecution eventually succeeds. Some of the issues are now before the courts for a decision within the context of the respective facts of those cases and we have to abide those decisions.

I still think that the law in criminal trials is that relevant evidence, however, obtained is admissible to prove an event except when there is a rule of law or practice excluding it. The exclusionary rules seldom apply to disciplinary proceedings and in most civil cases. How the evidence was obtained is of no moment as long as it is available, it can be used.  In spite of the fact that these undercover investigations were the results of challenges by the Judiciary to the Government to prove that there is corruption in the judiciary Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, Mrs. Georgina Wood, has since she received the petitions and complaints conducted herself with exemplary dignity, respect, and due process in her efforts to restore the integrity and dignity of the judiciary and public confidence in it.

The fact that challenges to the disciplinary proceedings are being adjudicated by the courts resulting in postponement of some impeachment hearings and disciplinary proceedings in accordance with due process vindicates a commitment to the rule of law in these trying times. I am of course under no illusions that the problem of corruption in the judiciary will be uprooted through this documentary proof that the judiciary is corrupt. Some lawyers and other writers and commentators have already said that this is simply the tip of the ice berg. I agree with those observations in toto.

Other undisclosed culprits of the undercover Judicial Corruption investigations 

Even as I write there is evidence that some judges who were also offered and accepted bribes by the commissioned undercover investigators are still working as judicial officers because the investigators have not yet submitted any petition to the President due to hitches with the video recordings but have notified the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council of these facts.

It is my expectation that the petitioners will act accountably and transparently by making these facts public and pursue complaints against the affected persons to avoid the appearance of picking and choosing who to expose. I also think the undercover investigators have to be held accountable by being compelled to submit for public scrutiny all the unedited video recordings including those for the so called judges who allegedly refused to accept bribes and threatened to report the investigators to the police.

Making ex parte contacts with and discussing pending cases with the undercover investigators without reporting it to the Judicial Secretary, the Chief Justice, the Police or informing the real parties to the trial until the investigators made it public years after the event is suspected misconduct under Rules 2, 3(7), and 4(A) of the Code of Conduct of Judges and Magistrate of Ghana (CCJMG). Now that they have disclosed to the public the names and pictures of the judges and judicial officers who allegedly refused to be bribed it is no longer within their province to be judge, jury, and prosecutor in determining that the failure of the judicial officers to report the ex parte discussions constitutes praise worthy conduct or misconduct for purposes of impeachment. How sure are we that through the investigator’s selective method of reporting their edited findings some of the officers implicated are not being dishonestly protected from exposure by the anti-corruptionpreneurs? Come to think of it, Ghanaians and the culprits are as a matter of right entitled to view the whole unedited video tapes and not edited copies that gives the Government and its covert agents the power to control our perceptions and judgment in the government’s unconstitutional Orwellian Big Brother enterprise.     

Nauseating Government diversion of public attention from GARGANTUAN political corruption

What nauseates me in the whole judicial corruption scandal as a not-for profit anticorruption crusader is the posture of the Government through the President and the Attorney General in using the results of its commissioned undercover investigations to detract attention from the Gargantuan political corruption that has engulfed not only the Government but the Legislature as well since 2009. First, the Attorney General, an ex-officio member of the Judicial Council, hypocritically and opportunistically calls upon the Chief Justice to restore the integrity of the Judiciary and declares that the culprits will be investigated and prosecuted by her office.

The President plays holier than thou and chips in later to tell the whole world that his Government will ensure that those found culpable are dealt with. In the euphoria of emotions and public reaction to the judicial scandal expose the President and the Attorney General might have forgotten the saying that one must remove the moth in one’s eyes before removing the spec in another’s. The President and his Attorney General may be controlling the prosecutorial process of this nation for the time being but that does not make the saying that “justice is might” or “might is justice” right in purposefully using judicial corruption to hide political corruption in any form. This so called social democratic government has failed to retrieve the over GH₵51million and €47million corruptly paid to an NDC financier and other surrogate ordered by the Supreme Court to be refunded to the Republic but has shamelessly and unlawfully commissioned agents to divert attention from Gargantuan political corruption. 

Removing corrupt Judges, rewarding corrupt Attorneys, and mutually protecting corrupt politicians  

Firstly, is it right and just for the President and the Attorney General to reward and transfer a Chief State Attorney suspected of corruption involving the payment of a whooping amount of GHC400,000.00 by cheque into his wife’s account at the Agricultural Development Bank at the time he was the responsible officer in the Alfred Agbesi Woyome scandal in which an unconstitutional payment of over GHC51million was made by the Government to Woyome?  The culprit has been rewarded with a transfer to head the Upper West office while a judge who takes less than GHC1000.00 is removed, debarred and prosecuted.  Paradoxically Mr. Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh, the Chief State Attorney, was on the list for consideration to the High Court bench at the time. Secondly, the Government has and is presiding over further rot in the critical office of the Attorney General which is the lead executive authority for the prosecution of all crimes including corruption.

I refer to my press statement to the media on 15th September 2014 entitled: “President John Mahama’s Government Cannot Lead The Fight Against Narcotic Drugs in the ECOWAS” in which I called attention to Nerquaye-Tetteh and his wife’s GHC400,000.00 golden handshake, and the rewards by transfer to head a region; the involvement of Chief State Attorney William Kpobi and his staff in the Attorney General’s office in Kumasi colluding to free a convicted drug trafficker imprisoned by a Regional Tribunal in Accra at a coordinate High Court in Kumasi in the case of Joe Owuuahene Achaempong v The Republic eventually disposed of by the Supreme Court on 4th June 2011; and the case of the Republic vMohmmoud Mohammed & 5 Others (Suit No. ST52/2009) in which a Principal State Attorney, George Kwadwo Ofori, without approval from the Attorney General entered a nolle prosequi for the fourth and fifth accused who were accordingly discharged for drug offences by Mr. Justice Charles Quist now on the list of possibly corrupt High Court Judges.

There are also three Ghana Fire Service dockets one of which involved a now deceased Chief State Attorney demanding a bribe of 1% of various contract sums before awarding government contract to the contractors. My deputy at the time (currently the Honourable 1st Deputy Speaker of Parliament) took possession of the three dockets from the Director of Public Prosecution to prevent me from dealing with them upon instructions from the President because the Chief Fire Officer was an alleged relation of late President Mills from Cape Coast. The Chief State Attorney and the other fire officers were allowed to retire (most of them last year) without the dockets having been disposed of or closed under President Mahama’s tenure as President. 

The truth from the foregoing is that no Government can effectively fight bribery and corruption and restore integrity in the administration of justice when the Attorney General’s office with its massive powers under Article 88 is controlled by a President who appoints spineless persons who cannot be independent and impartial as quasi-judicial officers and is also riddled with corrupt officials or perceptions of it.

Commission by the Government of an anti-corruptionpreneur and abuse of the results                       

I have said that the undercover investigation that led to the judicial corruption expose was commissioned by the Government of Ghana and has its genesis in the acrimonious relationship between the Government and the Judiciary on the assumption of power in 2009 by the Government and the constant demand by the Judiciary for proof of judicial corruption from Government and its associates. I was Presidential Advisor on Legal Affairs in the second half of 2009, I was Minister for the Interior in 2010, and the Attorney General in 2011 before I left office in 2012. I therefore know what I am talking about.

What I did not know was that the method of exposing corruption in the judiciary and parliament was going to be through commissioning covert anti-corruptionpreneurs as government agents (to secretly collaborate with established security agencies) to allow for possible deniability. But I do not think that the late President Mills intended to suppress the results of the Parliamentary corruption investigation by compromising it and using only the results of the judicial corruption investigations to damnify the judiciary knowing quite well that whatever results to be obtained will only be the tip of the ice berg. Unfortunately, Prof. Mills died before his commission could be fulfilled and his successor, John Dramani Mahama, has chosen to use the results selectively and to suppress other results, particularly the parliamentary one whose video is ready, available to the Government and has with its permission been viewed secretly by the leadership of one branch of Government which is pleased to participate in the criminal conspiracy and unconstitutional conduct of suppressing it from the public to protect its image. I refuse to condone such conduct and write in exercise of my right to freedom of speech and to defend the Constitution under Article 3 thereof.

The Government ought to be congratulated for its ingenuity in being able to suppress part of the truth and to turn the displeasure of public anger away from political corruption to only judicial corruption and to take all the credit. The ingenuity, however, becomes farcical when the Attorney General grants immunity and protection to entrepreneurial Government Commissioned undercover agents who collaborate with established security agencies as independent whistleblowers under the Whistleblowers Act, 2006 (Act 720) and contrary to the prohibition of the Police Service (Private Security Organizations) Regulations, 1992 (L.I. 1571). Truth will always stand no matter how long it takes for it to come to light.

Already tongues are wagging like mine because a secret ceases to be a secret when it is between more than two persons let alone when you announced it to a multitude at a closed door meeting. It is therefore in the interest of the integrity of the petitioners to ensure that the wishes of the late Prof. Mills are carried out to the full before providence reveals them as a for-profit anti-corruptionprenuers (collaborating with established security agencies) without any integrity themselves. “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. An anticorruption activist or journalist must be a man of the highest integrity himself! He cannot be a government agent under any excuse!

I have been silent all this while because of what I know and have learnt from intelligence both closed and open sources but I cannot continue to be mute in spite of the propaganda intended to deceive Ghanaians and render nugatory our fight against all forms of corruption particularly political corruption which as the Woyome and Isofoton cases show runs into millions of dollars and cedis. Let the judiciary be exposed but it is unjust to hide the other evidence of corruption obtained by the same anti-corruptionpreneurs. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.   

Now, I have had my say and I am as usual ready for the intimidations, covert burglaries, and threatened assassinations or assassination. Truth stands!