The highly-anticipated explosive banter that most members of the public had expected following the decision by businesman Alfred
The businessman refused to give any evidence on the controversial judgement debt payment and opted to clam his mouth shut, thus forcing the Chairman of the PAC, Hon Kan Dapaah to adjourn hearing and to also discharge Mr. Woyome and the Officers from the Attorney Generals Department and the Ministry of Finance.
As expected, the conference hall at the New Block of Parliament, where the PAC had been sitting, was packed to capacity when Mr Woyome finally made his historic appearance before the committee.
After weeks of tug-of-war over whether or not Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome should appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament, the businessman somewhat had his day with the committee when it resumed sitting today to consider the 2010 Auditor-General’s report on the Consolidated Fund.
It would be recalled that on two occasions, Mr Woyome failed to appear before the committee over the payment of GH¢51 million settlement debt to him with his lawyers arguing that since he was already in court over the same issue, it was not proper for him to appear before the committee.
At today's historic sitting, Deputy Attorney-General, Mr Gyambibi, on the instruction of the A-G, Benjamin Kunbuor, requested permission from the Chair to address the committee. According to him, it will not be appropriate for his outfit to discuss the subject under review other than in the courts, and so will not say anything about the Woyome case lest they risk being in contempt of the courts.
In buttressing his point, the Deputy A-G quoted from the 1992 constitution, Article 137 clause 2, which states inter alia; "that neither the president nor parliament nor anyone acting under their authorities nor any other person whatsoever shall interfere with judges, judicial officers, or other persons exercising judicial power in the exercise of their judicial functions and all organs and agencies of the state shall accord to the courts such assistance as the courts may reasonably require to protect the independence, dignity, and effectiveness of the courts".
This provision, he added, makes it clear that when a matter is before a court, that same matter should not be sent or discussed anywhere else or it will be in contempt of the court.
source: Peacefmonline
0 comments:
Post a Comment