JUST IN: Mahama files 2 new Applications After Court Dismissed Motion To Reopen Case [Full Documents]
The lead counsel for John Mahama in the election petition case, Tsatsu Tsikata, has filed two new applications at the Supreme Court following the dismissal of a leave seeking to reopen the case. The petitioner, Mr Mahama wanted the request granted so the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Mrs Jean Mensa could be subpoenaed to testify in the ongoing election petition. But reading the ruling of the court, Tuesday, February 16, Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, said the petitioner’s legal team has failed to indicate how the evidence they intend to solicit from the EC Chairperson will help to determine the case. Again, the Chief Justice explained that the EC Chairperson is not on trial, hence she cannot be asked to vindicate herself, adding that the success of the petitioner’s case is dependent on his own evidence. But objecting to the ruling by the seven-member panel of judges made up of the Chief Justice, Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Professor Ashie Kotei, Mariama Owusu, Nene Amegatcher, and Gertrude Tokonor, Mr Tsikata said the new applications were being filed while the Chief Justice was reading out the ruling on the reopening of case. These new motions, he said included a review of the ruling by the court on February 11, that the EC Chair cannot be compelled to mount the witness box and a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the review application. Acknowledging the submission, the Chief Justice said the court will move the motions for the two applications filed by the petitioner after a date has been given by the registrar. He subsequently adjourned hearing to Wednesday February 17, 2021. Mr Mahama is at the apex court seeking an order for a re-run of the 2020 Presidential election between himself and President Nana Akufo-Addo, the candidate for the New Patriotic Party. He alleges issues of irregularities and vote padding while arguing that no candidate obtained more than 50% of the votes cast in the December 7, 2020, election. Read applications below: Mahama files for review by Gertrude Otchere on Scribd Application for stay of proceedings by Gertrude Otchere on Scribd Adomonline Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
Appointments Committee yet to vote on any of the vetted nominees – Ablakwa
North Tongu Member of Parliament Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has said that members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament are yet to vote on any of the ministerial nominees examined so far. He has therefore called on the general public to disregard claims on social media that the Committee has voted to approve all the nominees who have gone through the vetting. Mr Ablakwa who is a Member of the Committee said in a tweet that the expectation of the people who are being represented by the lawmakers will remain the guiding principles in approving the nominees. “Members of the Parliament’s Appointments Committee of Parliament are yet to vote on any of the nominees who have appeared before us thus far. Kindly ignore rumors to the contrary. “I believe good conscience, expectations of the people we represent and our country’s supreme interest should and remain our guiding principles,” he said in a tweet. So far, about ten (10) of President Akufo-Addo’s nominees have been screened by the Committee. They include Energy Minister Designate, Dr Mathew Opoku Prempeh, Health Minister-designate Kwaku Agyeman-Manu, Attorney-General-designate, Godfred Dame, Education Minister-designate Dr Yaw Osei Adutwum, National Security Minister-designate Albert Kan Dapaah, Defense Minister-designate Dominic Nitiwul, Communications Minister-designate Ursula Owusu, Minister-designate for Parliamentary Affairs ,Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu, Local Government and Rural Development minister-designate, Dan Botwe, Shirley Ayorkor Botchway, minister-designate for foreign Affairs. 3news Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
Funny Face has been taken to a shrine, kept under a wicked spell by his colleague – Prophet
A popular prophet, Prince Elisha Osei Kofi has alleged that the cause of Funny Face’s unending woes is as a result of a bad spell that has been cast on him by one of his colleagues who he once fought with. According to the prophet, although Funny Face has reconciled with that particular person, the spell cast on him has still not been reversed at the shrine he was sent to. “Remember I once told you guys to pray for Funny Face and that someone has taken him to the shrine to embarrass him? And that he will run mad and roam the streets? Those things have started to manifest. A celebrity, a very popular person is responsible for all the tribulations Funny Face is going through. He took Funny to a shrine. Even though that person has reconciled with Funny Face, the spell has still not been reversed,” he stated. In a video that has gone viral on social media, the prophet has called on Ghanaians to intercede for the comedian else his condition will go from bad to worse. “I want all of us to continue to pray for him. All the things I saw about him have started coming to pass. If we don’t intensify our prayers, we’ll all wake up one day and realize that Funny Face has run mad,” he stated. Celebrities commiserating with Funny Face after arrest During his ordeal with the police, most celebrities including the ones that he had a rough relationship with extended a hand of support. The likes of Prince David Osei and LilWin, two of Funny Face’s nemesis did not hesitate to throw their weight behind the comedian in his struggling times. One can recall that in a social media post, LilWin expressed unhappiness about the ill-treatment meted out to the Children’s President by the police while Prince David Osei prayed for his mental health stability. This was unexpected especially in the case of Prince David Osei because prior to his post on social media, Funny launched scathing attacks on him. Funny Face accused David Osei of being a hypocrite who is pretending to love him. In the case of LilWin, his grudge with Funny has been in existence since 2019 based on two main allegations. The misunderstanding sprang when the Kumawood actor was pained about how Funny Face grabbed the Best Comedy Actor award at the 2019 Ghana Movie Awards claiming he [LilWin] deserved it. Also, LilWin was alleged to have played a key role in Funny Face and his baby mama, Vanessa’s separation which had a ‘bitter’ aftermath. Meanwhile, the comedian is currently not on good terms with most of his colleague actors including, Bismark the joke, Kalybos, General Ntatia, and so on. He has accused the above mentioned as being the cause of his separation from his ‘baby mama’, Vanessa. Ghanaweb Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
90% of SHSs connected to free Wi-Fi – Ursula
Ghana’s Minister-designate of Communication and digitalisation, Mrs Ursula Owusu-Ekuful, has announced that 90 per cent of Senior High Schools in the country have been connected to free Wi-Fi. The challenge now, according to Mrs Owusu-Ekuful, is “how to replicate that in the junior high schools as the Education Ministry seeks to introduce blended learning (a mixture of virtual learning and face to face) and, so, we will need to put in place the infrastructure to support such. It is one of our priority areas.” The Ablekuma West MP disclosed this when she appeared before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, 15 February 2021 and reiterated same in a Facebook post. Speaking at the opening of the government’s free tertiary Wi-Fi project in Accra in November 2020, Vice-President Dr Mahamudu Bawumia noted that all 260 District Education Offices and 46 Colleges of Education in the country will also be beneficiaries of the government’s ‘free Wi-Fi for schools’ project. The project is intended to broaden the scope of education, Information, Communication and Technology (ICT), research, and knowledge acquisition in schools. ClassFMonline Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
Akufo-Addo directs Adu Boahen to act as his representative at Ministry of Finance
This is because Ken Ofori-Atta, the president’s representative will be away in the United States for two weeks after developing post-COVID-19 medical complications President Akufo-Addo has directed Charles Adu Boahen, the former deputy finance minister to act as his representative at the Ministry of Finance. This follows the absence of Ken Ofori-Atta, the president’s representative at the Ministry and the Minister-designate for Finance. Ken Ofori-Atta left Ghana this week for the United States to seek medical attention and is expected to be away for about two weeks. A letter signed by the Chief of Staff, Akosua Frema Osei-Opare and sighted by asaaseradio.com said, “Pending the absence of the president’s representative at the Ministry of Finance, Hon. Ken Ofori-Atta. I am directed by H. E the President to request that you act as his representative in the Ministry. “This directive is in accordance with section 14 (5) of the Presidential (Transition) Act, Act 845, (2021).” The letter dated 15 February 2021 added, “You are to take note of the provision of section 14 (5) which states that you; shall not take a decision involving a policy issue. Also, you are to act in accordance with letter no. SCR/DA555/01 dated 21 December, 2020 which gives directives on financial commitments, recruitments among others.” Asaase Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
Ayine’s claim that the justices had predetermined agenda against Mahama scandalous – Kojo
It is scandalous to claim that the justices of the Supreme Court had a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing, spokesperson of the lawyers of the 2nd respondent Kojo Oppong Nkrumah has said. His comment comes after spokesperson of the lawyers of the petitioner Dr Dominic Ayine has said the justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana have a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner, Mr John Dramani Mahama. Dr Ayine who is also lawmaker for Bolgatanga East accused the justices of doing a great disservice to the people of Ghana by dismissing an application of the petitioner to reopen his case. Speaking to the media after court proceedings on Tuesday February 16, the former Deputy Attorney General said “I am surprised that the Supreme Court itself, having set out five key issues to be determined, is now reducing the issues to one which is whether and the extent to which the evidence that we have led shows that no one got more than 50% of the votes in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution. “But we have made abundantly clear in the petition that there were a number of infractions. We are contesting even the constitutionality of the declaration that was made. We are saying that she violated Article 23 of the constitution because she is an administrative body. “We have also said her exercise of discretion was contrary to Article 296 of the constitution. These are all germane issues under the constitution and laws of Ghana. To reduce the petition in to a single issue petition is rather unfortunate and smack of a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in this matter.” He added “For the court to say that we were bound by law to make our evidence available for it to assess before allowing us to reopen our case is legally problematic proposition, therefore we disagree with the court. “We think that the court by this decision has not done the people of this country a great service. In the sense that Ghanaians are interested in knowing the truth. Our constitution is very clear that justice emanates from the people and must be exercised in the name of and the welfare of the people. “The justices today have not given us a reason to believe that they want the people of this country to know the truth about what happened.” In a reaction to these comments, Mr Oppong Nkrumah who is also lawmaker for Ofoase Ayirebi and Information Minister-designate said “It is true that all the applications that have come before this court have fallen flat but how can it be that the petitioner’s communication team now argues that the seven justices or the nine justices are always wrong in law and only Mr Tsikata is the one who understands the law, knows the law and is therefore always right. It cannot be. “The last time they won some arguments that some of their paragraphs or paragraphs of Mr Rojo Mettle Nunoo’s witness statement should not be struck out, you heard them right before you, that it was a monumental victory. “We keep making the points that it is not fair to the judicial system, it is not fair to our democracy, it is not fair to the people of Ghana that when you lose an application because it is not grounded in law or because you have failed to meet the legal standards, then you come here and literally poison the minds of the public and make claims that they may be having a predetermined agenda. “That is scandalous of the court. When you make a legal argument and it is upheld that one is good, when you make an argument and it doesn’t meet the threshold then it means that they are wrong in law or that they had a predetermined agenda.” The Supreme Court has yet again dismissed another application of John Dramani Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing. According to the Court, the petitioner, inter alia, has not adduced enough evidence, or an inkling of that, to convince the bench for the case to be re-opened. Reading the ruling on Tuesday, February 16, Presiding Judge Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah said even at the time the application was filed, the petitioner as well as the respondents had closed their cases. He said the petitioner is not entitled to an application of that nature as a matter of right, an argument he adduced through Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata on Monday, February 15. Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, who is also Ghana’s Chief Justice, said such application can be granted by discretion. “That discretion is, however, one which should be exercised per rules and with restraint as a motion to reopen necessarily involves a balancing of the accountability of counsel for the decisions regarding prosecutions of this case and the interest of justice. “Accordingly, we weighed the propriety of re-opening proceedings to permit additional evidence to be led or tendered and Court will typically consider three broad questions. Will the evidence, if it had been presented during the trial, have had any influence on the result? [The second question is] could the evidence have been obtained before beginning trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence?” In tabling his argument on Monday, February 15 for the bench to grant his application for the case to be re-opened, Mr Tsikata said the Chair of the First Respondent, Jean Adukwei Mensa, would have been subpoenaed to appear as a hostile witness. This the Court found “baffling”, according to Justice Anin-Yeboah. He, therefore, concluded: “We find no merit or so why the petitioner in his application to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling his adversaries’ intended witness to testify through a subpoena without indicating the sort of urgency he intends to solicit from the said witness and how that evidence is going to help the Court in resolving the dispute before us. “We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any
Petition: Supreme Court had predetermined agenda to block Mahama from reopening case- Ayine
Spokesperson for the lawyers of the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing, Dr Dominic Ayine has said the justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana had a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner, Mr John Dramani Mahama in an attempt to reopen the case He accused the justices of doing a great disservice to the people of Ghana by dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to reopen his case. Speaking to the media after court proceedings on Tuesday February 16, the former Deputy Attorney General said “I am surprised that the Supreme Court itself, having set out five key issues to be determined, is now reducing the issues to one which is whether and the extent to which the evidence that we have led shows that no one got more than 50% of the votes in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution. “But we have made abundantly clear in the petition that there were a number of infractions. We are contesting even the constitutionality of the declaration that was made. We are saying that she violated Article 23 of the constitution because she is an administrative body. “We have also said her exercise of discretion was contrary to Article 296 of the constitution. These are all germane issues under the constitution and laws of Ghana. To reduce the petition in to a single issue petition is rather unfortunate and smack of a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in this matter.” He added “For the court to say that we were bound by law to make our evidence available for it to assess before allowing us to reopen our case is legally problematic proposition, therefore we disagree with the court. “We think that the court by this decision has not done the people of this country a great service. In the sense that Ghanaians are interested in knowing the truth. Our constitution is very clear that justice emanates from the people and must be exercised in the name of and the welfare of the people. “The justices today have not given us a reason to believe that they want the people of this country to know the truth about what happened. “ The Supreme Court has yet again dismissed another application of John Dramani Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing. According to the Court, the petitioner, inter alia, has not adduced enough evidence, or an inkling of that, to convince the bench for the case to be re-opened. Reading the ruling on Tuesday, February 16, Presiding Judge Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah said even at the time the application was filed, the petitioner as well as the respondents had closed their cases. He said the petitioner is not entitled to an application of that nature as a matter of right, an argument he adduced through counsel Tsatsu Tsikata on Monday, February 15. Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, who is also Ghana’s Chief Justice, said such application can be granted by discretion. “That discretion is, however, one which should be exercised per rules and with restraint as a motion to reopen necessarily involves a balancing of the accountability of counsel for the decisions regarding prosecutions of this case and the interest of justice. “Accordingly, we weighed the propriety of re-opening proceedings to permit additional evidence to be led or tendered and Court will typically consider three broad questions. Will the evidence, if it had been presented during the trial, have had any influence on the result? [The second question is] could the evidence have been obtained before beginning trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence?” In tabling his argument on Monday, February 15 for the bench to grant his application for the case to be re-opened, Mr Tsikata said the Chair of the First Respondent, Jean Adukwei Mensa, would have been subpoenaed to appear as a hostile witness. This the Court found “baffling”, according to Justice Anin-Yeboah. He, therefore, concluded: “We find no merit or so why the petitioner in his application to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling his adversaries’ intended witness to testify through a subpoena without indicating the sort of urgency he intends to solicit from the said witness and how that evidence is going to help the Court in resolving the dispute before us. “We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any hesitation to dismiss it.” 3news Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
You have done a great disservice to Ghanaians – Ayine to Justices of Supreme Court
Spokesperson for lawyers of the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing, Dr Dominic Ayine has said the justices of the Supreme Court of Ghana have done a great disservice to Ghanaians for dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to reopen his case. Speaking to the media after court proceedings on Tuesday February 16, the former Deputy Attorney General said “I am surprised that the Supreme Court itself, having set out five key issues to be determined, is now reducing the issues to one which is whether and the extent to which the evidence that we have led shows that no one got more than 50% of the votes in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution. “We have made abundantly clear in the petition that there were a number of infractions. We are contesting even the constitutionality of the declaration that was made. We are saying that she violated Article 23 of the constitution because she is an administrative body “For the court to say that we were bound by law to make our evidence available for it to assess before allowing us to reopen our case is legally problematic proposition, therefore we disagree with the court . “We think that the court by this decision has not done the people of this country a great service. In the sense that Ghanaians are interested in knowing the truth. Our constitution is very clear that justice emanates from the people and must be exercised in the name of and the welfare of the people. “The justices today have not given us a reason to believe that they want the people of this country to know the truth about what happened. “ The Supreme Court has yet again dismissed another application of John Dramani Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing. According to the Court, the petitioner, inter alia, has not adduced enough evidence, or an inkling of that, to convince the bench for the case to be re-opened. Reading the ruling on Tuesday, February 16, Presiding Judge Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah said even at the time the application was filed, the petitioner as well as the respondents had closed their cases. He said the petitioner is not entitled to an application of that nature as a matter of right, an argument he adduced through counsel Tsatsu Tsikata on Monday, February 15. Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, who is also Ghana’s Chief Justice, said such application can be granted by discretion. “That discretion is, however, one which should be exercised per rules and with restraint as a motion to reopen necessarily involves a balancing of the accountability of counsel for the decisions regarding prosecutions of this case and the interest of justice. “Accordingly, we weighed the propriety of re-opening proceedings to permit additional evidence to be led or tendered and Court will typically consider three broad questions. Will the evidence, if it had been presented during the trial, have had any influence on the result? [The second question is] could the evidence have been obtained before beginning trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence?” In tabling his argument on Monday, February 15 for the bench to grant his application for the case to be re-opened, Mr Tsikata said the Chair of the First Respondent, Jean Adukwei Mensa, would have been subpoenaed to appear as a hostile witness. This the Court found “baffling”, according to Justice Anin-Yeboah. He, therefore, concluded: “We find no merit or so why the petitioner in his application to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling his adversaries’ intended witness to testify through a subpoena without indicating the sort of urgency he intends to solicit from the said witness and how that evidence is going to help the Court in resolving the dispute before us. “We accordingly refuse the application and proceed without any hesitation to dismiss it.” 3news Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
I would advise my brother JDM/NDC to withdraw the case
A respected member of the opposition National Democratic Congress Stephen Atubiga who contested John Dramani Mahama in the 2020 party Presidential primaries has revealed that, If the justices do not give justice to John Dramani Mahama in Tuesday’s ruling, he would advise his brother and NDC to withdraw the case, and let posterity be the judge. According to Mr. Atubiga, “JDM would always have a red carpet rolled by me for him, anytime he is ready to lead NDC again”. Below is his full statement: If the justices do not give justice to JDM today, I would advise my brother JDM / NDC to withdraw the case, and let posterity be the judge. JDM would always have a red carpet rolled by me for him, anytime he is ready to lead NDC again. The 7, against 0 votes from the justices from day one, has prepared most NDC members mindset of miscarriage judgment of justice awaiting NDC. The best justice, the legal team of JDM /NDC can give to the 6+million voters of the NDC/ Ghanaians, is to allow posterity to give judgment on this case with time. I have heard a lot about why Jean Mensah is protected from the witness box. Some are saying in case of runoff directives from the court, her integrity may be damaged not enabling her supervising another election in the country. Well, some of us who are political predictors, political visionaries, political herbalists, with political prophecies, can boldly tell you NDC/JDM would not get justice. Stephen Atubiga Apexnewsgh.com/Ghana/Ngamegbulam Chidozie Stephen Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093
Just In: See exactly what OccupyGhana said about Mr. Albert Kan-Dapaah
16th FEBRUARY 2021 OCCUPYGHANA® PRESS STATEMENT OCCUPYGHANA® VEHEMENTLY DISAGREES WITH MR ALBERT KAN-DAPAAH’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS ON AUDITOR-GENERAL’S INDEPENDENCE AND POWERS OccupyGhana® has noted with considerable disquiet and alarm, comments made by the Minister-Designate for National Security, Albert Kan-Dapaah, in the course of his 10 February 2021 vetting by Parliament for approval as Minister. Mr Kan-Dapaah claimed, first, is that the independence of the Auditor-General is “not personal” to the Auditor-General but belongs to the Audit Service. Second, he claimed that the Auditor-General’s reports must be approved by Parliament before the Auditor-General could issue disallowances and surcharges. Of course, Mr Kan-Dapaah could not cite any legal or constitutional bases for these shocking views. There are none! This he sought solace in a false claim that the Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, and that this is what persists under some ‘Westminster system,’ which if true, still does not apply under our constitutional system. We vehemently disagree with Mr Kan-Dapaah’s claims. They have no basis in the law or our Constitution, and appear to feed into an attempt by some political actors, clearly uncomfortable with the constitutional position and role of the Auditor-General especially in the light of the magisterial decision of the Supreme Court in OccupyGhana v Attorney-General, are seeking to whittle down that independence and powers that the court upheld in that decision. First, Mr Kan-Dapaah should know that the alleged “Westminster system” might be taught to and cherished by accountants, but has no legal application in Ghana. The Minister-designate knows, or should know that the Constitution has made no provision that applies the so-called “Westminster system” to Ghana. On the contrary, our Constitution is explicit that the Auditor-General, in the performance of his functions under both the Constitution and the law, “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.” Parliament is one such authority. The Auditor-General is definitely independent of Parliament and any attempt to subject the Auditor-General to the control of Parliament or any other person or authority, is not just wrong, but plainly unconstitutional. Second, Mr Kan-Dapaah is wrong in his claim that this independence is “not personal” to the Auditor-General, but belongs to the Audit Service. The simplest reading of article 187(7) shows that the Constitution gives this independence to the office of the Auditor-General and not the Audit Service, which is created by article 188 and is given no such independence. While it is arguable that the Auditor-General’s independence should extend to the Audit Service, and we think that this was implied by the Supreme Court in Brown v Attorney-General, any claim that the Auditor-General qua Auditor-General has no such independence is plainly wrong and ought not be countenanced. Finally, Mr Kan-Dapaah is wrong when he claims that the Auditor-General’s reports must be approved by Parliament before he can issue disallowances and surcharges. And as for his illustration about a father’s permission being required before the conduct of his erring son is impugned by an auditor, the least said about it the better. It is not a coincidence that the framers of the Constitution placed the Auditor-General’s independence and powers of disallowance and surcharge in the same paragraph of the Constitution, as if the two are to move in tandem. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports that claim that Parliament must approve the Auditor-General’s reports before the Auditor-General can exercise his powers of disallowance and surcharge. Contrary to Mr Kan-Dapaah’s position, all the Constitution says is that the Auditor-General should “submit” his report to parliament and then “draw attention to any irregularities” or any other matter he deems fit. Submitting a report and drawing attention to irregularities does not mean that Parliament’s prior approval is required before the Auditor-General exercises his constitutional powers of disallowance and surcharge. Further, the exercise of these powers is not to abide a hearing by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee. The Constitution does not say that. What it says is that Parliament is to debate the report and “where necessary, in the public interest, appoint a committee to deal with matters arising from the report.” The fact that Parliament has interpreted this to mean that there should be a Public Accounts Committee, does not mean that the Auditor-General needs to wait for this Committee to conclude it work before the Auditor-General exercises his constitutional powers. Mr Kan-Dapaah’s position does not also find support in the Audit Service Act. We note that section 17(7) of that Act says “The Auditor-General may with the prior approval of Parliament revoke any surcharge made under this section.” While this section is of dubious constitutional effect by saying that Parliament’s approval is required to revoke surcharges, it certainly does not support the claim that Parliament’s approval is required before disallowances and surcharges are issued in the first place. We are extremely concerned because the danger with these views that Mr Kan-Dapaah has expressed, is that it feeds into a current narrative in the political class that seeks to clip the wings of the Auditor-General, particularly after the decision of the Supreme Court in OccupyGhana v Attorney-General. We wish to assure Mr Kan-Dapaah that we stand ready to resort to court again at any time that we believe that the independence of the Auditor-General is being compromised or powers interfered with. In the service of God and Country, OccupyGhana® For further information, please contact Sydney Casely-Hayford (+233 54 876 2706) info.occupyghana@gmail.com. Apexnewsgh.com/Ghana/Ngamegbulam Chidozie Stephen Please contact Apexnewsgh.com on email apexnewsgh@gmail.com for your credible news publications. Contact: +233555568093