Parliament’s Appointments Committee Vetting of Minister-designate for Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Part 1&2)

0
174
Dr Dominic Ayine, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice designate

Chairman of Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, MP, Akatsi South: Committee, clerk, please, swear the witness in.

Nominee, Dominic AkuritingaAyine, MP, takes the oath: I, Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, swear by the almighty God that the evidence I shall give before this committee touching the matter in issue shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.So, help me God. Thank you very much.

Dr Dominic Ayine, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice designate answering a question

Chairman: Thank you very much, the Minister-designate for Attorney General, and Minister for Justice.As usual, we’ll start the questions from the subject matter committee members from the minority. Manhyia South, honourable Baffour you have the floor.

Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, MP, Manhyia South: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Dr. Ayine, welcome to the committee. And I’d like to congratulate you for your nomination.As for the approval, it’s yet to be done. So, I’m constrained. We knew ourselves from practice even though you are my senior at the Bar. We crossed swords in the case of Henry Nana Boakye versus the Attorney General, when you were the Deputy Attorney General.

And subsequently, we found ourselves in the same aisle in the case of the Republic versus Dr. Kwabena Duffour and others, when you were the initial attorney.So welcome. Doc, of particular concern to me is what I find in your party’s manifesto, which is titled, Resetting Ghana 2024.

At page 140, you have stated that you will establish the Regional Tribunals provided under Article 140 of the Constitution and pass a law to reintroduce the community and circuit tribunals first established under the Court Act 1993, Act 459, but abolished under the Court Amendment Act 2002, Act 620.

It is of concern to me because we all know what the tribunal did. In fact, the literature which captures the footprints of the tribunal is in abundance. And I have in my hand the African Watch Report on Human Rights.African Watch Report, Volume 4, Issue No. 1. This is what it says about the tribunal. Dated 31st of January 1992.This is what it says of the tribunal.

Chairman: The literature that you are quoting, what is the source of it?

Baffour Awuah: It is the report of Human Rights Watch, a human rights organisation.

Chairman: Human Rights Watch?

Baffour Awuah: Yes.

Chairman: From Human Rights Organisation?

Baffour Awuah: Yes. I can give the committee a copy if you like.

Chairman: Well, I just want to know the source.Having mentioned the source proceed to ask your question.

Baffour Awuah: Okay. So, it was abundantly clear that one of the problems with the tribunal system was its disregard for human rights, such as refusing accused persons the right to even call witnesses sometimes.By the way, the jurisdiction of the tribunal was criminal jurisdiction. It was also noted for delays. It had no regard whatsoever for the loss of this country. To the extent that as a result of the decisions of tribunals, our mothers were punished through caning.

Chairman: Honourable member, question.Question.Honourable member, you are a lawyer?

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, very respectfully, both of us practise at the bar. And so, the question I’m asking is very important.

Chairman: Yes. So, you know very well that the literature that you are reading doesn’t take primacy over the constitutional provision relating to the tribunal.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, the constitutional provision relating to the tribunal, Article 142, has to do with just regional tribunal. It is not related to district and community tribunals.So, Mr. Chairman, I need to give context to my question. So, if you’ll allow me, very respectfully, in the interest of the public.

Chairman: Proceed and ask your question.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, so, what the tribunal did, we are all aware. Indeed, when you look at the national reconciliation report, it captured extensively

Chairman: With all due respect, go straight and ask your question. You have laid enough foundation for your question.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, I think that if you allow me, the nation will be interested. Chairman: But you don’t argue with the chair.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, this is not an argument.I am only asking that you indulge me so I lay the right foundation and ask the right question.

Chairman: You have been directed by the chair to proceed to ask your question. So, do exactly the same.

Baffour Awuah: In fact, in 2002, when the bill to abolish a district and regional tribunals was laid, one of the things that were captured in the Hansard dated 18th March 2002, was that it was being abolished because of the breaches of human rights and also the cost associated with it. Honourable nominee, the question I want to ask you is that why do you want to reintroduce something which is associated with the dark parts of this country?

Why do you want to reintroduce it? What is it that our ordinary courts, regular courts, cannot provide in terms of the criminal jurisdiction of this country that you want to revisit and bring back the tribunal? Why?

Chairman: But honourable member, did the nominee say anywhere that he wants to abolish the tribunal system? Because your question is, why are you saying?

Baffour Awuah: No, I’m referring to the NDC’s manifesto. I referred to it.

Chairman: Very well, very well. Because what I heard was, why are you saying?

Baffour Awuah: No, you mean the NDC.

Chairman: So, you are now saying, why is the NDC having in their manifesto to do ABCD? Then we will all be clear.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chair, unless you want to separate the nominee from the NDC.

Chairman: No, he is here as the nominee.

Baffour Awuah: The nominee is in the belly of the NDC

Chairman: If you are asking a question in relation to his party’s manifesto, you say so. Leader asked a lot of questions in relation to the manifesto. He expressly stated that, according to your manifesto, this is what you are saying.But if you said, why are you saying this? Then we are referring to the nominee before us.

Baffour Awuah: Chair, I’m guided. I’m guided.Very respectful.

Chairman: Nominee, may you provide your answer.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Honourable Member is right, that the strategic task of the President’s manifesto, or the NDC’s manifesto, which is an expression of intent, regarding what we will do, the set of policies and measures that we will implement when we are in power, is we want to reset Ghana. Now, resetting Ghana doesn’t mean taking Ghana back to factory settings.

It means correcting the things that, in our experience as a nation, we’ve come to realise that we are deficient and we are not auguring well for our development as a country. Now, talking about the public tribunal, the Honourable Member will note that in terms of Article 25(1), it is provided that justice emanates from the people and will be administered in their name, by the judiciary and in accordance with the Constitution. The internal logic or internal morality…

Afenyo-Markin, MP, Effutu: Learned, with respect, which article were you referring to? Dominic Ayine: Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

Afenyo-Markin: Please, may you read it.

Dominic Ayine: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to…

Chairman: Honourable Nominee, you are asked to read something without permission coming from the chair. Please. Honourable Minority Leader has opened that particular provision, so I believe he will read it and satisfy himself. Proceed with your answers.

Dominic Ayine: I believe he wants to lay the context for the question. Honourable Minority Leader.

Vice Chair, Armah Buah: Nominee, please follow the instructions of the chair.

Dominic Ayine: Yes, sir, yes, sir.

Patrick Yaw Boamah: Chair, I don’t know if HonourableBuah wants to usurp your powers.You are in the chair.

Armah Buah: I am the Vice Chairman of the committee in case you do not know.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman. When we try to push, we get calls from your own side we are in this together.I do not want to also get a certain impression that the chairman, in an attempt to assert himself, would want to do things to undermine this very process. In all humility, since morning, I keep using the word, I beg you, I beg you.

The nominee made reference to a constitutional provision to make a point.And I’m saying that not everybody here is a lawyer.  And I say, can you read the provisions and explain your point? Then you come and say… Yeah, but I am here with him.

Chairman: Honourable Member, the question is coming from Honourable Baffour. And answers are being provided by Honourable Baffour. If minority leader wants to ask a supplementary question, at least he should allow the witness to complete the answer, but not to interject, to say that, read the constitutional provision without even the attention of the chair.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, with your leave, I pray that the nominee, as he references Article 125, he should read it in full to situate the argument rightly. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Well, the nominee even quoted the 125(1) verbatim, but he may go ahead and read it.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Article 1251 of the Constitution, that is clause 1 of the Constitution, says that justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the judiciary, which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution. I think I paraphrased it very accurately.

And I was on the point that the internal logic of the laws, the PNDC laws establishing the public tribunals was to ensure the participation of ordinary citizens in the administration of justice. And that aligns fully with the substantive content of Article 125, clause 1 of the Constitution, because it says justice emanates from the people.

In the context of Article 125(1), the judiciary is the organ of state vested with the power to administer justice. And if the honourable member who asked the question, would care to look at Article 142 of the Constitution, which he referenced. In that context, in the peculiar context of Article 142, the judiciary is defined to include the regional tribunals.

What he left out is Article 142, I think, clause 3, which says, and such other courts and tribunals as Parliament may by law establish. All right? So, it creates, Article 142 creates the regional tribunals which have coordinated criminal jurisdiction with the high court, all right, in all respects.

And then it says that Parliament may by law establish such courts and tribunals, that is, inferior courts and tribunals, as a team state, okay? Now, to the question why we want to bring back the public tribunals, we want to go back and align with the internal logic of Article 125 clause 1, that there must be participation by ordinary people in the administration of justice.

If you recall, all the tribunals, district tribunals, circuit tribunals, regional tribunals, had a chairperson or chairman who was mandatorily required to be a lawyer, and two other persons who were non-lawyers selected from the community.

So aside the traditional jury system that allows ordinary citizens to participate in the administration of justice in a limited fashion, the PNDC, in its wisdom, broadened public participation in the administration of justice through this tribunal system. Now, you reference a report by Africa Watch.

Of course, I am familiar with Africa Watch.If you go back to my CV, you realise that I was executive director of the Centre for Public Interest Law, a human rights organisation that I founded and ran for 10 good years, that conducted public interest litigation and represented persons whose human rights were being violated.

So, if you remember the famous case of Sodom and Gomorrah, I was a lawyer for the thousands of displaced persons in Sodom and Gomorrah using the Centre for Public Interest Law. And so, we are, I mean, I’m very much aware of what Africa Watch stands for, right? But look carefully at the report, the date of the report.

It will let you know that the empirical evidence for the statements that were being made, if at all, was gathered not from the era of the coming into force of the Constitution, but the era prior to the coming into force of the Constitution. Now, when it comes to our…

Afenyo-Markin: The document you said, was it Africa Watch or Human Rights?

Dominic Ayine: No, but you said Africa Watch.

Afenyo-Markin: No, no, let there be clarity.Yeah. Mr. Baffour, please, let’s repeat again the full document you referred to because we don’t want a situation whereby Africa Watch would say that they have not made any public case. What is the name?

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chair, this is not Africa Watch, the newspaper. This is, it is Africa Watch, a human rights watch group. And he’s aware. It’s not a new thing.

Afenyo-Markin: Wait, wait, wait, wait. The document, is it an organisation’s report, or you are quoting from a publication?

Baffour Awuah: It’s an organisation’s report.

Afenyo-Markin: And what is the name of the organisation?

Baffour Awuah: The organisation is Africa Watch, human rights watch group.

Afenyo-Markin: Okay. Learned, then in reference to that, please quote it well.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very much aware of the fact that it’s the human rights wing of the Africa Watch. But I was just referring to it in the manner that the Honourable Member stated.

So, if you look at the date, okay, my hunch is that the empirical evidence for, I mean, a report dated very close to the first quarter of 1992 would have been from the pre-constitutional era when the public tribunals were administering revolutionary justice in the context of PNDC law one.

Now, if you look at PNDC law one, there was no human rights chapter. That was the Grund Norm, that was the constitution, the fundamental law of the land at the time. There was no human rights chapter. In resetting Ghana, we will reset it in accordance with the 1992 constitution.

And the 1992 constitution is very clear, you know, that the sovereign power of Ghana rests in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government should be exercised in accordance with this constitution. Governmental powers includes the powers exercised by the judiciary of our land. That includes the public tribunals.

I believe that it is not your view, Honourable Member, that the public tribunals are not part of the judiciary. They are part of the chapter on the judiciary. And so, they will be bound by chapter five, the human rights provisions and the entire constitution, I mean the entire constitution, guided by the directive principles of state policy in chapter six.

And so, we are, the proposal in our manifesto is to reestablish the regional tribunals with criminal jurisdiction that is, you know, coordinate jurisdiction with the high court. And then, we will have the circuit tribunals in all the districts, I mean in all the, you know, the regions, and then also the district tribunals that will also defend justice in the jurisdictions of our country.

And I believe that if they are being regulated, and my proposal, or my thinking going into this office is that we will enact a public tribunals act that will be comprehensive, and that will, you know, contain restrictions in terms of the conduct, you know, of the affairs of the tribunals.

And the human rights violations that are referenced in the Africa Watch human rights report will hopefully not occur. Not under my watch as the Attorney General of this Republic.

Chairman: Thank you very much, Honourable Baffour, but before you proceed with your second question, Honourable MahamaAyariga has a follow-up.

Mahama Ayariga, MP, Bawku Central: Honourable Attorney General Nominee, do you intend to establish tribunals that will be used in caning and lashing of people as one of their punishments? Do you intend?

Dominic Ayine: Mr. Chairman, I do not, and that will not be permitted by the Constitution of the Republic. In fact, that will be inhuman and degrading treatment of our citizens.

Chairman: Minority leader also has a follow-up, so you may wait for your second question.

Afenyo-Markin: Honourable Nominee, have you become aware of the establishment of the ORAL?

Chairman: Honourable Minority Leader, a follow-up question must relate to the preliminary question or the substantive question asked. But this is completely unrelated to the substantive question asked.So, hold it. When it comes to your turn, you can pose those questions.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, with respect, please hold your horses.Let me make a point. We are dealing with matters of public tribunal. We are talking about issues that gocomplementary, okay, as far as possible from all that you’ve said.I am trying to appreciate the point you made in response to the question you asked that would you set up a tribunal which would carry case to be chasing people here and there.

You responded that no, because it would not be in accordance with law. Correct? In the same spirit, I am asking you that the ORAL, that committee which we’ve been told is to receive information from the public regarding supposed looting and all that.If you become aware of it, do you think that its establishment is in accordance with the constitution?

Chairman: Honourable Minority Leader, I believe the question asked relates substantially to article 126 (1)(B). This ORA that you are bringing in is not related to tribunal as stated in the NDC manifesto. So, I reiterate the point that you can hold it when it gets to your turn.You asked a substantive question but this cannot be accepted as a follow-up question.

Thank you very much, Honourable Leader. Honourable Baffour, proceed with your second question.Minority Leader, I cannot ask a member to proceed with a question and then you ask that he should hold on. This is unacceptable.It’s completely unacceptable. So, Honourable Baffour, proceed to ask your second question.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, chairman, chairman, take it easy.

Chairman: Would you want to forfeit asking your second question?

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, chairman, chairman, take it easy. Chairman, take it easy. Chairman, take it easy.Chairman, chairman, take it easy. Chairman, take it easy. The nominee in response to a question as to whether there will be an establishment of a tribunal which will carry canes to lash people responded that that would be unconstitutional.

I am premising my follow-up question on the constitutional issue he has raised. You may disagree with me, chairman. We are being cooperative, but please, if he has become aware of the ORAL, its mandate is within the ambit of the constitution because he has raised it.So it is flowing from the very answer he gave on the constitutionality of the functions of a publicly established body, such as a tribunal.

So, Chairman, I do not see why we should be locking horns on this matter. However, if you say, if you insist, if you insist, I will yield to you for us to make progress.If you insist, I will yield to you for us to make progress.

Chairman: Honourable members, I insist that the question is unrelated to the question posed to the nominee relating to the establishment of the tribunal as contained in the manifesto of the National Democratic Congress. Honourable Baffour, may you proceed to ask your second question.

Baffour Awuah: Honourable nominee, the question was, what is it that the high courts, regular high courts, are not doing that you move the tribunal to kill? That Honourable nominee, I didn’t hear anything.

But more importantly, on the question of the promise that you are not going to set up a tribunal that will kill people, Honourable nominee, are you aware that there is, that the criminal practise and procedure of this country is regulated by statutes and that statute does not include private citizens’ calledORAL, gathering evidence, which will be handed over to the Attorney General to prosecute. Are you aware that there is nothing like that in the criminal, in the statutes of this country? Are you aware?

Yes or no? Chairman: Honourable members, I know the nominee is capable of answering the question.But in our Criminal and Other Offences Act, as well as the Procedure Act, committees are not stated. But Honourable nominee, may you proceed to answer the question.

Dominic Ayine: Well, I’m sure the Honourable member himself well knows that Act 30, the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, does not create bodies, organisations, agencies, or entities that are mandated to operationalise criminal procedure.

It merely lays out the procedure relating to criminal trials, whether summary trials, trial on indictment, and so on and so forth, and then relating to how you treat evidence in criminal matters. So, it does not create bodies. So, I would not, I mean, to your answer, there is nothing about ORAL in Act 30.

Now, the question whether oral is legal has been raised by various people within the media. ORAL is the Operation Recover All Loot. If you look at the preamble to the Constitution, it is very, very clear about what are the fundamental values underpinning the Constitution.The value of accountability is one of the preambular commitments in our Constitution.

It’s a primary value. ORAL is supposed to exact accountability from persons either politically exposed or persons holding public office, who used or misused their office to loot public resources by way of property, money, and other intangible resources.So ORAL is constitutional. ORAL is legal. In fact, the fact that it is a non-legal body doesn’t mean that it is illegal.There is a distinction between non-legality and illegality.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chair, please, if I may be allowed a follow-up.

Chairman: Yes, you have my discretion.Before then, let me hear from HonourableAyariga. He’s coming in on a point of information.

Mahama Ayariga: Mr. Chairman, if you open the Constitution to Article 41.Article 41 deals with duties of a citizen. Please, everybody listen to this. Article 41 deals with duties of a citizen.41(F) says one of the duties of every citizen of this country is to protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse and waste of public funds and property.

So, if somebody forms a committee to elicit information about instances of looting of public property and waste and resources, is it not to provide an avenue for compliance with this constitutional provision? Is that not what it is? And how different is this campaign from the campaign that took place recently, see something, say something. You see looting, say it. If you see stealing, say it.

Chairman: HonourableAyariga, we are grateful for the point of information. You want to ask a follow-up question? You are permitted to ask the follow-up question.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to note that notwithstanding Article 41F, the Criminal Offences and Procedure Act, act 30 provided or have made provision for investigation, arrest, and prosecution of criminal offences.And it still doesn’t include ORAL or private individual actions. But my follow-up is this. My follow-up is this.

Chairman: What you’ve just said was a preliminary comment but not a follow-up question. Please go ahead with your last question.

Baffour Awuah: So, in the year 2010, the NDC administration under Professor Mills commissioned the Constitution Review Commission that presented its report in the year 2012 for which a white paper was issued in June 2012. Hope you remember. Now, you spoke extensively seeking to justify tribunal, the establishment of tribunals.

At page 21 of the reportof the white paper, on the report of the Constitution Review Commission, at page 21, the white paper stated as follows. Maintenance of regional tribunal in court structure. Government accepts the recommendation that regional tribunal be abolished and matters handled by them incorporated into the regular court schedule.

Government, however, holds the view that the chairman of the regional tribunal, if any, should be absorbed into the judiciary as high court judges. This is by an NDC government. The question is that when you have previously accepted the commission’s report to abolish the commission of enquiry, to abolish tribunals, and now you say you are bringing it back, is it not double speaking?

Especially when you have also failed to provide before us what the high court is not doing that you want to correct with the tribunal.Is it not double speaking? Without any justification?

Chairman: So, what is the exact date on the report? The report… You are referring to the white paper?

Baffour Awuah: I’m referring to the white paper. The report of the Constitutional Review Commission. I’m referring to the government white paper, stating its position on the report.

Chairman: Very well. Honourable nominee, your response.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I’m very much aware of the positions stated by the honourable member. I was very intimately involved in the work of the Fiadjoe Constitutional Review Commission, whose secretary was my own good friend and former colleague, the current dean of the University of Ghana Law School, Professor Raymond Atuguba.

I am also keenly aware of the fact that the government white paper accepted the recommendation of the commission to abolish the regional tribunals.However, an American justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., very famous, Oliver Wendell Holmes, he once said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. When experience has taught us that there are deficiencies in our justice system.

In fact, when the honourable nominee was talking about the, the honourable member, I’m sorry, I’ve been here since 9.30, you have to forgive me. When the honourable member was talking about delays, he’s a legal practitioner and he knows that the traditional court system is also plagued with a lot of delays.

You also know that sometimes they disregard the fundamental human rights of citizens.During the tenure of your own government, Afoko Gregory, when a court of law ordered that he should be granted bail, you still callously detained him and he’s in detention now.

That’s a violation of the right of Gregory Afoko to liberty. So, these things occur whether you are dealing with a traditional court system or a tribunal system.Okay? The good thing is to have men and women of integrity who will administer the law or administer justice in accordance with law. And that is what we are seeking to do with the reestablishment of the public tribunals.

I think that our experience has taught us that the participation of ordinary citizens in the justice system is a good thing.And that is why having thought about it, we are reestablishing it. But, of course, we are governed, as I said, by a constitution. And I believe that there will be limitations to the powers of the tribunal as far as respect for the rights of persons appearing before them is concerned.

Chairman: Thank you very much. I recognise Honourable Rockson-Nelson Dafeamakpor for a supplementary question.

Dafeamakpor, MP, South Dayi: Chairman, thank you very much.Professor Ayine, you are welcome. You taught me and you taught me well.And I’m very happy that you got this nomination. Now, you are also my chairman of the Subsidiary Legislation Committee. And I second-chair you.

And I know the quality that you put into your work. So, you also taught me legal systems. So, let me clarify this.Are you actually saying that you are going to establish or create these tribunal courts? Or you are going to implement the law? Because Article 142 is very clear in the establishment of tribunals.

And it says, Chairman, with your leave, Article 142 (1) says, they shall be established in each region of Ghana such regional tribunals as the Chief Justice may determine. Now, the Courts Act 1993, previously amended in 2002 and 2003, actually imported Article 142 into the Courts Act and actually added more in terms of the creation of the regional tribunals.

So, when the impression is created that you are going to create these court systems, I got confused. So, I want to find out from you, are you going to rather implement the law, or asking that regional tribunals be established, shall be established, or is it going to be your creature by policy? Chairman, thank you.

Chairman: Honourable nominee, may you proceed to answer the question.

Dominic Ayine: Well, I agree with my former student that I taught him well. He has drawn a distinction that I glossed over. The tribunals are actually established by the Constitution under Article 142.Now, the Courts Act was vigorously amended, and sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t have the amendments here. But I do remember vaguely there was an attempt to delete provisions relating to the tribunals by the VCRAC committee.

So, if you take the compendium, the green compendium, I think that was where it was done.And the idea was to take them out in terms of their statutory implementation. So, what I would do, if Parliament gives me the nod, is to overhaul the law relating to the public tribunals by bringing a new bill that I will introduce rapidly because the President has hit the road running and we, his nominees and his appointees, are his supplementary wheels.

We have to help him to run as fast as possible.So, I will bring a bill that will comprehensively deal with the implementation of the letter and spirit of Article 142 of the Constitution. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you very much.Yes, you want a point of order. Is the point of order relating to the answer or the question being asked? But you know, under the rules, you cannot take a point of order on a question being asked. Now, tell me what exactly is the answer that you are taking the point of order of.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chair, very respectfully, the Courts Amendment Act of 2002 amended the Courts Act of 1993 to abolish the district and community tribunals. So, the only tribunal which remains on our statute book is the original tribunal which the Constitutional Review, government has accepted the Constitutional Review Committee’s report to abolish. So that is the only tribunal which is on our statute book.

Chairman: So how different is that from the answer provided by the nominee that he doesn’t have the Courts Act here but he believes of an attempt to take it off from the Courts Act? It’s not different.

Baffour Awuah: Mr. Chair, very respectfully, this is a committee of record. So, it is important that records are set so that listeners will know that it doesn’t exist anymore.

Chairman: Next to pose a question is John Darko.

John Darko, MP, Suame, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable nominee, I’m sure you are aware of a company called Cassius Mining. That company obtained a grant of prospective licence from the Minister for Land and Natural Resources at some time in 2016. As a report in this, after the Mahama administration had lost power, the company at the time did not comply with the prospective licence.And they had made an application for renewal of the prospective licence. Following that, Honourable nominee, you became the counsel for Cassius Mining.

Appointments Committee members

Chairman: Do you have the evidence that the company did not comply? And in any case, that particular company is not before us.So, you know the rules relating to speaking about persons who are not before us and who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves. So be guided.

John Darko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.So, following that, Mr. Nominee, you became the counsel for Cassius Mining and made demands on the government for renewal of the company’s prospective licence.

In fact, Mr. Nominee, you as the lawyer for the company, you wrote a letter dated February 23, 2020, addressing the Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission. You stated variously, but in particular, clause 4 of your letter to the Chief Executive of the Minerals Commission, you stated that the fact that the two shareholders of the company prior convictions cannot initiate the licence, it is not a relevant consideration.

You stated, Mr. Nominee, that it is curious and disingenuous for you to suggest that the Minister can, on this basis, refuse to grant the licence renewal. But even if it were so, damages will still flow, and the government of Ghana will remain liable.

Mr. Nominee, it would interest you to know that about two weeks ago, this company, Cassius Mining, for which you were once their legal counsel, has filed an arbitration against the government of Ghana, claiming in excess of 440 million United States dollars at the London Centre for International Arbitration.

The Attorney General of the Republic of Ghana is supposed to defend the Republic against all claims, including one such as this. Now, you were once the lawyer of this company. You believed in their claim against the government of Ghana.

Mr. Nominee, are you going to ensure that when the Republic goes to defend this claim, the Republic of Ghana will not be burdened with this 441 million dollars? And I’m saying this because of the appearance of conflict of interest.

Chairman: I recognise Honourable Kwame Agbodza. Leader, there are procedures here will all encourage our first-timers to participate fully in this.Indeed, that is why our side and the side of the minority brought in first-time MPs. In this committee, you can lay a preamble to ask your question, but not to make endless statements. I sit here and ask myself, when is the question going to come?

So, Chairman, can you direct that it is not against the procedures here to lay a preamble? But that might be brief.Then you go to your question. Because I get lost as to whether somebody is making a statement or asking a question.

Chairman: You see, Chairman, people, Honourable Kwame, people sit outside and sometimes they bash the members of the committee.Being outside and having the opportunity to ask the question are two different things. We don’t have the opportunity to pose a question, but I will allow the nominee to provide an answer.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member is right. I had been instructed previously by Cassius Mining to file pleadings in the High Court in Bolgatanga together with my junior partner, Minister Godwin Tamakloe.

We litigated various applications before the courts.I want to put it on record that I’m no longer Cassius Mining’s lawyer. However, I’m keenly aware of the fact that the Constitution prohibits a situation where a public officer puts himself in a position where his private interest conflicts with the performance of his public duties.

As Attorney General of the Republic, I will be the Republic’s lawyer.As the Republic’s lawyer, I am supposed to act in the best interest of the Republic in accordance with the best traditions and ethics of the legal profession. I will not in any manner whatsoever compromise the interests of the Republic of Ghana.

Honourable Member, if you care to know, and I’m sure you are very well aware, that I was Deputy Attorney General under the former Attorney General, Honourable Marietta Brew.

And for that ministry in such a way that the U.S. government described the Attorney General’s office as a corruption-free zone. So, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, when we were in office, you can go back and check the records. There was no single incident except the Woyome matter that came before we assumed office.

There was no single incident of questionable judgement that’s arising out of or in connection with the performance of the obligations of the Republic in any contract or legal transaction. So, I can assure the House that I will take measures if they are before the London Court of International Arbitration, I’m quite familiar with that tribunal.

I’ve appeared before that tribunal several times. And I can assure you that I will put in the measures that will ensure that the interest of the Republic is not compromised.

Chairman: Thank you very much.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, follow with your leave.

Chairman: Yes, go ahead

John Darko: Mr. nominee, do you believe in the propriety of the case against the Republic? Chairman: With all due respect, I believe you have indicated the matter is before the court. And he is no longer the lawyer for the company. So, in vetting the nominee, you cannot be soliciting for his opinion on that particular matter.So, ask another question. Please, have you finished asking the question?

John Darko: No, since you didn’t allow him to answer that question. I’ll move on to another one.

Chairman: Well, I have the right if I feel the question is soliciting the opinion of the nominee. I can overrule you. Even if he can answer.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, I understand.

Chairman: The question is overruled.Let me give the opportunity to another person. I believe you are done.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, I’m not done.

Chairman: I will then give the opportunity to Honourable Shaibu.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am not done.

Chairman: Honourable Shaibu, you have the floor.

Patrick Yaw Boamah: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, please allow him to conclude.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your understanding.Mr. Nominee, your firm is on record as having acted for a number of companies which have gone on to make huge claims against the government. In some of these cases, the companies were formed between the years 2013 to 2017.

Your firm was the law firm which acted as lawyers for the firm.At the same time, you were the Deputy Attorney General. After you left office, the companies proceeded to go on international arbitration against the republic, claiming millions of dollars. We have an example in GPGC, which was a claimant in the Trafigura arbitration case.Mr. Nominee, your law firm’s address, Ayeni, Felli and Co, is…

Chairman: Honourable John Darko. The Nominee told the whole world that he is mindful of the conflict of interest situation. When he was a Deputy Attorney General, nothing of that nature happened.He is now before us to be vetted for the position of the substantive Attorney General. Why do you keep on asking questions relating to his law firm?

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important. The Honourable Nominee, which I know very well, is going to be the chief enforcer of our law.And so, Mr. Chairman, he is capable, I know he is very capable of answering any question posed to him.

Chairman: It is not the capability of answering the question. You know the law firm, Ayine and Associates, is different from Honourable Dr. AkuritingaAyine.

John Darko: Yes. It doesn’t mean that he can’t answer. When there is a semblance of conflict of interest I think that it would be in his own interest to answer that question, to clear the minds of all of us.

Chairman: Honourable members, do you have any further questions? I ask the nominee not to answer such a question. I will now give the floor…

John Darko: Mr. Chairman, I think you are being unfair to me. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you believe that, for instance, this question…

Chairman: Did you say I am being unfair to you?

John Darko: Yes, Mr. Chairman, with respect.
Chairman: Why do you say so?

John Darko: Because, Mr. Chairman, you are not allowing me to ask the questions I am supposed to ask. We represent the people

Chairman: But I have the right to overrule you. We are guided by rules.

John Darko: The people must hear…

Chairman: But we are guided by rules. Are you aware we are guided by rules?

John Darko: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t think…

Chairman: You cannot even ask incriminating questions.

John Darko: I don’t think at this point I have violated any rules of this House.

Chairman: Where lies the question of conflict of interest, when the nominee has already provided the answer? Honourable John Darko, you are out of order. I give the floor to Ahmed Shaibu. I give the floor to Honourable Ahmed Shaibu.We have Ahmed Shaibu and Mohammed Shaibu.Honourable Minority Leader, you have the floor.

Afenyo-Markin: Before I go into… Colleagues, please, let’s resolve this.Chairman, I am making this point. If you check our rules book, you have the chairman of the committee, and you have the vice-chair. And you have the ranking, and you have deputy ranking.In principle, what our standing orders is trying to say is that there is a presumption of a co-chairing of this exercise. Otherwise, (interruption from Majority) you would always want to have your say, but you don’t want others to speak. That is your problem, NDC. That is your problem.

Armah Buah: Chairman, the ranking member is completely out of order.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, you have said that to my members.If you now want to extend it to me that I am out of order, let’s have it. Can the vice-chair leave? Can I finish? Can I finish, my respected vice-chair? Can I finish? Chairman, we are here to work as a team. The rule talks about the chair and vice-chair.If this committee is to deal with a sole chair without anybody to work to express a view, it would have limited it to chairman and vice-chair and nothing else.

In Parliament, whenever there is a chair, there is a ranking. It is not to checkmate, but to work together and to express views of the House.When we try to put issues across, we have some of your senior colleagues who reach out quietly to say, Oh, please, please, you are going too much. We listen to them.

We want to work together, but chairman, with the greatest respect, with the greatest respect, I have observed consistently the way you go at my members, especially the young ones, the new ones.It’s not the right way. I’ve been quiet watching and I’ll just be pinching you that chairman, please, you take it easy, take it easy. But the way it is going, I think it is not too right.

To the extent that, as your co-chair, and I want to state this on record. Please, please, let’s understand each other.This vetting should have taken place tomorrow, all three of them. We mean well, and I want to state that on record. We mean well as a minority.We cooperated, we cooperated to have this 21 days or 15 days’ notice to be waived so that you can form your government as quickly as possible. I am pleading with you, chairman. Chairman, I am pleading with you.

I am pleading with you. I do not… Can I finish? No, no, I’m not done. I want to be… Honourable Mahama Ayariga, I need to be done.I would have to be done. I do not like this situation whereby your side is still behaving as though you are in the minority. You are not in the minority; you are now in government.You are now in government.

Please, we mean well. It is the reason why we are here.Stop the approach you are adopting. I am pleading with you. I am humbly pleading with you, chairman.We plead with you. The approach will not help all of us. The approach will not help all of us.

Chairman: Honourable members, I will give the floor to…

Afenyo-Markin: No, Chairman, he did not finish. Please, no, no, no. Chairman, chairman.No, he didn’t finish. No. He had called somebody.Chairman, all my plea is… Chairman, I beg you, allow him. Chairman, please. Chairman, please.

Chairman: You see, honourable members, we don’t sit here to gag any member. But we rather give you directions. The fact that we are guiding and giving you directions as an honourable Member of Parliament, you should take a cue and proceed.If I want to apply the rules strictly, as the former First Deputy Speaker has been doing. What happened today, we may not be experiencing some of those things.

According to you, you are asked to ask a question.You ask the question. But we have allowed you to run commentaries, sometimes to read write-ups, before asking the question. So, I would urge all of you, particularly the new members, to take guidance from the chair.We are here to guide you. We are to guide you. So, if you still have one more question, you may proceed to ask the question. Hold on with your question. Let me give the floor to honourable Kwame Agbodza.

Kwame Agbodza, MP, Adaklu: Chairman, you see, nothing happening today about NDC being intolerant, or they have been more cooperative, is totally untrue. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, we’ve had situations when the president nominated people on Friday, and we came here on Saturday to vet the people.No advertisement or anything. So, what is the minority leader talking about?

That they have been more cooperative than us? That is not true. What we are saying is that, yes, indeed, we’ve had first-timers in the House.Indeed, in the Chamber. We’ve seen first-timers from both sides walking across the mace, because they were not yet gone through orientation.

So, when, unfortunately, they haven’t gone through full orientation, they come to committee, and instead of asking questions, they come in to read statements.It is appropriate we put them right. That should not be a situation anybody could interpret to mean that somebody is being gagged. And let it be known, as a matter of fact, at the Appointment Committee, we never allow friends or non-members to ask questions.

It’s because we wanted to carry everybody along that we give them the opportunity. So, Chairman, I would encourage you, once again, stick to the rules. When you give an opportunity to somebody to ask a question, let that person ask the question, and let’s move on.

This endless rhetoric of trying to quote things and never relate it will not help anybody. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman, let’s make progress. But let everybody who gets an opportunity ask the question and let them answer the question.

Chairman: Thank you very much. Honourable Naa Momo Lartey.

Naa Momo Lartey, MP, Krowor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman, for indulging me. I am very much concerned about what is happening here. And inasmuch as we don’t want it to look like newcomers are being gagged, I think that parliamentary practise and procedures transcends the presence of big parliaments.If we want to do it, we have to do it right. Because you’ll be going out there meeting other parliaments.

So, in the name of supporting first timers or newcomers, all of us are still learning.But if we refuse to learn the right way, we will go out there and embarrass not just ourselves, but the Parliament of Ghana. So, I’ll plead with us, inasmuch as we want everybody to have the freedom to express himself or herself, let us do it within the law.

So that when we go out there, we’ll have the confidence to operate.Leadership will not be there all the time to protect us. Even leaders might not be on the floor of parliament every time we have to rise and talk. So, if we don’t learn it the right way, we are the ones who are going to suffer.So, I’ll plead with you.

Chairman: Thank you very much. We’ve been patient the whole day.Sometimes, you get up and put on the microphone without being given the floor. We’ve been tolerant. It doesn’t happen anywhere that you get up and then you put on the microphone.Somebody is asking a question. Then you said you are on a point of order. How do you take point of order on a question being asked? Well, you said you have one question more.May you proceed to ask the question.

John Darko: Mr. Chairman thank you very much. I want to believe that everything is being done from the right point. So, Honourable nominee, my question is, have you filed your assets declaration?

Chairman: He’s asking whether you have filed your assets declaration.

Dominic Ayine: Yes, I have. I’m always compliant with assets declarations. I mean, the filing of assets declarations.I’ve done that. Not for 2025. But for the last Parliament, I filed my assets declaration.

John Darko: Which is ending 2024. Yes. But I don’t think the committee has a copy or evidence of filing.

Chairman: The nominee has just gone through election and was elected the fourth time as a member of parliament. And sworn in as a member of parliament. So, let us be guided by the constitutional imperative of article 78 and 94.

John Darko:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Nominee, your law firm, that is Ayine, Felli& Co., is on record to have been used as a registered address for a company called GPGC. Now, my question is, did you advise on the agreement between GPGC and the government of Ghana, of which you were the deputy acting general then? And which led to a judgement of $134 million against you?

Dominic Ayine: Okay.So, Mr. Chairman, it is important to set the record straight. Because this is a house of records. This is a committee of records.I became deputy acting general, I think in April, 2022. When I was nominated, because I did not have the right to practise, my firm, or the firm of lawyers to which I belonged, was being run by Dr. Abdul Basit Bamba.

And when GPGC came into Ghana, he was a lawyer who was approached to help them navigate the process of company registration.And he was the one who registered to me because I came from academia. And one of the things that the subjects that I taught, and I’m sure you took my natural resources law course, I was the head of the natural resources law department that included petroleum.

So, subject to reporting to her, I was in charge of the petroleum and energy aspects of any transaction that came to the department.Yes, so I issued a legal opinion on GPGC, which was, because the PPAs are standard, the provisions are standard, you can take any normal PPA, the variations are not many. So, I issued a legal opinion for them.

I mean, I signed it for and on behalf of the Attorney General.So, technically speaking, it was honourable marital peace opinion, not mine. Whatever the case, when the dispute started because of the actions and omissions of your government, I was no longer in office and I never acted as a private legal practitioner in any of the disputes. Mr. Chairman, that’s all I can say for now.

Chairman: I believe we have exhausted your questions. It is now the turn of Jerry Ahmed, Shaib.

Jerry Ahmed Shaib, MP, Weija-Gbawe: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.Congratulations. Doc, in 2021, during the hearing of the election petition, you were cited by the Supreme Court of Ghana for scandalising the court. The matter was referred to the General Legal Council. The matter is still pending.My view and my question is that are you, with all due reference, not in the position to have the matter resolved before you take up this high office of Attorney General and Minister of Justice? Thank you.

Dominic Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Honourable member, before you come in, the matter is pending with judicial decision. I believe we have a lot of members of parliament who have been sworn in with the matter pending judicial decision. To what extent does a member’s involvement in a pending lawsuit disqualify him from being a Member of Parliament, let alone a disciplinary proceeding against a member? So, with all due respect, we need to be fair to all manner of people and we ask very fair questions to the nominees.So, ask another question with all due respect.

Jerry Ahmed: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I’m not too sure if I can respond to your question before going to the other question.

Chairman: That is why I’ve indicated that the practise in the house is that you are guided by the chair. You are guided by the speaker. So, you take the guidance and proceed accordingly to ask another question.

Jerry Ahmed: Very well, Mr. Chair. I take the key. Thank you.Dr. Ayine, during the Niels Mahama government in which you served as deputy attorney general, the state lost a number of international arbitration cases and local ones as well. And, to a larger extent, some amounts of monies involved were quite humongous. My question is that how do we prevent the recurrence of such situations? And the case that comes to mind is the Balkan case.Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your question. Nominee, your answer, please.

Dominic Ayine: Mr. Chairman, there is never a perfect government and so, sometimes public officers act in a manner that incurs liability for the Republic. But, as I said, when we were in office, we did very well in trying to prevent such situations. The Balkan situation arose before I took office as deputy Attorney General.And, in fact, by the time I was deputy attorney general there, arbitration was at an advanced stage.

In fact, I think they were awaiting the award and the award came down in favour of Balkan. I think it was about $12.5 million or something to that effect.Yes, $13 million in favour of Balkan. For us to be able to prevent such situations, state actors, and I mean the ministries, departments, and agencies, and the public officers, must make sure that they do the right thing.

So, for instance, one of the things that I want to emphasise, which we started briefly before we left office, is for us to conduct legal due diligence of all companies that are seeking to do business with the government, especially where the stakes financially are very high.

And so, we will attach the legal due diligence report, even if we ourselves cannot do it. We’ll get private law firms to conduct the legal due diligence, so that we do the right thing by the law.

Mr. Chairman, I think we’re all in this country, when a certain huge transaction came before Parliament, and then when the company was being traced to London, we realised it was a hairdressing saloon, CNTC, and it was not President Mills who was in power, it was not His Excellency John Dramani Mahama who was in power.It was His Excellency John Agyekum Kuffour, a man that I respect very much, whose government was in power. It was a hairdressing saloon, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you very much.Any follow-up questions?

Jerry Ahmed: Last one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Ayine, so my last question is, what are the kinds of agreements that ought to receive parliamentary approval under Article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution?

Dominic Ayine: I’m surprised my former student is asking me this fundamental question, where there are loans and international economic or business transactions in which the Government of Ghana is party, or to which the Government of Ghana is party.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you very much. We now take a question from Honourable Sammy Awuku.

Sammy Awuku, MP, Akuapim North: Mr. Chairman, thank you for emphasising that question. Congratulations, nominee. Doc, I want to refer you to an interesting case, a case of a company called Eland International.

And I want to believe that you are familiar with the company Eland International. And in laying the foundation just for a minute before my question, Eland International sometime in our history had a case and made a claim subsequently to the international arbitration where, as we speak, since 2005, they only waited to file these arbitration claims of $320 million against the government and the state of Ghana.

I’m also reliably informed, and I stand to be corrected, that sometime 2014, 2015, when you happened to be the deputy Attorney General, you tried to settle this matter somewhere in India and Dubai.That I stand to be corrected on that. But there was somewhere in 2014, 2015, in your capacity as the deputy attorney general.

Now that they have filed these claims of $320 million and being a company that you’re familiar with in terms of the history of this case, what assurances can you give the people of Ghana, and for me my constituents in Akuapim North, that our incoming principal legal advisor to government will be fair in handling this matter so we do not lose revenue.

And I am asking this because respectfully, if you just observe many of the questions hover round judgement debt. And I am not taking partisan position on this matter and it is because the state over several decades we have lost significant revenue through some of these claims, whether under government A or government B.

So, it’s become an industry for some people, an element that some operate across these political parties.And also lastly, for the record, it’s not just Woyome case that preceded you, but also under the same Mills-Mahama government there are Isofoton and the rest as well, just as a matter of record.

Thank you.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here