Chairman of Appointment Committee, Bernard Ahiafor read the social media posts. …NDC members on the Appointments Committee take money from Mahama’s ministerial nominees before approving them. The Deputy Speaker must submit himself to ORAL. Honourable Members, the second one was, so all the monies the Ministry appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee just to get approved, are those ones not affected by ORAL?
These allegations have come to the notice of the Appointments Committee. Based on the direction to the Clerk, the Clerk has accordingly invited the said Osagyefou Oliver Barker-Vormawor.If he is before us, may I humbly invite him to take the seat and speak to the Committee on oath. Please take the seat. Let me place on record that constitutionally he is entitled to lawyers of his own choice.
Oliver swears the Oath of a witness: I, Mawuse Oliver Barker-Vormawor, do in the name of the Almighty God swear 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.
Chairman: Mr. Barker-Vormawor, you are welcome.
Barker-Vormawor: Thank you, Chair.
Chairman: Our attention has been drawn to some posts in the social media.I will ask the Clerk of the Committee to give it to you to take a look at it. Before then, is there any legal representation? Please, for the record, you may please announce yourself. And if you are here in company of any other.
Counsel: Thank you very much. Nana Ato Dadzie, with me, Victor KodjogaAdawuda, Mr. Charles Asiedu, Dr. Jamal Tongzua, Kodjo Bosompra Mensah, Selikem Donkor, for the witness.
Chairman: Thank you. Thank you very much. The purpose of inviting the witness has already been stated.And you listened to it very clearly. We are in the process of giving him the said posts for him to identify first and tell the Committee whether they are emanating from him.
Counsel: Mr. Speaker, Chairman, Nana Ato Dadzie leading, we instructed rather late in the day yesterday to operate this document itself. The process was set on the 28th. That’s yesterday. We wanted to state our case in writing for the records. But it looks like the urgency of the matter requires that we make some response immediately. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious. It is obvious that the witness at the bar has been called in to explain or to produce evidence with regard to two statements allegedly posted on social media. Two of them.
The first one is found in the first paragraph of the invitation letter. The second is in the second paragraph of the invitation letter. As I said, we would have loved to have responded formally for the records. But owing to the fact that this is a very busy Committee, we would make some remarks and hope to bring this matter to a close, depending upon the decision of this honourable Committee.
But we want to draw our attention to the fact that at the bar here, next to me, is Mr. Vormawor, an organiser of Democracy Hub and a strong supporter of the democratic process. He has served some time in police cells, in prisons, and generally we believe that he is a valiant warrior for democracy. Now, we will go straight to the second statement allegedly posted by him. And clearly state that that statement is fake. He never wrote that statement.
He never uttered that statement. He never posted that statement. That statement says, with your permission, that NDC members on the Voting Committee take money from Mahama’s ministerial nominees before approving them. The deputy speaker must submit himself to ORAL.
This is not from Mr. Barker-Vormawor. And that’s where we end up on our side. It’s fake. Some preliminary investigation has shown that this statement appeared on… There’s a document, there’s a post that has a title, without being partisan, just quoting, it’s a NPP Projects Bureau. We can forward where the post appears.
That’s what we had to search before we got there. I’m not saying that that’s any partisan, with any partisan intent, just where, factually, where it appeared. So, we would not want to speak to that. As I said, it’s not us. The second one pertains to the matters in the first paragraph. It says, so, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee just to get approved, are those ones not affected by ORAL? Strange Republic.
The chairman wants to say that, yes, this is a post from Mr. Vormawor, which he put up on his Facebook, formerly Twitter, no, Facebook, and X-formerly Twitter account. Now, the point about that statement we’ll just briefly state, is that it was not directed at the Appointments Committee in any way.
It was completely not directed at the Appointments Committee. It was only intended to expose certain matters and material that had come to his notice, allegedly that some people are apparently on the back of the Appointments Committee doing other acts, which may not enhance…
Chairman: Honourable Counsel, from the statement, did he use the word allegedly?
Counsel: No. On a proper, simple, direct reading, he says, so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee. Our point is, who is asking them to pay the money to the Appointments Committee? Certainly, he’s not saying that it’s the Appointments Committee.
No. He said some people are doing that just to get approved. Are they not the ones affected by ORAL? I would want to say immediately that one, it was never his intention to make statements disparaging the Appointments Committee.
Two, that the statement that we see is clearly, can be seen as a double meaning or interpretation depending upon who reads it, but certainly not a matter attacking the Appointments Committee at all. Indeed, if it’s anything at all to go by, it is a statement of a whistle blower saying that some things are happening and we have passed a whistle blower’s Act in this country encouraging people to say what they see and to tell what they hear. This is our country. This is our laws from this Parliament. So, I just don’t want to go far but just to say that with respect, the request for Mr. Vormawor to produce
Chairman: Learned Counsel, I always say that when a procedure is set down for a right to be exercised, you follow the procedure in exercising the rights.The remedy available for the whistleblowers Yes. or the rights given to the whistleblowers is clearly by law. Is it through a social media post?
Counsel: Well, not necessarily. But the point is, he’s a citizen and he has an obligation to expose what he sees, not just to be an observer. So, what he’s seen, I think that under the general rubric of citizenship, he is expected to put it out. He’s at liberty to put it out and to advocate that that practise should stop.
In which circumstances, I would think that a person who comes forward to say that the Honourable Appointments Committee, their honourable job is being affected by some other person, third parties, they should be commended. Under the Whistleblowers Act, he probably would need some compensation for services rendered. Really.
But, I mean, without making it sound like an unserious matter, we’re saying that this statement here and the way it’s been put out, as though he intended to vilify this honourable committee, is certainly very far away from what he intended the post to be.
And that the post was only intended to expose some misconduct by other third parties affecting the work of the committee. With all due respect, you only have to hold a public office to understand that this is a normal practise by people to take advantage of people in public office. You know, as you doing your job, and then other persons are probably, you know, riding on their back. But, we are not here to contend this particular issue.
This paragraph, as I said, was written by Vormawor, and he admits it. It’s unfortunate that it’s been submitted to a second interpretation or misunderstanding of what he’s written. And as a supporter of democracy, he’s ready, willing and prepared to, one, you know, apologise for this misunderstanding here, and also to withdraw the post. And this is really why we are here. As I said, the second post is completely fake.
And this honourable committee is entitled to investigate that one.But we will fight that one tooth and nail anywhere we face. The second one, we apologise if there’s a misunderstanding or if it’s sending the wrong vibes down this appointment’s committee.
Chairman: Learned Counsel, I have a difficulty using the word misunderstanding. I say so because the words are very clear and unambiguous. I’m making reference to the one that he’s admitting as the author.He says, so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointment Committee just to get approved. Are those ones not affected by ORAL? So, it means there is some evidence that the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay money to the Appointment Committee. This is an emphatic statement.So, let’s deal with this.
Then we can come to the statement that he’s denying not being the author. We really want to get to the root of the matter.Because this is being cyclical. Every vetting cycle allegations are made against members of the Appointment Committee.And they make these wild allegations and get away with it. Learned Counsel, we may not always be members of this particular committee because those who were members of the committee in the previous Parliament some are not members here.
But what is it that every Appointment Committee is being tagged with bribery and corruption? We need to get to the root of the matter.I am reliably informed that the author of the statement is a lawyer. And the hallmark of lawyers we don’t make sweeping statements. We normally talk based on the facts.That is why we have invited him before the committee to just discharge the honourable responsibility of producing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. Learned Counsel, if he is here with an apology then all the statements that you have given for me is not a sign of remorse. As you are saying.
Counsel: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect it is unfortunate that my intervention would appear to be undermining the honourable thoughts for which we appear here today. Mr. Vormawor, as I have indicated said he made those he did that post essentially for a purpose. That purpose as I indicated would appear to be read in another view.
It is in this that he openly apologises for that statement. But it is to put it in context Mr. Chairman that is why I had the background that basically he says that it is unfortunate that that interpretation is that which preceded him. And it is for this that he wants to pray that he be given an opportunity to withdraw and to apologise profusely for the statement that is being reproduced here. That is what it is.
Chairman” Well, I may want to take a few remarks from the committee members and then we decide on the way forward. Starting from the Minority Chief Whip.HonourableAnnoh-Dompreh.
Annoh-Dompreh: Okay, Chairman. Thank you for recognising me and we welcome our suspect and all the council and our senior counsel who I know quite well.I now have my turn to ask a few questions. But this is just a clarification. Specifically based on the presentation counsel you made.Let me first of all say that you the post has put this House and this institution in we’ve gone through a lot of pain.
Would you mind to clarify on record that previously said that you associate yourself and you are proud of the first post. The second post is not coming from your client.Is that what you said? This is just the first question I want to ask you. And then you also said that you sought out to expose certain happenings.
These are my initial observations.As a very respected counsel and I know you. A very respected counsel. If you had earlier prefixed your statement saying that it was to expose certain happenings with the benefit of hindsight and the flurry of complaints coming from civil society media and all that would you say that what your client did is something you are proud of?
Counsel: Well, for me with all due respect Mr. Chairman Parliament is all that we have in this country and we must all protect and do everything to protect the image and standing of Parliament I have personally participated in various acts to shore up to create and shore up Parliament.
So, I’m grateful for your comments but I just want to indicate that but as counsel I’m here as counsel you for my client but definitely I think that I would have erred on the side of caution not to make public posts like that. As a general rule I don’t know much of the difference between Facebook and Twitter and other things you know because it can be easily distorted.
Yes my client says that he did not author the second post in absolute terms that’s what he says those are my instructions and we have the text it can be produced to see where it appeared from absolutely it would appear as though the second text is the way it is couched is that that has fuelled the anger if you may permit me the anger and irritation of not only this honourable committee but also the general public because that second post is distasteful it’s not right. So, this is what I would say yes, I wouldn’t but this is his position it’s absolutely not his doing it’s not his act.
Chairman: So, you are giving two statements which one do you refer to as the first one and which one is the second one that he is admitting.
Counsel: The first paragraph the invitation letter the one that says so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the appointment committee just to get approval and are those not the ones affected by ORAL and I’m saying that yes he admits posting it but he said that it was intended for some other purpose. the second one.
Chairman: Very well. So, may I find out from him whether the picture holding microphone to speak is his picture?
Counsel: Yes, yes that is his picture but Mr. Chairman I see your picture is also on there. I’m saying that the publishers whoever posted that it’s not him it’s on the background of it’s posted by an entity called Ghana Today. He doesn’t publish Ghana Today and it’s not his act. This Ghana Today that’s the point about it and we’ve said that we had to do some back check before we found where the publishers of Ghana Today are. So, we are sorry this is what has caused so much grief.
Chairman: I am just seeking a clarification so that members of the committee will be clear regarding what he is admitting to have authored. So, the one with his picture, microphone and my picture, he is not the author?
Counsel: No, no, no, no, no Mr. Chairman he is absolutely clear about that one.
Chairman: And that is what is dated 25th?
Counsel: Yes, yes it’s dated 25th January it’s dated 25th January.
Chairman: So, is his attention drawn to it?
Counsel: Yes, our attention was Mr. Chairman, our attention was drawn to this. And it took us a pretty long time before we could arrive to find out this post it comes on sorry. It comes on as I said, I am just stating facts here. It comes on a source which is entitled NPP Project Bureau. It’s like a daily post they make on that particular document publication.
It’s an NPP Project Bureau. If you do the scan and it is on that for the day the statement taken out is this that somebody has said Barker-Vormawor has said NDC members take money but we have to do some real background check and we so want to continue with it to find out who are the actual publishers and we will think that at the appropriate time this may have to be investigated deeply. But definitely for today we say that we apologise first of all for what we posted which we said was intended for something else.
Chairman: But did your client by chance know those responsible for MPP Project Bureau platform?
Counsel: Well well Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman my client has received some information about who apparently would have been posting or preparing the NPP Project Bureau but I don’t think that we want to go that far but we’ve given you this this committee that NPP Project Bureau.
Chairman: Learned Counsel I’m towing that line because we want to really deal with the issue. Now he is saying I never authored this I got this from NPP Project Bureau. Now his picture and my picture were used, and there was a statement thereon that he is saying that, that wasn’t what he said.
Counsel: He didn’t say it at all.
Chairman: He didn’t say that at all.Now, if my picture, his picture, is placed there, and there is a statement under it, Oliver Barker-Vormawor drops bombshell, and he is not the author of it. We need to get to the root of it to clear our image, and whoever is responsible for this allegation should be brought to book. Now, I will give the floor to other members and to state that it will be in our common interest to ensure that whoever is responsible for this is brought to book.
Counsel: Mr. Chairman, just before, if I may respectfully just say that, it is clear from this that this is a report. This, this document, or that statement, is a report that’s been set out by somebody. It’s a reported speech. Mr. Chairman, if I may just say, we just want it clear that we are here respectfully to apologise for the post we made, but we are unable to apologise for the post we have not made.
Chairman: Learned Counsel, on that basis, I agree we appropriately give him the floor to do the needful, but we need to be clear.And once we are clear, I’ll open the floor for two comments, and then we’ll get to a stage where he’ll be given the opportunity to apologise and pull down what he’s taking responsibility for. And the committee will go further to deal with… HonourableAnnoh-Dompreh, you have the floor.
Annoh-Dompreh: Chairman thank you.Chairman, with your indulgence, I want to question the suspect, not his counsel. All my questions, I expect the suspect to answer, not the counsel.I want to leave that basis first. No, I want him to respond to the issues. No, I want him to answer my questions.He should answer my questions. Well, now, this is my first question. With the greatest of respect.
Chairman: Honourable members, let’s have some order. Honourable members.Once the witness is here with a lawyer of his own choice, why would the constitution guarantee that right? Which right I must preside over its violation? I’m unable
Annoh-Dompreh: Counsel, may I have your attention? I have your attention.You had earlier said that one of the posts was not put out by your client.
Counsel: Yes. I’ve said that repeatedly, sir.
Annoh-Dompreh: Good. So, when did you realise this? When did this come to your notice? Counsel: It was the same day, with respect. The same day. But after strenous examination, investigation, you know in the social media world, so wide
Annoh-Dompreh: So, your client, how often, and I’m picking my words carefully, how often does your client go on social media?
Counsel: Every day. Every day. He’s a social animal. He’s a social media animal.
Patrick Yaw Boamah: Chairman, respectfully, counsel is not under oath.And secondly, Mr. Vormawor posted those issues on his account himself. So, he’s the right person to be answering those questions. Please.
Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, with respect, I’ve been following the proceedings prior to getting in here. I believe that since the gentleman who posted the document in question is here and he’s taken an oath, all questions, as my respected colleague said, must be directed at him. Counsel’s responsibility would have to be to guide him and then come in on point of law where he believes that there’s an issue of point of law or the testimony is going in a manner that he would have to intervene.Otherwise, I don’t think that it is Counsel who must be answering questions and the man is sitting somewhere.
Patrick Boamah: Counsel, I want to put it to your client that the post that he says or claims to admit toas posted on the 24th of January at 9.25 p.m. Is that correct?
Counsel: Mr. Chairman. I’ve been instructed by my client to deny that statement.
Afenyo-Markin: Let him. He’s on oath. Let him answer.He’s on oath. It’s okay.With the greatest respect, it is our position that let the man answer. That is the direction from the Chair. Counsel, with respect, unless you do not want to submit to the Chair, please let your client answer the questions.
Counsel: With the greatest respect, can I have direction from the Chair? Because the Chair made a certain statement. Now, this is a second one.
Afenyo-Markin: But what we are saying is that, kindly, with respect, so I’m saying that this is coming from the Chair, that please kindly give the mic to your client to answer the questions. On any matter or point of law, you can come in. Yeah, but he has to get…
Chairman: Learned Counsel, put your microphone off. So, I recognise the intervention from Rockson-NelsonEtseDafeamekporHonourable.
Dafeamekpor: Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman, this committee is the Appointments Committee. And our mandate is clearly captured under Order 217 from Sub-Rule 1 to about Sub-Rule 8, thereabout. Mr. Chairman, matters relating to contempt of Parliament, and by the application of these standing orders, mutatis mutandis, to its committees and its members, is well provided for under Article 122 of the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, with your leave, let me read. An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament, or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result is contempt of Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, the matters that we are presently confronted with are matters provided for under Article 122.And as a committee, we do not have the mandate. I believe that another committee or Parliament has the mandate to deal with the merits of this matter. We run the danger or the risk of being judges in our own court over this matter.
So, I believe that the appropriate procedure would be to make upon the invitation of the possible contemnor and his lawyers, and having admitted to the statement or one of the statements in question, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, would have made a referral to the appropriate committee of Parliament, which is the Committee on Privileges.
Then, we can proceed with our mandate, which is to vet. What we are doing, we are not vetting.With all due respect. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like a preliminary hearing in matters such as this. The committeeChairman, my standpoint is that this committee itself has made a determination in pursuance of Order 40, Order 44, Order 32, Order 30, and Order 31, subrule H, that the contents that is the subject of this proceeding, as we speak, is already in contempt of Parliament. So, this matter must be disgorged and hived off to the Committee of Privileges.We are not mandated. We cannot.
So, the present exercise, however preliminary it is, for me, it’s a journey to nowhere.We can’t make that determination. Our mandate under 217, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, is to vet presidential nominees and other… So, this is not the Privileges Committee, with all due respect, my Honourable First Deputy Whip.So, the appropriate thing in terms of… We are all people of procedure and rules. Let the committee that is mandated under our standing orders and the Constitution be seized with this matter.
They have jurisdiction to go into the merits of this matter.We can be invited as witnesses before that committee to bear witness either against him or in support of his case, whichever may be applicable. But, as we speak, we are spending our precious hours to dealing with the matter that we don’t have the mandate to deal with. So, Chairman, yes, I made the point that we have power to invite, we have power to put it to him that his statement is contempt of Parliament and of his committee.
To that extent, a referral will be made by this committee to the appropriate committee. Then, when a report is prepared of that proceedings, then plenary itself will be seized with the matter and come out with whatever resolution will be made on the matter. So, Chairman, with all due respect, my prayer to you is that the questions that are being posed, the interrogations, the cross-examinations are all procedurally improper in the interim.
They are all procedurally improper. And we are struggling whether the witness should answer the questions himself or the lawyer should answer the questions on behalf of the witness. It is all part of the problems we have generated because this is not a court of law.This is a committee of Parliament. And as a committee of Parliament, the witness has the power or has the right to appear before the committee with a counsel of his choosing.
And that being so, under Order 273.2, that being so, any question posed to him, the lawyer has the power to respond to the questions.That is why the law permits him to appear with a lawyer. So, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think that the prudent thing to do is to give this matter to the committee that is seized with it. Then we can proceed with our mandate which is to vet the nominees who are supposed to appear before us.I thank you for the opportunity.
Counsel: With respect, Mr. Chairman, with respect, just for information. With respect, Mr. Chairman, just for information.
Chairman: Learned Counsel. Honourable members.Let there be some order. Honourable members, we took a decision as a committee to invite Oliver Barker-Vormawor to produce evidence to substantiate his allegations. Honourable members, in coming before the committee, he has exercised his authority to exercise a right to a lawyer of his own choice. And if I listen to the words of the lawyer, there is a categorical denial of one of the statements not emanating from him. They admitted a statement emanating from him.
The statement emanating from him, Oliver Barker-Vormawor and the lawyer both agreed to render an apology to the committee. Honourable members, the meaning that I gathered from that is that whatever he has admitted to be his post, he doesn’t have any evidence to substantiate it.
That is why he wants the opportunity to apologise and withdraw the statement.So, I believe strongly that we need to give him the opportunity and listen to the words of his apology. Then, as a committee, we can pick it up from there. I so direct, with all due respect, to the members of the committee.So, we want him to himself render the apology.
Annoh-Dompreh: Chairman, I heard your intro well. However, I insist, with the greatest respect to you, that Mr. Vormawor should be allowed to speak himself. And the bases are not far-fetched.He is on oath. He is on oath. And it’s not his counsel that is on oath.Mr. Vormawor, would you listen, please? My first question to you is, you have…
Chairman: Honourable people, I invite members to make comments on the approach that they have adopted, but not question him. Because they are here to say that I am admitting this statement. The one that I am admitting, I agreed I have erred.So, we want to apologise. So that is what emanated from the counsel.
So, from the lawyer, I am drawing your attention to what the lawyer has said, and to the effect that, if you have comment on what they are saying, that they have admitted this statement to be their own.They have erred. Therefore, give an opportunity to him personally to stand before the committee and render his apology and pull down the statement. That is what I am welcoming comment on.
Annoh-Dompreh: So, my comment, my comment will be this. First of all, I find it strange. I find it very strange that all of a sudden, you want to make an apology.Well, this apology is coming on the back of our invitation to you. And I put it to you that if we had not invited you, you would not have come out to apologise through your counsel. That would be my introductory remarks.Now, I want you to also appreciate.
Mr. Vormawor, I want you toappreciate that this is an arm of government. Parliament is an arm of government. And you often go on social media to make all manner of comments.So, at what point did you realise that a particular post was not attributable to you and yet you stayed until you got an invitation from parliament before you responded? Even after the invitation, you still went on and made further posts.
Even after the invitation, you went on to make further posts. I am putting it to you that you have disrespected an arm of government.Your apology is an afterthought. You have no evidence of the allegation you threw to parliament and the committee. And you are just on a frolic of your own just to disrespect parliament and thought that nobody was going to do anything to you.You should be bold.
As bold as you were when you were putting out the statement. You should be bold to defend your statement today.Not to come here and give us a lame apology. You should be bold and defend what you put out. As a man, that is what you should be doing.
Chairman: Well, honourable members, comments. So, I give the floor to honourable Boamah. Patrick Boamah: Chairman, this committee has the powers of a high court.And let me refer you to article 1036. That a committee appointed under this article shall have the powers, rights and privileges of the high court.
Rights, powers and privileges of the high court or a justice of the high court at a trial for, A, counsel enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise and B, compelling the production of documents and C, issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.But that is unrelated to this one.
So, my comment, Chairman, is that the admission made by Mr. Vormawor with regards to the post on 24th January 2025 at 9.25pm and I quote so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay are being asked to pay to the appointments committee just to get approved are those ones not affected by ORAL?
Then the one that he is denying was also posted on the day after 25th of January 2025 that NDC members on the vetting committee take money from Mohammed’s ministerial nominees before approving them. The deputy speaker must submit himself to ORA Oliver Barker Vormawor drops bombshell.
He did not issue a disclaimer to that post to date Chairman would say I shouldn’t direct my question he is before us he is before us denying the origins of this post and this is about today is the 30th or 29th four days after he hasn’t issued a disclaimer to this. He comes here to tell us that oh he doesn’t know about it can this person be trusted?
Mr. Chairman if indeed it is the case that NDC members have taken monies from President Mahama’s appointees let them defend it if it is the case that you Mr. Speaker with all your reputation and you chair the Privileges Committee you are being accused to the extent that if nominees appear before us you put it to them ask them yesterday you asked Honourable Omane-Boamah you asked Honourable Agyekum you asked Honourable Kenneth Adjei whether they have spoken to you, whether you have taken monies from them, whether members of the committee have approached them for anything and they denied.
How fake and dishonest would be such a person who claims did not know the origins of this and after over 96 hours couldn’t have issued a disclaimer to what he purports or not to have known anything about. Mr. Chairman it is very very sad and disgraceful for some of us to even pretend not to not to know the origins of this and to go and cover him up. I’m surprised Mr. Chairman it is an afterthought on the part of Mr. Vormawor and he must be made to pay the price for his sins Mr. Chairman thank you.
Chairman: Let me take the last comment from Habib. Please two minutes.
Habib: Thank you, chairman. Mine is to just draw the attention of the suspect to the fact that and his counsel that the one he is denying, the statement that the statement that, subject subject
Counsel: Mr. Chairman I don’t know whether I can intervene. I don’t know whether my client is a suspect at this stage.
Habib: Subject subject he is a subject not a suspect I’m sorry you see Chairman if you look at what he has admitted to having been attributed to him that so all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the appointment committee just to get approval are those ones not affected by ORAL.
The one he is denying is from a news agency and it says Ghana Today and the bottom they said Ghana’s News media men and women are here and the little journalism that I have also practised if you say if you write something because you wrote this on the 24th they are reporting this on the 25th and they are not to quote you; there is clearly no difference within the two let me clarify I’ll clarify the difference.
I’ll clarify that there’s no difference the first one says that so all the monies the ministerial appointees ministerial appointees underlined emphasised by me are being asked to pay to the appointment committee, appointment committee emphasised mine, to get approval the one he is denying that NDC members on the appointment committee, committee is comprised of both NPP and NDC.
