Parliament’s Appointments Committee Vetting of Minister-designate for Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Part 3)

Chairman: May you proceed to answer.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to put it on record that I have never served as counsel for Eland. Yes, I was involved in two aspects. One was the case, the famous promissory note case that was brought by Standard Bank Offshore Trust against NIB, and then I served as the lawyer for NIB.

As the first defendant, Eland was the second defendant but had a completely separate legal representation. So, I’ve never served as their lawyer, so I’m not conflicted in any way. I also want to put it on record that I am not aware of this arbitration that you have referred to, and Mr. Chairman, conventions of the legal profession that we need to abide by very, very carefully.

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

When a matter is pending before arbitration, you are not even supposed to discuss it. That’s what is the position. Even when an award has been granted, especially when it is before bodies like, you know, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, etc., you are not supposed, you know, to discuss them.

But as Attorney General, I will take all the steps that are necessary, as I said, to protect the interests of the Republic, because once I’m sworn in, the Republic is the only client that I have, and I must act in the best interest of the client in accordance with the ethics of the profession. So, I will do everything in my power to ensure that we defend vigorously the interests of the Republic in this arbitration that you are referring to.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your answer. I will allow you one follow-up question, if any.

Sammy Awuku, MP, Akuapim North: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your generosity. This is me. Mr. Chairman, I think it will also be hugely unfair for the Parliament of Ghana to be precluded from discussing a matter, because it’s also pending before the arbitration, because it has significant bearing on our finances.

And as we all know, we are not in normal times, as far as revenue is concerned. The matter that I raised was to draw your attention. Once you are not aware that they have filed an arbitration claim of $320 million, I’m only informing you in advance, so that, God willing, when you are gifted with that opportunity, it should be one of the issues before you.Because once they have made that claim, it is clear that they are taking steps to extract that from our very dry pocket as well. Thank you.

Chairman: Honourable Samia Okwu, is that matter still pending?

Sammy Awuku: Yes, yes, yes, yes, because they have filed a claim in November, and that’s why I’m informing the incoming Attorney General about it.

Chairman: Well, we are guided by the fact that we cannot be commenting on the matter as it is.

Sammy Awuku: I take your cue, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you very much. He’s done the last question.No, it was not really a question. You are just seeking the indulgence of the nominee, is that not so? Exactly. Then, I came in to say that, is that matter pending a judicial decision? We cannot be seen to be commenting on the matter sub-judice, and you have taken a cue from it, is that not so? So, I am most grateful for you taking a cue from it.It’s now the turn of Honourable Patrick Yaw Boamah.

Patrick Yaw Boamah, MP, Okaikoi Central: Thank you very much, Chairman for the opportunity.Let me use the opportunity to congratulate my lecturer and senior brother, and a firm believer of the mischief school. And I’m sure Professor Kumado will be very happy to see you in the chair. Congratulations, doc.

Doc, we’ve been talking about ORAL, Special Prosecutor, and what have you. People want to find a very quick way in administering criminal trials in this country. The immediate past Attorney General came to the floor, introduced an amendment to Act 30. It went through first reading, second reading, and a consideration stage.

But it could not see the light of day, because we could not take it through the clause by clause, and also the third reading. Would you consider reintroducing the bill to enable your office to take the necessary steps in the reforms proposed therein, in our criminal justice system? Thank you very much.

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, thank you. If the Honourable Member is seeking to open and substantive content of that bill, it will be introduced as it was. My answer is no. The reason is because I disagree fundamentally with some of its logic. For instance, the whole idea that preliminary applications are being used to delay and … conclusion of trials, I disagree with fundamentally.

I think that lawyers should be allowed, if there are technical issues that judges have overlooked, they should bring applications, as many applications as they can. It is incumbent upon the judiciary to dispose of those in an expeditious manner so that a substantive trial can proceed.

To bring statute, to basically try to constrain lawyers from filing preliminary applications, some of them are fundamental in terms of seeking to do right by the law and procedure under Act 29 and Act 30.So, I disagree fundamentally with it. I will take a critical look at it. I took part in the consideration, but I had fundamental issues with it.I will take a look at it and see if it should be ever tabled at all, or that the status quo remains.

Chairman: Thank you very much. Your submission is in tandem with the views of the Constitutional Legal Committee at the material moment. Why should we be in a hurry to convict people? I think anybody accused will be given all the opportunities to defend himself. Patrick Boamah: Chairman, you and Honourable Ayine do a very key on this bill. Let me go ahead and ask my question.

I’m very satisfied with this answer. Honourable nominee, your office, your former office, and I believe, God willing, this House will approve your nomination to be AG, used the staff and the resources available at the AG’s department to fight some arbitration cases. They did not hire any external or foreign counsel to assist their office, and they were successful in most of the cases.I’m sure you are aware of it.

The ADR Centre has been activated and set up in accordance with law, for which I believe that the forum for some of these arbitration proceedings ought to be Ghana, to save cost and to use their capacity. You are going to occupy the biggest chamber in the country.

Are you going to assure the country that you will not expend so much money in the hiring of foreign counsel and you will situate arbitration within the confines of the country so that lawyers and practitioners and the big staff that you have at the AG’s department will have access to the ADR Centre and practise their profession? Thank you.

Chairman: I will otherwise term your question, the bomb has prospered. Honourable nominee, you may proceed to answer the question.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you very much. The use of in-house expertise is not new, but sometimes it may be the case that certain matters are specialised areas. There is no in-house expertise to handle them, and sometimes they are also complex, and if the jurisdiction is not Ghana, and you are not familiar with the law and practise of the seat of arbitration, you have to be careful in not disregarding any advice to bring in lawyers from that jurisdiction in order to be able to conduct the case very well.

So yes, I will consider the use of in-house expertise, but it is not exactly true that they use in-house lawyers throughout. The Attorney General kept saying that during the transition we had evidence that they consistently paid foreign lawyers millions of dollars to do cases for this Republic.

Chairman: Honourable Obama, you have a chance to answer.

Patrick Boamah: A very important question. I want to elicit the views of my respected senior on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court very wide. I ask this question every year, and I want to hear from my senior. You know the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very wide, from Appellate. You know everything. I need not go over it.

Do you think the current composition of the Supreme Court ought to be augmented with some new appointment? And what do you think must be the ceiling, given the fact that some people don’t even understand the workings of the court? And do you think they have the capacity, as we sit here now, to adjudicate on all the matters pending before them, from chieftaincy to appellate to whatever, a lot of them, about seven of the jurisdictions?

Chairman: Honourable Obama, he said some people. Who are those people?

Patrick Boamah: Not every person understands that the Supreme Court handles a lot of matters, apart from what they perceive to be only political or constitutional matters. Some may be appellate matters. They have jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters originating from the House of Chiefs or the Judicial Councils, judicial review matters, and what have you, invoking the original jurisdiction of the court under Article 130. A lot more, about seven or so. Election petition, and you have only 11 people handling all these matters. That’s why I’m asking him. That’s the gravamen of my question.

Chairman: Very well. Honourable Nominee.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Honourable Member that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very wide, and he has already enumerated them, so I don’t need to repeat them. But you can deal with the issue of the caseload in two broad ways.

One is dealing with them through the adoption of very efficient mechanisms of deciding cases. So, I’ll give you an example. In the United States Supreme Court, which has only nine members, and they have operated with nine members for over hundreds of years.

The United States of America is bigger than this country. Cases come from the district court all the way through the federal circuits, and they are circuit courts like the 9th Circuit, the 6th Circuit, and so on, are very big. And sometimes, if there’s a federal element in a state matter, it can emanate from a state Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court, and yet they still have only nine.

You know how they deal with the cases efficiently? The judges, for every case that is coming, they look at the brief, and if they have already decided the matter, they simply let the registrar write a brief note, and it says, set denied. Set denied means that the justices are not interested in looking at this matter.

And it’s a very well-known procedure. So, if you are a practitioner before the United States Supreme Court, you have to be very, very good at distinguishing cases to be able to convince them to take up your matter.

So, if it comes to them, and they let their research, what they call them the clerks, the clerks will review, they’ll go to conference, and then they tell the registrar, write set denied, that is it.

They’re not going to waste the time of the court by coming to appear before the court for the case to be called and so on. I think that we should adopt very efficient procedures like that, because sometimes people take very frivolous cases, frivolous appeals to the Supreme Court, for instance.

Hon Bernard Ahiafor and Hon Afenyo-Markin

I remember once I was before the court, and then somebody brought an appeal that had to do with the fact that he, the lawyer, was not there when a decision was granted against him. So, he took this appeal all the way from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court was empanelled to hear him. It was so frivolous, so they gave it to him by way of speaking, they gave it to him that morning in front of all of us.

So, we should have procedural mechanisms that will sieve out all the frivolous appeals that we are bearing. One way is also to increase the numbers. But then the court itself, through the exercise of the administrative powers of the CJ, should divide itself into specialised divisions. So, you can have the Supreme Court constitutional division, and you have five justices very specialised in constitutional law who will quickly deal with these matters.

Okay? And so on and so forth. Of course, you have some of them who are experts in criminal law like my former teacher Justice Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu she could lead a panel of justices who will be dealing with criminal appeals. So,specialisation may make the court more efficient and then the burden on the court will be reduced.

But that will mean for instance that instead of 11 we may have 15 so that five each could deal with because the court is properly constituted with the three justices and four other justices of the court. That is what I will say for now. Thank you.

Patrick Boamah: Thank you Dr. Ayine. Congratulations. And I wish you the very best.

Chairman: Thank you very much. It is now the turn of Honourable Deputy Minority Leader.

Patricia Appiagyei, MP, Asokwa: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I would like to congratulate the nominee. He is a very good associate of mine. We’ve been to several programmes together and I have listened to him to his lectures and I must say that I don’t even have the locus to be asking any question but something is very dear to my heart which I must pursue.

I remember in the previous Mills-Mahama NDC administration in which you served as a deputy attorney-general the state lost a number of international applications and local cases at huge cost to the state. An example is the Balkan arbitration in which about 13.5 million was awarded against the state. My only question is how are you going to avoid the occurrences of these situations? Thank you.

Chairman: Honourable nominee.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you very much.Mr. Chairman, I have previously answered this question but I think I would indulge and then say maybe as closely as possible to the answer that I gave which is that we will do our best in the department to ensure that we negotiate well as far as the arguments are concerned. We do not take steps to abrogate when we know that the state will incur liability.

We make sure that public officers who are involved in these transactions do right by their conduct.I think that we should begin to also punish such people when they misconduct themselves. That is all that I will say for now. So, when they know the legal consequences will be adverse, they will be careful not to arbitrarily terminate and then bring about judgement.

Chairman: Thank you very much. Any further questions?

Patricia Appiagyei: Thank you very much. What would you do in your capacity as Attorney General to continue the tradition of the zealous defence of the state’s interest in international arbitrations? What specifically would you do?

Dr. Ayine: We definitely will be putting our best foot forward by getting lawyers either local or international that are knowledgeable, that are skillful, and that have integrity to represent the republic and defend its interest.

Chairman: Thank you. It’s now the turn of the Deputy Majority Leader.

Emmanuel Armah Kofi Buah, MP, Ellembelle: Professor Ayine, congratulations. Your academic credentials and prowess is well known. But I know you as a man of fashion. And I’ve always admired you for that. And I’m sure that as Attorney General, I don’t know whether your fashion will change.

Congratulations. But I have one important question for you. Ghana ranks 72 out of 180 countries in the 2023 Corruption Perception Index indicating persistent challenges with the issue of corruption. What innovative and practical measures will you champion to strengthen the capacity of anti-corruption institutions in the country?

Chairman: Thank you for the question. Any answer?

Dr. Ayine: Thank you very much. Honourable Chairman. Just let member know that my fashion taste will not change as Attorney General. Yes. When it comes to the issue of corruption, as a country, we tried various mechanisms, we tried various institutional measures. We formed commissions of enquiry.

If you go back to our history, the Ollennu Commission of Enquiry was into the sale of import licences and the bribery associated therewith at the Ministry of Trade. For the lawyers around the table, you remember the case of (.) versus the Republic. That case arose out of the Ollennu Commission of Enquiry.

The Ollennu Commission of Enquiry has been one of the things that we used to fight corruption. Of course, constitutionally, you remember that CHRAJ is also another institution that has an anti-corruption mandate. And at the beginning of the Fourth Republic, you remember its first chairman Emil Short did with high public officials appearing before the CHRAJ.

Some of it went to the Supreme Court in challenges. And there are decided cases dealing with the procedures that were adopted and so on. We’ve had various other bodies that we’ve used to fight corruption. So, Mr. Chairman, there is not shortage of institutional measures…And then we did the investigation and eventually, we recovered over GH¢30 million.

That is the record that is not being talked about. We recovered GH¢30 million which was paid by those who were involved. Because of confidentiality reasons, I cannot mention those who were involved.

So, for instance, the plan which I have discussed informally with His Excellency is for us to have a whistleblower agency in every district and then to publicise the procedures, create a hotline where if there is wrongdoing that is happening, that hotline can be the regional chief attorney being called and a report being made so that he can then with the police and the other investigative bodies investigate and then ensure that the wrongdoing which is being reported, the evidence of it is gathered and so on.

So, in every district we will implement it and then have a hotline that can be used to report information about corruption. So, the anti-corruption institutions should not be pinned on the ground or centred in Accra, depriving ordinary people of the opportunity to report acts of corruption.

And of course, under the Whistleblowers Act, when you report and there is a recovery, you are entitled to 10%, a percentage and I remember that in this case that I have cited the whistleblower was actually paid the Honourable Atta Akyea eventually if you want to cross-check what I am saying you can ask the Honourable Atta Akyea represented the whistleblower in his pursuit of the 10%.We agreed to pay when NPP took over there was some hanky-panky and then the whistleblower had to go to court.

So that is an incentive for whistleblowers to report. So, Mr. Chairman, we need to operationalise and make sure that the anti-corruption measures permeate all the way to the local level. During the revolution of course there were excesses that during the revolution the Honourable Cletus Avoka is here those days when we were young men in Bolga they were the revolutionary lawyers and of course they caught many people civil servants, public servants engaged in bribery and embezzlement and they were tried by the tribunals and in some cases by the courts in some cases they were sacked I think that those radical measures need to be reintroduced. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Armah Buah: Chairman no further questions. Congratulations.

Chairman: Thank you very much. It is now the turn of Honourable Minority Leader.

Alexander Afenyo-Markin, MP, Effutu: Counsel, congratulations.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Chair, I want to take my respected learned colleague to his CV, page one. The page one of your CV has no biodata of you, so can you graciously provide us with your biodata?

Dr. Ayine: Okay, so for the record, my name is Dominic AkuritingaAyine and I was born on the 6th of January, 1966 to Mr. AyineAtinga and Madam Atiney.

Afenyo-Markin: What’s your address, please, your residential address?

Dr. Ayine: My residential address is No. 3, Kofi Annan Avenue, North Legon, Accra.

Afenyo-Markin: Your postal address?

Dr. Ayine: P.O. Box LG 70, Legon, Accra. I still use my address, the address that I was using when I was a lecturer. It’s allowed because I’m still associated with the University of Ghana.

Afenyo-Markin: Now, have you paid all your taxes to date or have you made arrangement to meet those obligations to the state?

Dr. Ayine: Chairman, actually, I have a credit of GH¢470 that the Republic owes me. In other words, I have overpaid. On my tax clearance certificate, which I can present to the committee.

Afenyo-Markin: Do you immediately remember how much tax you paid to the state last year for which you have gained this credit?

Dr. Ayine: No, please.

Afenyo-Markin: If given the opportunity, would you be able to finish this committee with the amount of tax you paid to the state in the year 2024?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can finish the committee with all my tax records, including those from my law firm. I’m very, very, very up to date with my taxes.I don’t joke with it at all.

Afenyo-Markin: Chair, I’m very specific in my dealing with my respective colleagues. I’m asking about your 2024.I’m not talking about other matters.

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well.Chair, may I know from the nominee whether he ever represented Fidelity Bank as its external solicitor?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’ve represented, and in fact, I’m still representing Fidelity Bank as its external solicitor in a case that I filed in the High Court for damages for defamation.

Afenyo-Markin: Are you on retention?

Dr. Ayine: No, I’m not on retention.

Afenyo-Markin: Are you also a solicitor for the Electricity Company of Ghana?

Dr. Ayine: No, I’m not.

Afenyo-Markin: Have you ever been a solicitor for the Electricity Company of Ghana?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, I have been before. I’ve represented them, the ECG in one matter, which was before the High Court, which a case has been disposed of. And then also, I was actually hired by an English law firm called Omnia LLP.That was hired by ECG as their lawyers before the London Court of International Arbitration, and I was hired as a Ghanaian law expert, and I appeared before the tribunal on behalf of ECG.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well. Was that case in respect of the PDS matter?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, please.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well. Learned, so what was the outcome of the PDS trial?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. I was lawyer for ECG, that is Electricity Company of Ghana, not PDS, but the dispute was brought by PDS.I want to make it clear. I mean, I know why I’m saying this.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, so let’s help ourselves with respect.So, PDS sued the Electricity Company of Ghana.

Dr. Ayine: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Right, so ECG then became a respondent in the matter.

Dr. Ayine: That is so, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Yeah, so for the record, you were one of the attorneys for ECG.

Dr. Ayine: That is so, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well. So, having landed on that point, I shall proceed to ask you what was the outcome of the said arbitration of which you were counsel for ECG please?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, we are expecting the award in May. Everything that I was supposed to do as counsel has been done, except that my fees are outstanding.

Afenyo-Markin: You mean part of your fees is outstanding?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, part of my fees.

Afenyo-MArkin: Yes, because you were paid some, and your later invoices are outstanding. Dr. Ayine: That is true. But let me put it on record that I was on the side of the Republic.I want to put this on record, that I’m on the side of the Republic. The Republic is the sole shareholder of PDS, I mean of ECG, and I sided with the Republic. I was invited by PDS to be their lawyers.I declined for ethical and political reasons. I want to put that on record.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, I would want to plead with the nominee that much as it is his desire to provide additional information, I would plead with him to limit himself to my question because I do not want to prolong matters.If you bring in other matters, then you would lead me into asking. So, you, I want to make it as short as possible. Is that okay?

Dr. Ayine: That is okay, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well. Now, honourable nominee, can you tell this committee the period within which you acted as solicitor for ECG?

Dr. Ayine: You mean in respect of the?

Afenyo-Markin: In respect of the arbitration, the PDS arbitration.

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, the arbitration has been going on for the last, I think, one and a half years. Yes.

Afenyo-Markin: Really?

Dr. Ayine: Yes.

Afenyo-Markin: We are in 2025.

Dr. Ayine: That is so.

Afenyo-Markin: Is it your case that

Dr. Ayine: It started way before 2024.

Afenyo-Markin: That’s the clarification I wanted to provide. Were you hired in 2018?

Dr. Ayine: In 2018, maybe, Mr. Chairman, he’s confusing two matters.There was another matter that is ASG versus ECG. That is all, well, the short name of the company is ASG. All services group. All services group and, you know, ECG, okay? So that arbitration was the first time that Omnia LLP requested my services and then they hired me and because I performed, you know, to their satisfaction, in the second, the PDS matter, they came back for me.

Afenyo-Markin: So, when did the PDS sue ECG?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I can provide a committee with accurate information.

Appointments Committee members

Afenyo-Markin: I can give you the opportunity with the leave of chair.I know you did the case with your respected junior whom you’ve trained so well. I watched him at the Supreme Court with, you know, with a lot of admiration and one must compliment him for his great advocacy.

He’s right behind you since most times he was holding your brief.Can you, with Mr. Chairman’s leave, take the date from him? He’s behind you. Chairman will grant leave. Chairman: No, I think the witness is under oath.We cannot allow another person to interfere. So, he promised, when given the opportunity, he will let you have the date. So, we’ll take the witness’ words.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman. Thank you. So,learned, in taking up the case, Electricity Company of Ghana, being their counsel, you believed in their case, didn’t you?

Dr. Ayine: Very well, Mr. Chairman.I would never take a case. My juniors know that. I won’t take a case unless I believe in the merits of the case.

Afenyo-Markin: And you believed that your clients have done nothing untoward in its decisions leading to the termination of its contract with PDS?

Chairman: Honourable Member. The witness already provided the answer that he would never take a case unless he believed in.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, you and I are practitioners and you know I will respect those barriers.I’m not going to ask you to narrate to us those details of the case. All I want to ask you is that you believed in the merits of your client’s case to the effect that, in your view, your client had not done anything wrong in the handling of its contract.

Dr. Ayine: That is correct.That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Afenyo-Markin: Thank you.

Chairman: Hold on nominee. Honourable member, by the indication from the nominee, the case is pending award.Is that not so?

Dr. Ayine: That is so, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: So, it is a matter under determination. And by law, can we be going into the merit of that particular matter, whether you believe or you don’t believe in it, since it is pending judicial determination?

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, I appreciate your intervention.I would humbly plead with you one more time to allow me to flow. I would not cross the barrier and I believe that you’ve heard me loud and clear. Now, honourable nominee, and let me say to you that though we have political differences, I respect you for your stance in a lot of matters of national discourse.

And without prejudice to any member of the majority caucus or any member of the NDC, you know that you are the only person who has a picture with me and that picture is in my office. It’s there on the purpose. You know that.So, I laid that foundation to ask you this other question that is coming up. You took this case with ECG, well aware of the politics of the country at the time, weren’t you?

Dr. Ayine: That is so, Mr. Chairman. I operate within the political-legal context of this country and I’m always aware of the political dynamics and I consult widely before I do what I do.

Afenyo-Markin: The point I want to make is that you were aware that where you stood in the political space, you were against the tide in taking up the ECG case.

Dr. Ayine: I didn’t think of any tide. I thought about the interests of the state of Ghana.

Afenyo-Markin: I agree and that is why I’m celebrating you for that which you did. That politically, the tide was against the government of the day. But here you were because of your professionalism and professional stature and I was happy you made reference to a third party legal firm that actually supported you and pulled you out of the lot to be the representation, the attorney for ECG. So that’s the point I want to make, that politically, the tide was against you. Would you agree?

Dr. Ayine: I was not conscious of any tide. I wasn’t swimming against any tide.I just took a professional decision to agree to serve as counsel in this matter. And the ECG is owned by the republic, owned by the state. It’s a limited liability company with its own board of directors and so on.

I didn’t think about the political implications of representing ECG but I knew that the politics around PDS was not, because I also believed in the fact that there was wrongdoing on the part of PDS and I wouldn’t accept a brief from a company that I believe was in the wrong in respect of a transaction.

Afenyo-Markin: So, you are saying that ECG is a limited liability company with its own board. So, it’s a separate corporate entity from the state though the state is the sole shareholder?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Salomon versus Salomon.

Afenyo-Markin: I just want to ask that for emphasis.

Dr. Ayine: Yes.

Afenyo-Markin: Therefore, the conduct of its board is completely independent from the state, correct?

Dr. Ayine: That is correct.

Afenyo-Markin: So, if as attorney general, you are to advise the state in a situation where the sector minister wants to through a public statement dissolve the board, would you find that to be appropriate?

Dr. Ayine: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, because the appointing authority has changed.

Afenyo-Markin: Get my statement in question, my question in context so that you don’t have, what I’m saying, the question is, since you acknowledge through Salomon versus Salomon, in saying that the body, the company is an independent institution separate with its own board.

I’m asking whether a sector minister will be right in issuing a statement to dissolve a properly constituted board of that entity which you acknowledge as a corporate body with all its rights engraved in law?

Dr. Ayine: Well, we can haggle with the form that it has taken, but that is notionally equivalent to a resolution of the shareholder dissolving the board.

Afenyo-Markin: So, let’s go a bit into company law since you are introducing that. So, my basic understanding of corporate law is that the shareholders have such rights to take decisions on the appointment of the directors of the firm. And once those directors are appointed, they assume their independence, of course, subject to the Articles of Incorporation and what the shareholders also direct, they may have their own vision.

Are you saying, therefore, that by virtue of the state being the sole shareholder without convening an AGM, the sole shareholder as represented by a sector minister can sit in an office and issue a public statement to dissolve the board and that would be sufficient in law? I just want to know from you.

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, that is why I said we can quibble about the form that this has taken, but a sole shareholder cannot hold a meeting with any other person but itself or himself, right? That’s what is meant by sole shareholder, right?

So, if I were to advise the minister you’re talking about, I would have drawn up the resolution, right, and serve it on the members of the board that by this resolution dated the 13th day of January 2025, the board is hereby dissolved. And that would have been very, very appropriate, okay?

So, the form that it took is probably what you are quarrelling with, maybe if it’s in the form of a letter without any reference to the shareholder’s rights and so on and so forth. That is the, I mean, that is what you are quarrelling about.But as Attorney General, I’ll advise that the right thing be done.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, I think one of the things for which the nominee has earned the respect of many colleagues is his position on the law. And let me say I appreciate your very candid view on this. And I pray that you will walk the talk ensuring sanity as we get along because this, our politics, it is party go, party come. And we need to assure those who take up responsibility in running state institutions.

Now, I will proceed to my next observation about you. None of us here can be perfect. There are times that we lose it and there are times that we get it all well. Have you ever felt frustrated as a lawyer in any matter that you’ve handled whether in your private practise or in being a lawyer for the states in your previous life as a Deputy Attorney General? Was there any point that you felt very frustrated in any brief that you handled?

Dr. Ayine: Well, as professional lawyers, we get frustrated and exasperated on a daily basis. Sometimes it may be coming from the clients. Sometimes it may be coming from the courts or tribunals that we appear before and so on. Yes, so I have been frustrated before, but that is normal, it’s part of life.

Afenyo-Markin: So, have you ever felt disappointed in an outcome of a case whereupon that led you into some public outbursts?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the honourable member is driving at, but I don’t, if you realise, okay, I don’t run public commentaries on cases that I handle. As a matter of the practise and tradition of my firm, we don’t run public commentary unless the matter is political in nature and there’s a need for some clarification because of the politics inherent in the matter. But as far as my commercial practise is concerned, yes, sometimes I lose cases, but I don’t run commentary on them publicly.

Afenyo-Markin: Mr. Chairman, please, I claim your attention for the specific language I’m using for my question. My question is, have you ever been disappointed in the outcome of a case, meaning a final judgement in a case you did whereupon you made some public statement? I’m not talking about running commentaries on a case you do. I am asking whether you call any public outburst emanating from a judgement in a case that you did?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, I cannot recollect. So, if, you know, yeah, I cannot recollect. Afenyo-Markin: Honourable Dominic Ayine, in the Woyome case where my Lord, Ajet Nasam presided, the media, reported you to have said that is the submission of no case where the judge ruled in favour of, Mr. Woyome, in other words, his application that there was no case to answer was upheld and your opposition to that application was rejected by the court.

The media reported you to have said that the judge had made up his mind even before the case. If that report by the media is correct, on hindsight, do you think that you were right?

Chairman: Well, Honourable Minority Leader, the witness indicated clearly that he doesn’t run commentary. He cannot remember. But you keep on asking about. The witness will want to answer. Proceed and answer.

Afenyo-Markin: Mr. Chairman. Counsel, hold on a second. Chairman, I’ve used the word plead with you for the umpteenth time. Chairman, please, please, stop it. Some of our colleagues are expecting a certain level of conduct from us. I beg of you. Let’s, him proceed.

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.I think context is very important. Context is very important. I do recall that when the ruling on the submission of no case was granted in favour of Mr. Woyome, I was not directly handling the matter.

I was actually supervising the current DPP and a team of lawyers to handle the matter. But then the judge, in his ruling, took a swipe at the Attorney General. That is my boss.He took a swipe at the Attorney General because this was a case between the Republic and Mr. Woyome.

So, he took a swipe at the Attorney General. We read the ruling in chambers. We wanted to ignore it, but then lawyers were called who were then running adverse commentary against us in the matter. And so, we took a decision in chambers that we needed to respond and to explain. And, Mr. Chairman, there’s a lot that I know about the judge that you don’t know. So don’t open a Pandora’s box.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman, of course, I recall former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld come up with this saying that there are known unknowns and there are unknown knowns. I’m sure that is the area you’re trying to venture into. However, however, the unknown knowns, which you want to refer to, are not a matter that the public became aware of.

Because you did not want to put the unknown knowns out there, that is why you didn’t put it out there.I am only interested in the fact that the ones that you decided to put out there, and that is where I seek to ask you a question or two. You’ve explained that it was in context, and I think that’s fair enough. I wouldn’t belabor. But let’s also move to another point, the Supreme Court.

There came a time where the Supreme Court made certain pronouncements, which I’m sure you were not too pleased with said pronouncements, and that resulted in some comments by you, and the Supreme Court was not happy, and eventually, the gentleman in you, as we all know, you conceded and put matters to a peaceful rest. What have you to say to young practitioners who will be dissatisfied with Superior Court decisions, given your own experience in what happened?

Dr. Ayine: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the question. Once I am approved and sworn in, I will be the leader of the bar, and I’ll set a very good example. I think even in private practise, you will admit that I am an example. I’ve never been engaged in any unethical conduct in my practise. So, I will lead by example, and that will be from day one.

So, I wouldn’t encourage any young lawyer to, out of frustration, take the judiciary to the cleanness. Because remember that I am not only Attorney General, Principal Legal Advisor to the President, but I’m also the Minister of Justice. I will be the Minister of Justice, meaning that the justice sector will be under my ministry.

That will be the principal, apart from the Attorney General’s Department, it will be the principal sector, in terms of policy and in terms of law, that I will be superintending. And so, I want to have, you know, a very good relationship with the judiciary, a good and respectful relationship with the judiciary.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, we have become aware of an Executive Instrument dated the 9th of January 2025.And this Executive Instrument takes its strength from Section 11.3 of PNDC Law 327. It lists a number of ministries conspicuously missing is the Ministry of National Security. Now, in the Securities and Intelligence Act, there is a provision for the creation of the Ministry of National Security.

Going in as the Attorney General, would you advise the President to amend this EI to reflect this new enactment that Parliament has passed? Because it appears that His Excellency solely relied on the PNDC Law 327 without paying due attention to the Securities and Intelligence Act which Parliament passed recently.

Dr. Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have, you know, previously had to have, I mean, discussions on this matter. But in terms of the hierarchy of laws, of course, the Act supersedes the Executive Instrument.

And once the Act provides for a Ministry of National Security, and the principle of law is that Parliament does not speak in vain. We will, you know, take a second look at it and then advise the President accordingly.

Thank you very much. You have a long way to go, Honourable Leader.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, kindly stop this act. Chairman, kindly stop this act.

Chairman: Well, Honourable Members, I think there should be a ceiling on a number of questions that the leadership is also supposed to ask.So that we don’t go to town. We go straight to the point. So, at our meeting, we need to take a decision as to the number of questions that leaders are entitled to ask.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, we should allow a free flow of proceedings, okay? I beg of you. Honourable nominee, in Article 181(5) of the Constitution, that provision in the Constitution received some judicial pronouncement. The very first one, I believe, the Klomega case, Klomega versus the Ghana Ports and Harbour, where the Supreme Court had an opportunity to make some pronouncement.

I believe that the Court made some consequential orders to the effect that Parliament would have to ensure certainty in that provision of the Constitution by enacting a law to regulate 181(5). It’s been long overdue.We don’t have a law yet. In the Assibey Yeboah case, the Supreme Court even distinguished the law further, made a clear path and said that even in situations where the transactions involve state entities with its own board, it wouldn’t be considered as part of 181(5). However, they still felt that Parliament has failed in enacting a law to regulate 181(5). Now, you have the opportunity. Can you assure the country

Chairman: He has the opportunity or he is going to have the opportunity? Or if he gets the opportunity?

Patrick Boamah: Chairman, I think this question on Article 181.

Chairman: Is it in relation to what I am saying, that now you have the opportunity or now you are going to have the opportunity. Is it on that issue?

Pattrick Boamah: I’m bringing a very important matter to your attention. That the Speaker set up a committee on Article 181(5). And that report and bill is ready. That’s for your information.

Chairman: Thank you so much. So, Leader, you have heard him. Now, you have the opportunity.Do you still stand by it or now that he’s going to be giving the opportunity?

Dr. Ayine: Yeah, just to add to what the Honourable Patrick Boamah has said.

Afenyo-Markin: Honourable nominee, hold on a second. Let me handle the matter with the Chairman.Let me flow, okay? Let me finish.

Chairman: Your statement is as if he has been approved. He is now the Attorney General. Meanwhile, we are in the vetting process.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, I’ll go back to the question. Honourable nominee, now you have an opportunity back to the Attorney General’s chambers. Will you assure us that steps will be taken to enact a law to regulate 181(5)?

Dr. Ayine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to add to what the Honourable Patrick Bowman has said in answer to your question. Mr. Speaker set up a committee on the side of the then-minority. I was a member with the Honourable Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson and then the Honourable Elizabeth Adjare.

And we came up with a bill. I’m a co-author of that bill with the Honourable Joe Ghartey. And the bill was supposed to be laid in Parliament before we rose. But because of certain developments that took place, the bill has not been laid. I’m very satisfied being an author of the bill. The Honourable Patrick Boamah and I took part.

We even had a stakeholder consultation and the bill is ready. So, it was Parliament’s bill and was being sponsored by the members of Parliament from both sides. If Mr. Speaker still has that intent, I will allow that process to flow to its logical conclusion.

Otherwise, I will adopt it as Attorney General and with the backing of the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ato Forson will bring the bill back to Parliament and then it will start the process of first reading through to passage.So that is what I can assure the country.

Afenyo-Markin: Very well. So Honourable Nominee, you have become aware of the ORAL.

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The ORAL was an integral part of our campaign message.I was a surrogate campaigner for His Excellency John Dramani Mahama and he’s committed to the aura and I’m committed to it as well.

Afenyo-Markin: Right. So, good.In your view, do you see this committee as a constitutionally empowered committee? Do you think that it has a constitutional backing or any statutory backing to have this committee in place?

Dr. Ayine: Well, if by constitutional backing, there are two ways by which the constitution would have backed oral. That is, if it was specifically stated in the constitution, such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, which is not the case, or if the constitution provided the constitutional framework for the establishment of a body called the Operation Recover All Loot.

But I think I stated quite, I mean clearly, and I don’t know whether you were in the room when I gave the answer that one of the fundamental principles of the constitution is the principle of accountability. And ORAL is about exacting accountability.

And I think that my colleague, senior colleague and partner, the Honourable Mahama Ayariga, you know, added substantive, you know, sense to what I did, what the answer I gave, by making a reference to Article 41 F of the constitution. And the obligation on all citizens, you know, to take steps, you know, to protect public property and to avoid waste of public, I mean, funds.

So, I think that ORAL is not unconstitutional. ORAL is not illegal. Not, I mean, just because it was not set up by an actual parliament does not necessarily make it an illegal body.So, it has constitutional backing in terms of the fundamental values of the constitution.

Chairman: Well before you come in, I recognise Rockson-Nelson Dafeamakpor on a point of information.

Dafeamakpor: Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman, the minority leader in submitting just a minute or two ago, in respect of the Act 1030. Act 1030 does not provide for the establishment of national security. It provides for the functions of the minister. That’s what it provides. And so there are two markedly different issues.

Chairman: Thank you very much for the information.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, I would want to beg my respected colleague to get the law, open the provision that he is relying on upon which he disagrees with me. He should open the provision because the act provides for certain ministries and provides for minister responsible for national security, minister responsible for finance and all. If he’s saying that there’s no such provision, no, no, no, please.

Chairman: Honourable member, I recognise Honourable Ayariga to read the act. Honourable Ayariga, go ahead and read that.

Mahama Ayariga: Mr. Chairman, the Act severally makes reference to a minister, a minister, a minister. And then it goes to the definition section and then it says minister means the minister responsible for national security. So, it could be any minister of the president that he has assigned responsibility for national security.

It doesn’t command the establishment or continuing existence of a ministry of national security. Even when the provision tries to define a ministry, assuming that a ministry is mentioned, it adds and says that ministry means ministry responsible for national security.

It doesn’t say ministry of national security, but the ministry that is responsible so the president can assign responsibility for national security to the interior ministry, the defence ministry, or indeed the ministry of Upper East.So that is the president’s prerogative.

Chairman: Thank you very much. I think this is a usual rendition in our laws that would define ministry or a minister to mean minister responsible. So, if today the minister responsible for rules should be the minister responsible for transport, the designation will be made as such. So, I do not think this is an issue that we should belabour. I mean it is clear now. So, leader, proceed.

Afenyo-Markin: Chairman, with the greatest respect you are expressing an opinion. Don’t say it is clear now. The interpretation column of Act 1030 provides for the definition of minister. I’ve been part of legislation at least for the past 12 years. It provides minister means. It didn’t say include. Minister means the minister responsible for national security.

Then it goes on to say ministry means ministry responsible for national security. In all humility and at the risk of sounding immodest, the arguments that it could be any ministry by the president to say the least, anyway.

Again, if you go to section 11, section 11 provides Ministerial Security Coordinating Committee and it provides without limiting section 10, there shall be the Ministerial Security Coordinating Committee which consists of the A, minister responsible for national security, minister responsible for foreign affairs, minister responsible for defence, minister responsible for the interior, minister responsible for finance, minister responsible for communication, and Attorney General.

So, the law is very clear and it is not a matter of the president assigning interior minister to be responsible for national security. It is provided for that we would have a minister of interior, a minister of defence, a minister of national security is there.

Chairman: Honourable members, you see, at a point the rendition changed to minister responsible not minister of because of this issue of realignment. So, if today a minister responsible for agric is supposed to be in charge of national security, he is the minister responsible for national security. That is the designation.

That is the reason for changing the rendition. We could say simpliciter that minister for national security, but we are saying minister responsible for national security. We’ve taken into consideration issues of realignment of this nature. That is why, because other than that, each time there is a change, you must come and amend the substantive law in consonance with the change that you have made.

But once you say minister responsible, it is incumbent upon the president to dedicate that to a minister appointed by law. All the laws from 2020, I believe this is even a Cavendish drafting of which I am part.

Afenyo-Markin: Honourable nominee, if I heard you correct, if I heard you right, it is your case that the establishment of the ORAL committee is legal?

Dr. Ayine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here