Supreme court removes Martin Amidu as defendant in Ayine case



The Supreme Court has struck out Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, as a defendant in a case in which his eligibility for the position is being challenged.

According to the court, Mr Amidu is not a proper party to the case as the position in question is one which falls under Article 88 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court said per the constitution the Attorney General is required to represent public officials sued as a result of their office.

The court also ordered the Attorney General and lawyers for the plaintiff in the case to file a joint memorandum of issues for adjudication within fourteen days.

A day before the vetting of Mr. Amidu in 2018, a suit was filed at the Supreme Court by Deputy Minority Ranking Member on Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, Dr. Dominic Ayine, who was seeking a declaration that Mr. Amidu, who is 66-years-old, cannot hold public office because he has exceeded the mandated age limit per the 1992 constitution.

Dominic Ayine

Dr Ayine in his suit argued that by a true and proper interpretation of Articles 190(1)(d), 199(1), 199(4), and 295 of the 1992 Constitution, the retirement age of all holders of public offices created pursuant to Article 190 (1)(d) is sixty (60) years, anyhow not beyond sixty-five (65) years.

He further argued that by reason of Mr Amidu’s age (66 years a the time), he is not qualified or eligible to be nominated as the Special Prosecutor under section 13(3) of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2018 (Act 959).

Speaking to Citi FM/ Citi TV’s court correspondent Fred Djabanor, Dominic Ayine explained why he thinks Martin Amidu should have been a defendant.

“The reason is simply that he was the one who was nominated, we were challenging his eligibility the fact that he was nominated and vetted by the Parliament and appointed by the president is at the heart of this action we took. If the president had nominated someone of 57 years of age, there would be no constitutional issues.”

“Our focus is on the age, and therefore we thought he was a necessary party to our reactions, but if the court says he is not a necessary party that is fine, it does not in any way affect the substances of the action we have brought. At the end of the day if the court declares his appointment as null and void and of no effect that would be it, it doesn’t in any way affect the materiality of what we have brought to court, ” he said.

Show More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: