Former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu in his latest epistle has denied reports that he authored a petition to remove current Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng.
Amidu, even though a key critic of Agyebeng said, he is being potentially framed for a document he did not author but called out Kissi Agyebeng, Joy FM and members of his former party, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), as being behind it.
It is the first time he has come out to speak since news about the Special Prosecutor’s removal surfaced two weeks ago.
Read Also
Join our WhatsApp Channel for more news
- Martin Amidu Files Petition to Remove Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyabeng From Office
- Amidu Will Push it to the Very Limits – Oliver Barker Wades Into Kissi Agyabeng’s Removal
- Domelovo Questions Amidu’s Petition Motive
He claimed the document attributed to the Chief Justice asking for comments from Kissi Agyebeng about the petition was fabricated by the very institution Mr. Agyebeng heads [The Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP)] and that the Chief Justice ought to clarify the issue and “restore the integrity of the Judicial Service.”
“I have every reason to question the authenticity of the document attributed to the Cheif Justice because I established with mathematical precision that a Joint Statement published at the instance of Kissi Agyebeng as a Joint Statement by the OSP and the Judicial Service of Ghana (JSG) was a forgery by the OSP when it displayed the OSP logo alongside the Coat of Arms as representing the JSG,” he said, adding that he has filed a Right to Information Request (RTI) to gather evidence,” he said.
The anti-corruption crusader further hinted that the attempt by the proponents of the petition to have him framed has rather invigorated him to continue his defence of the constitution.
“What my trial by Kissi Agyebeng and his chief executioners at Joy FM have done by their attempt to try me in the court of public opinion has rather fortified my determination to defend the 1992 Constitution to ensure that no citizen is presumed guilty in the court of public opinion without the accompanying evidence being made available to the public to make an informed judgment,” he added.
Read excepts of his statement below;
