Parliament says it refused to serve court summons on the Second Deputy House Speaker because the Constitution prohibits any office of Parliament being used for such purposes. A subpoena from the Commercial Division of the High Court was served through the Clerk of Parliament but it could not get to Mr Ghartey because he was out of the country on Parliamentary business. When Mr Ghartey returned he was not handed the summons, an action which courted the displeasure of the Court. But addressing the media, Head of Legal Services in Parliament, Ebenezer Dzetro, said the Parliamentary Service Board will not entertain such summons and advised the court to use other means to summon MPs. “Where the Court forwards the [court] processes to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting the Clerk to serve an MP, it is so clear from the Constitutional provisions that the Clerk will not be able to do that”, stated Mr Dzetro. Mr Dzetro also stressed that the Constitution prohibits serving subpoenas on any MP while the House is in session. According to him, the Judiciary can look for Mr Ghartey or any MP and serve summons on them, but not through any office of the House. Mr Ghartey was the last Attorney General and Minister of Justice under the Kufuor administration. He was being invited to testify in a case brought by Professor Agyemang Badu Akosa, Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) challenging the then government's decision to sell 70% of the state's stake in Ghana Telecom to British Telecoms giant, Vodafone. The six are seeking a declaration that the agreement entered into by the Kufuor administration to offload the 70% government shares was not in accordance with due process of law and should be annulled. The six CPP members contend that the decision by government to transfer the assets, property shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no compensation was required from Vodafone for the stated assets. Earlier this week Mr Joe Ghartey, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on Monday June 24, 2013 appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to answer questions involving the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone. Mr Ghartey, while giving evidence in court, said as the then Attorney General he only advised government in 2008 on the agreement signed between Vodafone International B.V, the Government of Ghana and Ghana Telecom. “The A-G gives advice to government on legal issues,” he said, adding that in advising government on the agreement, the department worked together with lawyers of Vodafone in coming out with the final draft of the agreement. “I was guided by Article 88 (1) and gave legal advice,” he said. He said in cases of international agreements, the A-G gives advice to the sector Ministries to be taken to Parliament for approval. He said in the purchase agreement there was no infringement of any law before it went to Parliament, indicating that the Divestiture Implementation Committee does not apply to all divestitures in the country. However, Mr Bright Akwetey, Counsel for the plaintiffs, told the Court that in the purchase agreement, the Divestiture Implementation Committee Law and the National Communication Authority law were breached. He said it appeared that Mr Ghartey was not familiar with the agreement looking at the typographical error in the spelling of Kumasi with an ‘e’ at the end, creating the suspicion that the agreement was drafted outside of Ghana. The Court presided over by Justice Gertrude Torkornu adjourned the case to July 8 for cross examination of Mr. Ghartey to continue.