The government said the decision to force the Auditor-General to go on leave was recommended by the Board of the Audit Service.

The Board Chairman of the Audit Service, Prof. Edward Duah Agyeman, was the one representing Yaw Osafo-Maafo in the Kroll Associates' court case involving the Auditor-General and Osafo-Maafo.

And the Auditor-General was expected to take orders from Board Chairman who was representing his opponent in the court case.

Let that drama sink in.

A day after the Auditor-General was forced to proceed on leave, the acting Auditor-General inspected the documents at Osafo-Marfo's Office and said everything was okay.

Osafo-Maafo went ahead to win the case based mainly on that "satisfactory" report.But the critical question should go to the Supreme Court.

The High Court asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether the documents Osafo-Maafo was keeping from the Auditor-General were "confidential and prejudicial to national security."

That was the only reason the case was referred to the Supreme Court.So why did the Supreme Court fail to rule on that but, instead, ordered the Auditor-General to inspect within 10 days?

Remember the Auditor General had argued in the High Court that the Audit had already been completed and during the time of the audit, if the evidence was actually available, the Senior Minister and Finance Ministry would have made it available.

The lawyer of the Auditor-General opposed this in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court decided ruled that they should go and inspect the documents when that was not the reason the case was referred to the Supreme Court.

And before he went to inspect, he was pushed out and the man asked to act said everything was okay.

Why did the Supreme Court fail to discharge its mandate but decided to do something different, something that could have done by the lower court handling the matter but was not done because it was central to the outcome of the case?

-