Director of Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the United Party, Andrew Appiah Danquah, has defended the party's decision to petition multiple state institutions over the alleged extortion involving Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, insisting that the request is for an investigation and not a declaration of guilt.

He said the seriousness of the allegations requires competent state institutions to establish the facts and determine whether the claims made by GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi and NEIP CEO Eric Adjei are true.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Monday, August 24, Mr Appiah Danquah said the party’s petition is grounded in the need to protect Ghana’s constitutional democracy and ensure that public power is not allegedly used for private interests.

“We are not participating because we have [concluded guilt]. We are participating because these serious allegations have been made against the Minority Leader, especially when the allegation brings up two very critical issues,” he said.

According to him, the first issue is whether parliamentary authority may have been used for purposes other than those intended by the Constitution.

He argued that Ghana’s constitutional framework requires public power to be exercised in the interest of the people and in accordance with the Constitution.

The second concern, he said, relates to the criminal dimension of the allegations, particularly claims of extortion and the alleged use of public office for private financial gain.

Mr Appiah Danquah acknowledged that the United Party’s petition names several institutions, including the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), the Police, CHRAJ, the Attorney-General and the Speaker of Parliament.

He, however, rejected suggestions that the petition was necessarily seeking multiple competing investigations into exactly the same matter.

He explained that the institutions have different constitutional and statutory mandates and could examine different aspects of the allegations.

“I'm not seeking institutions beyond institutions that are mandated under our Constitution to act,” he said.

He pointed to CHRAJ's mandate to investigate matters involving abuse of power, while arguing that allegations with a criminal character could fall within the remit of the police or the OSP, depending on the specific facts established.

Mr Appiah Danquah further cited Section 79 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, arguing that the OSP has jurisdiction over corruption-related offences involving public officers and that extortion may fall within the category of offences it can investigate.

The United Party's petition follows allegations publicly attributed to Sammy Gyamfi and subsequent claims by Eric Adjei involving Mr Afenyo-Markin. The petition asks the relevant institutions to establish whether the allegations are true and, if so, whether they disclose attempted extortion, corruption, abuse of public office or related offences.

Mr Appiah Danquah stressed that the petition should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt against the Minority Leader.

He said the investigation should instead establish the veracity of the allegations while ensuring that Afenyo-Markin is afforded the presumption of innocence and an opportunity to respond.

“If the allegations are true, they may disclose an attempt to use political standing, parliamentary influence, access to information or the threat of reputational injury as instruments for extracting a substantial private financial benefit,” the petition states.

The United Party has also called for the relevant agencies to obtain statements from Sammy Gyamfi and Eric Adjei, identify any alleged intermediaries and preserve relevant electronic, documentary, audiovisual and financial evidence.

It wants the institutions to determine whether any public office, parliamentary position or institutional authority was allegedly used as leverage in connection with the purported demand.

Mr Appiah Danquah maintained that the ultimate objective is to establish the facts.
He said the investigation would serve both sides: substantiating the allegations if they are true, or clearing Afenyo-Markin if they cannot be proven.