The Member of Parliament for Nsuta Kwamang-Beposo and Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Subsidiary Legislation, Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh, says the Audit Service cannot be acting in the interest of Ghanaians by keeping the number of public officials who have declared their assets away from the media. He said a disclosure of the number of public officials who had declared their assets did not relate to the content of the declaration and so telling the public the number did not need any special dispensational or regulatory framework. He was of the view that the excuse by the Audit Service that no regulatory regime governed the disclosure of the number of officials who had disclosed their assets was untenable and an attempt at passing the buck. Mr Osei-Prempeh was reacting to information that enquiries by the Daily Graphic at the Audit Service on the number of public officials who have declared their assets have proved futile for about six months now. Two top officials of the Audit Service, who did not want to be quoted, explained that the Legislative Instrument (LI) that governed the regime of Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Regulations 2009 (LI 1957) had been held up in Parliament and thus they had no legal backing in disclosing the number. The officials, however, disputed an earlier Daily Graphic publication that so far 35 public officials had declared their assets but refused to set the records straight by disclosing their own figure. Mr Osei-Prempeh disputed the assertion that the LI had been held up in Parliament and conceded that it had been brought before the Subsidiary Legislation Committee in Parliament for discussions. He said members of the committee were open and freely gave advice on the provisions which were seen to have contravened certain portions of the 1992 Constitution. For instance, Article 286 (I) and 3 (a), (b), (c) was explicit that a declaration of the contents of an assets declaration form could be made on demand only by a court of competent jurisdiction or a commission of inquiry appointed under the Constitution or the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). Therefore, an LI that spelt out the implementation processes of the Public Office Holders and Declaration of Assets and Disqualification Act 1998 (Act 550) would be unconstitutional if it provided otherwise, Mr Osei-Prempeh pointed out. Certain aspects of the LI that sought to make certain portions of the filled assets declaration forms public did not match with provisions in the Constitution, making them unconstitutional. Mr Osei-Prempeh was of the view that a constitutional amendment would be required if the general consensus of Ghanaians was to make some parts of the filled assets declaration form public. He said those explanations had been given to the Audit Service for the provisions of the LI to be made consistent with the act and the Constitution and returned for acceptance. However, for close to eight months now the LI has not been brought back to Parliament. Mr Osei-Prempeh said it was dishonest for people to allege that parliamentarians were frustrating the process of making the assets declaration regime more open and encouraged the Audit Service to come clean. Source: Daily Graphic/Ghana