Businesman Alfred Agbesie Woyome appears before the Parliament Accounts Committee to explain circumstances under which he was paid 51 million cedis judgement debt in 2010. Chairman: The committee will adjourn at this stage, thank you. I now discharge Mr. Woyome and the Officers from the Attorney Generals Department and the Ministry of Finance. The attorney general can advise the committee but not direct it. Reading Article 127 clause 2, we hear that no one should interfere with judges, judicial officers, or anyone exercising judicial power, but I fail to see how our investigation interferes with the work of any judge. I am unable to accept the advice that we stop on that account. I will accordingly rule that Mr. Woyome tell us his story with good conscience and the help of his lawyers. Regarding the issue of me presiding on the case with an eye to my alleged bias, I am willing to allow someone to take my place. I assume my vice chairman, also a member of Kufuor’s cabinet, will not be acceptable. Asiamah should chair the committee. Chairman: My colleague has argued that the committee should suspend sitting and have some discussion before we continue, because the witness, through his lawyer, has raised concerns about two issues. The chairman has the prerogative to rule when such objections are raised and I intend to rule accordingly. On the substantive matter that the auditor general has presented his report to parliament. According to article 187 clause 5 says that he must submit this report to parliament and draw attention to fiscal irregularities and other matter deserving of parliament’s attention within that report. He submitted it and it was referred to this committee. Under article 165 clause 2, the public accounts committee shall examine audited accounts. One would want to ask whether it is not the case that this committee is merely operationalizing parliament’s constitutional duties under article 165. One might ask if the standing audits could override the constitution. We should not refer in ways that would prejudice the case against the witness. We will not do this, instead we are simply performing a constitutional duty. The parliament of Ghana is not sovereign, it is a creation of the constitution to which it is subject. In my opinion, it must follow its constitutional mandate and can thus not be held accountable to any conflicting subsidiary legislation. All the investigative bodies in Ghana must go through the Attorney General to prosecute their reports and cases, but for the auditor general it must go through parliament. Is it the intention of the constitution that matters in court can’t be heard from parliament? The constitution specifies when it does not want to hear such cases, but there is no such prohibition against parliament. Instead, the constitution says that an answer given to parliament by a witness cannot be used in court. This committee is not embarking on a judicial investigation and Woyome is not a defendant here, he is a witness. If a witness appears before the committee, he has the right to council and the right not to engage in self-incrimination. How can we do our job when material witnesses do not testify? The people of Ghana do not deserve the half baked reports that would come out of such processes. Committee Member: I take very strong exception to the previous statement, which attacks the integrity of members of this commission. Committee Member: We are here to protect our national interest, so why are we defending Woyome who has also brought his own council? (The chairman tried to interrupt this man by calling a point of order and refused to recognize his statement.) Committee Member: I hold that this committee was formed in 2009, so who stopped us in 2008? A presidential commission disposed of the Ghana at 50 matter. In spite of the fact that we had not been consulted, we agreed to summon witnesses on Ghana at 50. We saw that it was a report before parliament and decided to address it, why are we bringing this all up now? Committee Member: We did not meet on Ghana at 50 until the case had been discharged, and we met a few weeks ago on a 2008 case. We were originally asked to stop because the case was in court and we met after Ghana at 50 was handled by the presidential commission. Committee Member: We have started interrogating the Ghana at 50 report here, and we all know that a presidential commission was established to investigate it. We have not completed our work, and we have said that we would bring in more witnesses. Why are we now raising these issues rather than to move on according to the precedents set during Ghana at 50. Committee Member: Any standing committee of parliament has the powers of the high court, including compelling witnesses to appear and produce documents. We have a case and a principle that we have set for ourselves. When this matter was first submitted in 2009, we agreed to suspend investigations so long as a presidential commission was on the case. It has been three years. We should refer this matter to Madame Speaker because all the articles in question are open to interpretation. Committee member: I believe that as a committee we are not in a position to interpret the constitution; that is the job of the supreme court. We are not in court but we are using the constitution. The basic law of the state is in question. The deputy attorney general believes that we should not go on. This is worth considering. We don’t know what the witness will say, but it will touch on the matter before the court. Therefore, I move that we take the deputy attorney general’s advice. Committee member: In view of the article cited by the deputy attorney general, I further agree that this sitting should be suspended. Committee member: I second that we suspend this session and instead meet in camera. Committee member: We are just doing our job. Article 187 of the 92 constitution, subclause 5: the auditor general shall within 6 months of the end of the preceding financial year submit a report to parliament in which he draws attention to any irregularities in the accounts audited. Parliament shall establish committees to deal with any matters arising from this report. This is self-explanatory, and we are doing the job laid out for us by this article. Committee member: we’ve been on this committee for some time, and when membership of the committee is deemed a conflict of interest, the conflicted member can recuse themselves and their seat be temporarily filled by someone else. Gyambibi: The 1992 constitution article 137 clause 2 states that neither the president nor parliament nor anyone acting under their authorities nor any other person whatsoever shall interfere with judges, judicial officers, or other persons exercising judicial power in the exercise of their judicial functions and all organs and agencies of the state shall accord to the courts such assistance as the courts may reasonably require to protect the independence, dignity, and effectiveness of the courts. This provision makes it clear that when a matter is before a court, that same matter should not be sent or discussed anywhere else or it will be in contempt of the court. Deputy Attorney General Gyambibi: The attorney general has instructed me to say that it will not be appropriate for us to discuss these matters other than in the courts, so we will not say anything about the Woyome case lest we risk being in contempt of the courts. A committee member excuses himself and leaves the meeting. We are not here to judge anyone, our job is to ensure the proper spending of this country’s resources. Our report and findings are not final here, but will go through Parliament once we have finished. Committee member quotes Constitutional Article 103(6) (b): a committee appointed under this article shall have the powers of the high court in compelling the production of documents. In the constitution, parliament was not mentioned as a body that cannot hear cases already before a court. Evidence brought before Parliament shall only hold up in hearings in front of Parliament. According to this article, I believe that we are justified in hearing this case. Mr. Woyome’s brother, the friend of the committee: We will both abstain from any action, we are simply here as friends of the committee. Friend of Committee/ ex cabinet member: I would have thought that the council should have noted that Mr. Woyome is also the brother of a committee member. If you so wish, I will step down from my duty as a friend of the committee, but I urge balance. Woyome’s council: We believe that the issues being discussed here are being reviewed by other bodies and are therefore subjudice. Second, there is evidence that the cabinet of the previous government truncated the process involving Mr. Woyome. Whether it was lawful or otherwise remains to be seen, but Mr. Chairman and another committee member were members of that cabinet. We therefore believe that there is a likelihood of bias. Let me start by saying that this is a very friendly committee and I’d like to dispel any rumors that we mean any harm. Having said that, I will let the lawyer make a preliminary statement. The meeting expected to begin at 1:00pm suffers a delay. 1405 PAC Chairman Albert Kan Dapaah apologises for delay, blaming it on national broadcaster GTV which has requested for some few minutes to carry programme live. 1410 PAC sittings begin with the chairman inviting Alfred Woyome and his lawyers to take their seat. 1412 Lawyer for Woyome takes his seat but says they have preliminary issues and until those issues are raised he will not want to swear the oath. 1414 PAC Chairman insists on invoking the Parliamentary procedures, asking the witness to take his oath. 1416 Lawyer agrees to take oath but says they will raise their preliminary issues immediately after taking the oath. Chairman agrees. 1417 Alfred Woyome and team of lawyers are upstanding with the clerk getting ready to lead them in the swearing of the oath. Oaths taken. 1418 PAC members introduce themselves to the witnesses.