Member of the Anti-Corruption Coalition, Edem Senanu, says the investigation into claims by former Minister for Science and Environment, Professor Frimpong Boateng, cannot be done and dusted without the final input of the professor.

It will be recalled that a document authored by the former minister who was then in charge of government’s fight against illegal mining mentioned ministers and senior government officials as being involved in the menace.

However, after investigating the matter, the Attorney General, Godfred Dame, says there is no evidence to support the claims by the professor.

He has since written a letter to the Police CID stating that no proper evidence were adduced against those mentioned and recommended that none of them be prosecuted.

Reacting to the Attorney-General’s conclusion, Edem Senanu said while it is refreshing to note that the matter was investigated, it is still very perplexing that not a single evidence was found to support the claims.

“Well it’s good first of all to note that they did not go to bed on this issue and that there were follow-up investigations and a review of the docket. But it’s still a bit perplexing that there’s absolutely no evidence.

“I mean, what strikes me is I did not hear that any of the individuals cited were also questioned.

“So whereas there seems to have been a clear focus on Prof. Frimpong Boateng himself, I’m wondering whether the other names alluded to, events alluded to, any effort was made to look at those issues and see whether some evidence could come out of that,” he said.

He also stated that it would be erroneous to suggest that the investigation into the claims be closed without any final remarks or input from the former minister.

He said, since it was Prof. Frimpong Boateng who made the claim, he should be allowed to either come forth with more evidence or otherwise concerning the matter.

“I think it’ll be good to hear Prof. Frimpong Boateng’s take on it. It is only after that that you can say it is done and dusted. But does he even think that there’s no evidence? Are there some things he said that are not reflected in this position that has been put out by the A-G?

“Are there persons he thinks that should have been engaged that are not engaged, events that were not followed up on, documents that he thinks they should have been picked up from particular institution that could have provided further information – better particulars?

“I don’t think it’s done and dusted till we hear his view on the information he provided and the conclusion that has been drawn.”