After many months of silence, former Attorney General, Martin Amidu, has in two short sentences, revealed the reason for his abrupt exit from office.

"I had suggested that Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu should be persuaded to be a prosecution witness in lieu of prosecution. The Government disagreed, so I was removed from office", he said.

Mr Amidu said in a copious write up on the recent acquittal and discharge of Mr Alfred Woyome , a businessman and National Democratic Congress (NDC) bankroller, on charges of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence by an Accra High Court that his suggestion to make Mrs Mould-Idrissu a key witness in the case clashed with plans by Government.

Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu

Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu was Attorney General at the time the over GH¢51 million fraudulent judgement debt was paid to Mr Woyome and his affiliates.

Mr Amidu's revelation on the reason for his exit from office is instructive in light of comments by legal practitioners regarding a possible collusion between Government and Mr Woyome in the payment of the huge judgement debt.

Most commentators on the matter have wondered why Mrs Mould-Iddrisu especially and other state officials were never invited to testify on behalf of the state.

According to a renowned lawyer, Ace Ankomah, the Attorney General's office failed to rely on Mrs Mould-Iddrisu, her deputy Ebo Barton-Odro and other state officials who played key roles in payment of the judgement debt as witnesses because it feared the officers would be embarrassed in the dock.

Even Justice Ajet-Nassam, the High Court judge who acquitted Mr Woyome, said in his ruling that state prosecutors hurt their case by not inviting Mrs Mould-Iddrisu and other key officials as witnesses against the NDC financier.

Since Martin Amidu was fired from his post as Attorney General and Minister of Justice by late President John Atta Mills, several explanations have been given for his dismissal.

The official explanation from Government was that Mr Amidu misconducted himself at a meeting with the late President, a claim Martin Amidu has denied many times.

Martin Amidu, who christened himself the "citizen vigilante" after his removal from office has been very critical of the NDC government occasionally issuing statements bordering on corruption in Government.

Despite losing his job, Mr Amidu pursued and obtained a favourable judgement from the Supreme Court in a suit filed against Mr Woyome, Waterville Holdings and Austro Invest for fraudulently obtaining some GH¢51.2 million judgement debt from the state.

According to Mr Amidu, even after the death of President Mills, the subsequent administration has not helped his cause to shed light on corruption in Government.

"The perception I have come away with in my handling of the Constitutional cases against the Attorney General, Waterville, and Woyome/Austro-Invest is that the John Dramani Mahama NDC Government under its Attorney General, Mrs Brew Appiah-Oppong has at every step done everything in its power to impede the success of the cases", Mr Amidu said in his latest statement on the recent acquittal of charges against Mr Woyome.

Martin Amidu is also convinced Mrs Appiah-Oppong could have recused herself from the case against Mr Woyome because she once worked for Austro-Invest, a firm Mr Woyome is affiliated with - and which benefitted from the judgement debt.

"Mrs. Brew Appiah-Oppong had all the opportunity to have done the proper professional thing upon becoming the Attorney General and assuming the prosecution of the case in spite of her past association with Austro-Invest at Lithur Brew and Co. She failed woefully in this regard as the evidence before the nation in this matter to-day demonstrates", Mr Amidu said.

He suggests the public, political parties and legal practitioners cannot be faulted in their suspicion that payment of the judgement debt to Mr Woyome was masterminded by government.