Former Attorney general Martin Amidu has accused former President John Mahama of refusing to pay him his end-of-service benefits as a minister, despite a court order to do so.
According to him, the former president treated him that way because of his disclosures on the illegal judgment debt payment to businessman Alfred Woyome by the erstwhile NDC government.
“Am I not the only NDC former Minister who has not been given all his retirement benefits since 2012? This, despite a judgment of the High Court dated 14th September 2014 ordering that all my entitlements shall be paid with interest, together with my constitutional right to one saloon car respected; and that a receipt for all Social Security deductions from my emoluments should be given to me after the payment of my benefits to enable the SNNIT to ratify my SSNIT benefits? Did the Mahama Government obey the orders of the Court before leaving office more than two years after the consent judgment?
“But the list of beneficiaries of end-of-service benefits that was published after 7th January 2017 included names of officers who were not even entitled to saloon cars but had managed to loot four-wheel drive vehicles as part of their benefits. Yet John Mahama had deliberately disobeyed a court order and denied me my entitlements because of Woyomegate. It is seven months since the new Government came to power and I am still pursuing the remnants of my benefits from NDC 3 Government that ended on 7th January 2017,” Amidu wrote in his new epistle.
He also threatened loyalists of Mr. Mahama to be cautious of their utterances if they want peace to remain in the NDC.
Former Attorney General - Martin Amidu
“The John Mahama surrogates or faction in the NDC continue their attacks on my person and character any-time I assert my birth- right as a citizen of Ghana to challenge the Mills, and Mahama Governments on what I perceive to be actions and conduct undermining or that have undermined the 1992 Constitution, for being inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.
They ought to be warned that their modus operandi will not lead to reasoned dialogue and reconciliation with me but may push me to invoke my right pursuant to Article 2 and 130 of the Constitution so that the Supreme Court may settle once and for all whether or not under Article 55 of the Constitution a political party can gag a citizen from defending, and upholding the Constitution demonstrated with a Supreme Court judgment simply because he is perceived to be a member of that political party”.