Senior Minister Yaw Osafo-Maafo has responded to the Auditor-General’s letter to him on an appeal against disallowance and surcharge by the Attorney-General, Yaw Osafo-Maafo & 4 others Vs the Auditor-General.
A letter purportedly written by the legal team of the Auditor-General to the appellant’s lawyers on January 21 admitted that Mr. Domelovo had been served with the appeal.
Portions of the said letter reads “Our client has been served with the above instituted appeal the effect of which, as stipulated by the provisions of Order 54 A rule 5(1) as inserted by the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) (No2) Rules, 2016 (CI 102), is required to file, with the Registrar of the High Court, five copies of all documents used by our client in the disallowance and surcharge in respect of which your client’s appeal has been lodged.”
However, Mr. Osafo-Maafo’s response letter dated January 24 indicates that his clients are not aware of any disallowance and surcharge by the Attorney-General, the subject matter of an appeal by our clients, as the headline of his letter suggests.
Find the full letter below
RE: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST DISALLOWANCE AND SURCHARGE BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL; YAW OSAFO-MAAFO & 4 OTHERS V THE AUDITOR-GENERAL
Your letter dated 21st January 2020 headed as above refers.
I am instructed by my clients to indicate to your client that our clients are not aware of any disallowance and surcharge by the Attorney-General, the subject matter of an appeal by our clients, as the headline of his letter suggests. Be that as it may, our clients are minded to respond to other parts of the letter out of the abundance of respect accorded your goodself.
As your client is no doubt aware, our client had, before your client’s letter dated 21st January 2020, duly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court in accordance with Rule 5(1) and (2) of Order 54A of C. I. 47 as amended, by applying for the consequences of your client’s refusal to comply with the relevant rules of Court to be affirmed by the Court. Our clients are therefore unable to undermine the effect of their application by acceding to the request of your client, which in any case, they do not believe they are vested with the requisite authority so to do.
In any event, it is observed that, your client deliberately or inadvertently, does not address the import of our client’s application for contempt filed on 20th January, 2020, which was, as at the time your client’s letter was authored notoriously known, he rather chooses to rely on a totally inapplicable rule in C. I. 47 as amended. It is our client’s conviction that, your client by this conduct continues to exhibit disdain and disrespect for the Honourable High Court and the law, thereby exacerbating the obvious consequences of his contemptuous conduct.
In the circumstances, our clients hold the firm position that even if they were enabled by any rule of procedure to grant any consent to ameliorate or otherwise waive the consequence of your client’s deliberate non-compliance with the applicable legal framework, our clients find it potentially reprehensible on their part to be asked by your client to overreach the Court in view of all the circumstances of this case.
YAW D. OPPONG ESQ.
LAWYER FOR YAW OSAFO-MAAFO & 4 OTHERS