The United Party (UP) has petitioned the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Attorney-General, CHRAJ, CID, Speaker of Parliament and the IGP to investigate allegations that Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin operated or was associated with a team that used Right to Information (RTI) requests as a tool for extortion.
The joint petition was signed by Solomon Owusu, Director of Communications and Spokesperson of the United Party, and Andrew Appiah-Danquah, Director of Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The petitioners say they filed the petition “in the public interest and in furtherance of our civic and constitutional responsibility to promote accountable government, protect the integrity of public institutions and resist every form of corruption and abuse of public power.”
The petition traces the matter to the public exchanges over the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme and GoldBod’s operations, which were raised by Afenyo-Markin and responded to by GoldBod, CEO Sammy Gyamfi.
Following the exchange, according to the petition, Eric Adjei, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (NEIP) and a publicly known associate of Sammy Gyamfi, made some damning allegations.
The petition quoted Mr. Adjei directly: “Mr Adjei alleged, among other things, that the Honourable Afenyo-Markin was engaged in extortionist conduct and had established or was associated with a team that employed requests made under the Right to Information Act to obtain information from public institutions, after which persons connected with that enterprise allegedly assumed the role of ‘negotiators.'”
According to the United Party, the $1 million demand allegedly made on Sammy Gyamfi cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be seen as part of a possible enterprise.
They argued that “the cumulative effect of the statements made by Sammy Gyamfi and Eric Adjei is the allegation that the monetary demand was connected with actual or threatened reputational attacks, adverse publicity, political pressure, threatened official or parliamentary action, or an offer to discontinue or moderate such conduct in consideration of the payment demanded.”
The party wants the security and anti-corruption agencies to go beyond the two principal actors and unravel the network.
Among the reliefs, they are asking the recipient institutions to “identify and investigate every alleged intermediary, negotiator, team member, agent or other participant” and to “secure and preserve all relevant electronic, documentary, audiovisual and financial evidence through lawful process.”
They further want the investigators to “determine whether the alleged demand was connected with a threat of reputational injury, adverse publication, prosecution, parliamentary action, political pressure or any other act or forbearance” and to determine “whether any public office, parliamentary position or institutional authority was employed or threatened as leverage in furtherance of the alleged demand.”
The petitioners insist that if the enterprise exists, it represents a grave abuse.
“If the allegations are true, they may disclose an attempt to use political standing, parliamentary influence, access to information or the threat of reputational injury as instruments for extracting a substantial private financial benefit,” they stated.
They have therefore urged the OSP, A-G, CHRAJ, CID, the Speaker of Parliament and IGP to institute criminal, disciplinary and civil recovery proceedings if the allegations are substantiated.
