Special Prosecutor, Martin Aalmisi Amidu, could be out of the position he currently occupies by 30th April, 2020.
This is because, on 29th April, the Supreme Court will deliver judgment on a case brought against his occupancy of the office due to the fact that he had been appointed long after he had attained the retirement age of 60.
At age 66 as at the time he was appointed, Amidu had also bypassed the extra five year allowance that the law allows for contracting of retired public servants.
The apex court fixed the 29th April judgment day, today after lawyer for the plaintiff, Mr Tony Lithur and a Deputy A-G, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed their respective legal arguments.
A seven -member panel presiding on the case is led by Chief Justice Anin Yeboah.
Dr. Dominic Ayine, a former Deputy Attorney General in the Mahama government, is plaintiff in the case. The man who is now MP for Bolgatanga East, went to the apex court arguing that Mr Amidu was 66 when he was nominated, and, therefore, he was ineligible to be the Special Prosecutor.
According to him, per Articles 190 (1) (d), 199 (1), 199 (4) and 295 of the 1992 Constitution, the retiring age of all holders of public offices created pursuant to Article 190 (1) (d) was 60 years and not beyond 65 years.
According to him, by nominating and appointing Mr Amidu to be vetted and approved by Parliament, both the Attorney General and the President had respectively violated Article 199 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
“The Office of the Special Prosecutor was established by an Act of Parliament pursuant under Article 190 (1) (d) of the 1992 Constitution, which confers on Parliament the power to create such other public services as it may prescribe, in addition to the public services spelt out in Chapter 14 of the 1992 Constitution.
“The Office of the Special Prosecutor is, thus, a creature of the Constitution to the extent that it is a direct offshoot of a power drawn from Article 190. Once Parliament passed Act 959 and the President assented to it on January 2, 2018, the Office of the Special Prosecutor became part of the public service and governed by the constitutional provisions relating to the public service and public office holders,” a statement of case accompanying his writ noted.
However, Godfred Dame argued that even though public servants compulsorily retired at the age of 60, with a further possibility of extension of their years of service under Article 199 (4), not all public officials fall under the compulsory retirement age of 60.
The State is, therefore, praying the court to dismiss the suit and hold that the position of Special Prosecutor is a public office (organ) like the Statute Law Revision Commissioner, not caught by the retiring age prescriptions in Article 199.
“It is submitted that to place the constraints of age on a person who exercises prosecutorial powers when the Constitution has not specifically provided for same is plainly untenable.”
Godfred Dame further argued that by the combined effect of Articles 88 (4) and 298 of the 1992 Constitution, the enactment of Act 959 to provide for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor on a non-renewable seven-year tenure and the subsequent appointment of Mr Amidu to that office were within the rightful legislative competence of Parliament.
He wants the apex court to give full force and effect to the powers of Parliament, as the legislative body of Ghana, to provide for all matters, except as are not in contravention of, or inconsistent with, the 1992 Constitution.