2.25bn Dollar Bond: Brogya Genfi to file a motion at the Court of Appeal
Mr. Yaw Brogya Genfi, the National Democratic Congress [NDC] Youth Organizer in the Ashanti region who petitioned CHRAJ to investigate the Finance Minister, Mr. Ken Ofori-Atta has hinted of filing a motion at the Appeals Court for clarification.
Mr Genfi had petitioned CHRAJ in April last year, claiming “a number of issues of conflict of interest and lack of transparency have emerged from the bond issuance.”
According to him, the bonds were not on the issuance calendar, and that the transaction seemed to have been shrouded in secrecy with the bond processes being limited to one day compared to past processes that were open.
CHRAJ, in its 140-page report concluded that although Mr. Ofori-Atta was not guilty of conflict of interest, he breached some processes in the issuance of the bond.
Mr. Brogya Genfi speaking on 'THE LENS' on HOMEBASE TV with Nana Yaa Boamponsem Ameyaw on 12th Feb. 2018, Yaw Brogya Genfi questioned the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice’s (CHRAJ) exoneration of Finance Minister, Ken Ofori Atta in the controversial 2.25 billion dollar bond saga especially on the issue of conflict of Interest.
His argument was premised on basis that “the findings of CHRAJ points to one direction” while its “decision on the findings points to another direction.”
“CHRAJ’s findings that the Minister was in a potential conflict of interest situation shouldn’t have ended with a conclusion that the minister was not guilty of a violation of the conflict of interest rule” he stated.
CHRAJ report grounds for Ofori-Atta’s removal
Mr. Yaw Brogya Genfi, who petitioned CHRAJ to investigate the Finance Minister, has said Mr. Ofori-Atta risks being removed from office over the findings made against him in the report.
According to Mr. Genfi, failure to follow statutory procedures in the issuance of the government’s $2.25bn bond could cost the Finance Minister his job.
“..the evidence so far indicts him [Ken Ofori-Atta] of several illegalities which constitutes enough grounds for his removal from office, so I will go back to the Appeals Court for clarification” he said.