North Tongu Member of Parliament, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has settled a disagreement between him and the Special Prosecutor nominee, Martin Amidu.
Mr. Ablakwa told Citi News that he had accepted what he believed to be contrite words from Mr. Amidu during his vetting on Tuesday.
He however maintained that Mr. Amidu “used very unprintable language on my person” and he should have at least retracted.
In a 2017 article, Mr. Amidu accused and chastised Ablakwa for insulting him in a write-up, but the North Tongu MP denied having authored the said write-up, noting that the article in question was authored by one Ohenenana Obonti Krow.
Mr. Amidu rebuffed that explanation insisting that Mr. Ablakwa used the name Ohenenana Obonti Krow as a pseudonym.
But Ablakwa says that episode was now in the past after Mr. Amidu’s re conciliatory disposition.
“Later on at the end of his appearance [before the Appointments Committee], he [Amidu] did say that he had no personal animosity and because of the gap, if we had sat to communicate, perhaps things would not have come this far. I have taken that as an extension of an olive branch and certain admission that he got it wrong.”
The rift between Mr. Ablakwa and Mr. Amidu was brought up by Minority members of Parliament’s Appointments Committee during the vetting, with an attempt to establish some wrongdoing on the part of the Special Prosecutor nominee.
But Mr. Amidu’s initial refusal to apologize prompted Mr. Ablakwa to suggest he would take legal action.
“During the hearing, I had said I would consider my options, but based on the submission he made at the tail end of his appearance before us, I decided to drop that and to just accept the olive branch he extended,” Mr. Ablakwa explained.
He further described Mr. Amidu’s inability to back allegations of corruption he made against the Mahama government at the vetting as disappointing.
“I like the passion that the nominee showed. He showed a rare passion to fight corruption no matter where he finds it… I liked that tone, I liked that whole approach. However, I was disappointed when a lot of the things he had written in times past, when he was subjected to strict proof, when those things were read to him and he was asked to stand by them to provide the proof, he said he wrote them largely on perception and intelligence.”