<<Print>>

Former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Madam Betty Mould-Iddrisu, may have put up a sparkling performance when she appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last week to testify about her role in the payment of 94 million Euros judgment debt to Construction Pioneers (CP). Indeed, members of the ruling NDC have lauded the former minister for silencing members of the committee who she had accused of criminal insinuations that impugned her integrity with respect to the CP judgment debt case. But Managing Editor of the Insight Newspaper, Kwesi Pratt Jnr., seems not to be one of her fans. Though the newspaper editor concedes Madam Mould-Iddrisu may have been eloquent in her delivery, he is however dissatisfied with some of the answers she gave. Madam Mould-Iddrisu, during her presentation, asserted that she protected the interest of Ghana with the decisions she took regarding the settlement debt payment to CP. Accompanied by three defense counsels including Nana Ato Dadzie, she stoutly defended her actions claiming her recommendations in the CP judgment debt saga �were bold decisions� that benefited the country eventually. �According to the Ghana Bar Association code of conduct�s section 48, it states that when you can settle, settle it. Indeed, if you do not settle, it is a misconduct on the part of the lawyer�What did Ghana benefit by my settlement at the time I was Attorney General? Ghana benefitted a reduction from a 162 million to 80 million [euros] as far as I�m concerned, a freeze on the spiraling interest and we were able to spread payment over three years,� Madam Mould-Iddrisu insisted. According to her, when she entered into negotiation, she wrote to the Chief of Staff to inform him of what she was about to do. She also added that she did receive an official reply which acknowledged receipt of what action she wanted to take though she cannot find the letter to that effect. The ex-AG told the committee in an emphatic manner that she informed government about the case, but she was not constitutionally mandated to seek approval from the Presidency to sanction payment.