General News Politics

Government rejection of portions of short Commission’s report, case precedent? – ASEPA Writes



Now one of the reasons which Government Communicators have given for Government’s decision to reject some of the findings and recommendations of the Short Commission’s Report is that there is a case precedent.
Unfortunately they have not been able abrest themselves with the facts of the case precedent (which is the Justice Dzamefe Commission Report) which they have quoted and quoted to support their claim.

The fact is that in the Brazil saga Enquiry, an independent financial audit was carried out by an independent reputable audit firm Ernst and Young on all the financial transactions, payments, receipts and other relevant vouchers.
Ernst and Young was contracted by the then Government to provide an Independent Expert opinion specifically on the financial transactions on the Brazil saga.

It is on the basis of that Special Audit by Ernst and Young which could not have been carried out by the Commission of Enquiry that then government rejected some of the portions of the Report because the matter had been dealt with extensively by the audit firm in their report.

So to the Government Communicators using the Dzamefe Commission Report as a basis to rationalise government’s decision to reject some of the findings and recommendations of the report, my question is,

1.What Security Audit has been carried out by a team of Reputable Independent Security Experts or an Independent Security Firm on the back of which government is rejecting some portions of the Short Commission’s Report?

2. Who contracted that security firm?

3. Where is their official report to the Government?( if Gov’t contracted them)

So without an independent security audit, then on what basis is government rejecting some findings and recommendations of the Short Commission’s report, on the basis of their own accounts of what they think happened at Ayawaso West Wuogon and what they think should be done?

Then why waste the whole Country’s time with a Commission of Enquiry if at the end of the day, it is your personal opinion that will count?

Clearly we the people must be able to point it out to government that comparing an action taken on a Commission of Enquiry into a matter of Corruption to that of an action on an Enquiry into a matter of National Security and Safety( of which a lot of evidence already exist with the public) is like comparing apples to oranges and that cannot be enough justification for what has been done in the instance of the Short Commission’s Report.

Mensah Thompson
Executive Director, ASEPA
(Chairman, CCSAPV)

Source Foster 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.