I have always restrained myself from commenting on Mr Martin Amidus’s deliberate attacks on the former President and the NDC because of my respect for elders in the party and the party in general. In trying to find the reasons behind his attacks, we must not confuse jealousy and envy with hate.
In his case I see his actions and outbursts as jealousy fermenting into hate. Hate can destroy a man’s sense of values and his objectivity, it corrodes his personality and eats away the best in him.If not checked, a once discerning mind (person) will describe the beautiful as ugly and ugly as beautiful and will confuse the true with the false and false with the true. As an astute lawyer, I expected my senior to adhere to the code of professional ethics of lawyers that establishes mandatory rules of conduct in line with the moral criteria and traditions of the Bar, as well as international standards and rules of professional conduct.
If we really want our judiciary to operate effectively, then we need to boldly talk of moral character of good lawyers and not just their intellectual abilities. My senior must also know that as son of the revolution and a lawyer, the language he uses when interacting with the public should be moral and not “only” legal. Horkovich says brevity is important, as is clarity in explaining the judge’s mistake in law or in fact. If my senior has any evidence to suggest that our supreme court judges were “docile” during the 2012 election trial or were manipulated by his own party (NDC) to circumvent justice, he should bring that to the attention of the public and the judges than making blanket derogatory statements.
MR AMIDU AND JOHN MAHAMA
In his haste to denigrate Mr Mahama, he always ends up traversing the minefield of unnecessary litigation. Mr Mahama is not the Commonwealth and he is not “Mahama the Commonwealth Observer Group”. He was in Kenya as leader of the Commonwealth’s Observer Group. The team included other renowned and internationally respected personalities. Every statement he issued in connection with the election was issued on behalf of the Commonwealth Observer group and not in his private capacity. Mr Amidu must also be made to understand that all the observer groups corroborated the statement Mr Mahama issued on behalf of his group. He must also be made to know that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Baroness Patricia Scotland on BBC said the Commonwealth fully support the statement issued by Mr Mahama, and commended him and the team. Being louder and unnecessarily strident about everything “Mahama” is going to do nothing except cost him [Amidu] his integrity. This hate agenda didn’t start today. He asserted that then President Mahama connived with Anas Amereyaw Anas and sanctioned the release of the results of the judiciary investigation to the public to compromise and suppress alleged results involving our parliament and the government at the time. When Anas dared him to head to court if he had issues with the judicial expose’, he resorted to use of unprintable words and has still not furnished the public with his allegations. Mr Amidu prayed the supreme court to allow him to orally examine Woyome. He alleged that the AG’s decision to discontinue the oral examination of Woyome in court, was upon an order by President Mahama. The supreme court dismissed his claim that the President personally ordered the discontinuation of his application. The man who jumped from one radio station to another to explain his long thesis against President Mahama, backed down on his legal battle with Woyome and his reason for ending his attempt at retrieving the Ghc 51.2 million paid to Woyome was that ” the new assurance from the new government, particularly the new AG, Gloria Akuffo, influenced his decision to seek the withdrawal”
He Also alleged that the former President and his party ( NDC), planned with Madam Charlotte Osei the EC boss to rig the 2016 election. He alleged in one of his write-ups that “She [Charlotte Osei] was appointed by a corrupt Government precisely because her incompetence made her susceptible for use for an election rigging agenda”
A lawyer of his calibre must always use respectful tone. His conduct must always be guided by the rules and standard set forth in the common code of conduct for our lawyers. He was lucky the party, Mr Mahama and Madam Charlotte Osei treated his allegation with contempt. What he alleged has a tendency to diminish the good opinion which others have of the personalities and organisation he accused. Who are the corruption crusaders Mr Amidu claim accused Mr Mahama of using his appointment power under Article 43 and 70 of our constitution for a rigging agenda? And do you think a lawyer of his stature should make this defamatory statement? Mr Amidu still sees himself as an anti- corruption crusader? He thinks Ghanaians still take him serious after his 360 movement over the Woyome issue after the 2016 election? An anti- corruption crusader who defend corrupt officials? An anti- corruption crusader who always uses his writing prowess to frustrate work of investigative journalists, an anti- Corruption crusader who goes to court to withdraw a case he deemed serious just because of change in government????
Mr Amidu has never rest his mouth and pen on his “anti- Mahama” crusade since the day Prof Mills settled on him as his running-mate.Haters don’t start as haters. It starts with envy, jealousy, then ferment into hate. He is now glued to other haters of Mahama to achieve their common agenda. He enhances his self- image, as well as his new found friends just to make their agenda credible.
MARTIN AMIDU AND UHURU KENYATTA
A lawyer should be temperate and dignified,and should refrain from all illegal and morally apprehensive conduct. Obedience to law, they say exemplifies respect for law. As a lawyer, he should know that respect for the law, court orders and rulings should be more than platitude. Does he have evidence suggesting that Mr Mahama “cynically thought his good friend, the President of Kenya Uhuru Kenyatta, whom he had invited as the special guest of honour during Ghana’s Independent Celebration in 2016, would have the benefit of the docility of the Kenyan Supreme Court just as he was the beneficiary of Ghana’s razor thin edge supreme court decision in 2013”. This is coming from one of our respected lawyers, a cadre, onetime running-mate of one of Ghana’s major parties. Isn’t that an indirect attack on our supreme court and President Uhuru Kenyatta? Did the supreme court level an allegation of planned rigging against President Uhuru Kenyatta?.