The court adjudicating over Osafo Marfo's $1m Kroll case has found Auditor-General, Daniel Domelevo guilty of contempt.
Daniel Domelevo failed to respond to the suit challenging his $1m Kroll payment surcharge.
According to the court, the reason given by Mr. Domelevo for his inability to respond was “untenable and an afterthought.”
Domelevo had said he was busy finishing up an audit report for Parliament hence his failure to respond to the suit.
The judge, Justice Botwe, in her ruling, said due to the important role the Auditor-General plays, she will opt to caution and discharge him rather than sentence him.
She explained that the law requiring that the Auditor-General responds to appeals to his surcharge within 14 days is a good law.
She also said evidence before the court shows that Mr. Domelevo was properly served and should have done the right thing.
Senior Minister, Yaw Osafo-Marfo has cited the Auditor-General, Daniel Yaw Domelevo for contempt over the $1m Kroll payment surcharge.
Osafo-Maafo and four other applicants who are officials of the Ministry of Finance has sued Mr. Domelevo.
The writ is asking the court to among other things commit the Auditor General to prison, or otherwise, punish him for his alleged contemptuous conduct in accordance with the law.
Mr. Osafo-Maafo through his lawyer, Yaw D. Oppong argued that the Auditor General’s refusal to file the required documents at the court and reply to the Notice and grounds of Appeal within the mandatorily stipulated time dictated by Rule 5 (1) and (2) of Order 54 A of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004 CI47 pursuant to amendment by C1102, constitutes a contempt of court.
This the Senior Minister believes exposes Mr. Domelevo’s supposed contrived scheme which according to him is “deliberately fashioned to achieve his [Domelevo’s] own invidious agenda and also with a view to preventing the Court from efficiently ascertaining the full circumstances of the case.”
“That the refusal of the Respondent to file the relevant documents and a reply contrary to the relevant provisions of the law is a confirmation of our conviction that the Respondent in taking the decision against us and the subsequent resort to media propaganda to damnify us, and disparage our hard-earned reputation, he was actuated by malice and lack of good faith and without legal basis whatsoever,” he argued.