The Chairman of the ad hoc committee investigating a leaked tape regarding a plot to remove the IGP, Samuel Atta Akyea, has criticized the committee’s report as lacking substance for parliamentary action.
Atta Akyea asserted that the report, which implicated senior police officers for misconduct under police regulations, did not provide a sufficient logical basis for parliamentary endorsement.
The committee’s unsigned report indicated that three senior police officers, COP Alex George Mensah, Supt. George Lysander Asare, and Supt. Emmanuel Eric Gyebi, were found to have engaged in misconduct, a significant breach of police regulations necessitating sanctions under the Police disciplinary procedure.
He emphasized that the committee’s role is not merely to accept statements at face value but to thoroughly investigate matters.
“I want to submit with the greatest of respect that this report reduced parliament and the good committee of parliament to a conveyor belt that anything they drop on it should go. You do not just listen to people who come before a committee and that will bring you to a conclusion of the matter. You delve into the matters. A committee of parliament is not a conveyor belt. They’re supposed to delve into this matter. And on that showing, this report is so anaemic.”
“It lacks substance for plenary to find, with the greatest of respect any decision on it and to uphold this report. Yes. And I urge this House to reject this report because there is no foundation of evidence for this report. And we shouldn’t make a resolution based on such an anaemic report,” he stated.
In response, Vice Chairman James Agalga defended the report, refuting Atta Akyea’s assertions as misrepresentations.
He clarified that the committee had carefully deliberated and appropriately handled legal definitions, rejecting claims of inadequate investigation or misinterpretation of facts.
“Mr Speaker, quite a number of issues have been raised, which constitutes a gross misrepresentation of the facts and of the report…in the course of the committee’s deliberations, the chairman had the opportunity to raise the arguments that he has canvassed before this house this evening that we could not elevate conspiracy to the level of our criminal jurisprudence under section 23 of the criminal and other offences act and we all agreed as a result of that intervention,” he stated.
“Mr Speaker, if you look at the report, we did not use the definition of conspiracy under section 23 of the Criminal and Other Offenses Act. We borrowed the dictionary meaning of conspiracy and dealt with the matter as such,” he stated.