In a statement yesterday, the A-G said as the principal legal advisor to the government, he had the constitutional mandate to give legal advice to all Public Services of Ghana and public officials such as the Auditor -General who is a member of the Audit Service.

“A proper reading of the Constitution, especially the provisions on the Public Services of Ghana, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Attorney-General is fully vested with the constitutional function of giving legal advice to all the Public Services specifically listed in article 190(1) of the Constitution, including the Audit Service, and such other public services as will be established by law,” the A-G said.

Response

The A-G’s statement was in response to criticisms by the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) over a letter by the Attorney-General advising the Auditor-General to withdraw a publication on its website about an audit report on COVID-19 funds.

Mr Dame had described as unconstitutional the publication of the Auditor-General's report on the COVID-19 expenditure before Parliament completed considering it.

With regard to the independence of the Auditor-General, the Attorney-General said his legal advice which was backed by law did not defeat the independence of the Auditor-General neither did the independence of the Auditor-General preclude him or his office from legal advice from the Attorney-General.

“It ought to be pointed out that the functional independence of the Auditor-General under article 187(7)(a) of the Constitution does not confer immunity from legal advice. Legal advice to a constitutional body cannot under any circumstance be construed to amount to interference with the performance of its constitutional functions.

A view to the contrary implies that an “independent constitutional body” has absolute freedom to act in any manner it desires, except when a court of law has ordered, even when its legal adviser (whether public or private) is of the opinion that its actions are in conflict with the law. This sounds in absurdity and is the product of unbridled sensationalism,” the A-G said.

Background

Mr Dame had described as unconstitutional the publication of the Auditor-General's report on the COVID-19 expenditure before Parliament completed considering it.

In a letter to Mr Johnson Akuamoah Asiedu, the Auditor-General, Mr Dame, said the publication of the report on the website of the Audit Service was "premature and unconstitutional."

According to the Attorney-General, per Article 187(5) of the 1992 Constitution, the Auditor-General was to submit his report to Parliament and in that report draw attention to any irregularities in the accounts audited.

He added that Article 187(6) of the Constitution required that Parliament must then debate the report of the Auditor-General and appoint, where necessary and in the public interest, a committee to deal with any matters arising from it.

According to the Attorney General, it is only after satisfying the constitutional requirement of submitting the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament, the subsequent debate by Parliament thereon and the conclusion of work by the appropriate committee of Parliament that the report of the Auditor-General may be considered final and relevant action may be taken thereon.

"Consequently, I advise a withdrawal of the report on the Government COVID-19 transactions from your website before same has been debated by Parliament and considered by the appropriate committee of Parliament," he added.