Nana Ato Dadzie, Lawyer for Oliver Baker-Vormawor has vehemently denied that his client made a statement accusing the Appointments Committee of taking bribes.
According to lawyer Ato Daadzie, the statement was never intentional to make disparaging comments about the committee but a whistle blower about some happenings that must be looked at.
“..This statement here, and the way it’s being put out, as though he intended to verify this honorable committee, is certainly very far away from what he intended the post to be. And that the post was only intended to expose some misconduct by other third parties affecting the work of the committee.”
“So, without due respect, you only have to be able to hold a public office to understand that this is a normal practice by people to take advantage of people in public office, as you’re doing your job and then other persons probably, riding on the back.”
The controversy began when Barker-Vormawor alleged that ministerial nominees were made to pay bribes to the Appointments Committee in exchange for approval.
He wrote on Facebook on January 24, “So all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee just to get approved, are those ones not affected by ORAL? Strange Republic.”
While admitting that his client wrote the statement, Lawyer Ato Daadzie emphasized that the statement was unfortunately misinterpreted and misunderstood.
The lawyer also declared another statement on 25th January attributed to Mr. Barker-Vormawor as entirely fabricated emphasizing that “He never wrote that statement. He never uttered that statement. He never posted that statement.”
The statement read “NDC members on the vetting committee take money from Mahama’s ministerial nominees before approving them. The deputy speaker must submit himself to oral. This is not from Mr. Baker Vormawor,” .
“It’s unfortunate that it’s been submitted to a second interpretation or misunderstanding of what he’s written. And as a supporter of democracy, he’s really willing and prepared to apologize for this misunderstanding here and also to withdraw the post.”
Meanwhile, Minority members, concerned about their reputation, refused to continue vetting until the matter was resolved.
Majority MPs, however, argued the vetting process should continue while the allegations were investigated.
Read also: Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Outlines Bold Vision for Sector Growth
