Serious Fraud Office Boss quits
Gilbert Boyefio
05/03/09
Information reaching The Statesman indicates that the Acting Executive Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Edward Agyemang Duodu, has vacated his position and reverted back to his former post at the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s Office as a public prosecutor.
As a result, our sources at the SFO say management met on Monday March 2 and wrote to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s office for a substantive Executive Director to be appointed.
According to a source, Mr Agyemang Duodu’s decision to vacate his post was informed by the fact that he had no appointment letter confirming him as the Acting Executive Director of the SFO from the Ministry of Justice, although he was inaugurated into office together with the SFO Board by the then Minister late last year. He also told this paper that the dissolving of all Boards by President Atta Mills must be a contributory factor as Mr Agyemang Duodu felt he had to leave with the Board he was inaugurated with.
The source further alleged that he suspected that some people from the Ministry of Justice deliberately put pressure on the former Executive Director to quit in view of the anomaly because they were not able to get him to carry out their agenda, however noting, “This is my suspicion, I may be wrong or right”.
Another source told The Statesman that Mr Agyemang Duodu’s departure has crippled the SFO and is likely to bring back the power struggle at the office. He described the former Executive Director as “very good and simple, open minded, listens to everyone and very affable.”
A source close to Mr Agyemang Duodu confirmed that the former Acting Executive Director has indeed moved back to the Ministry of Justice. He however refused to comment on the circumstances that led to his decision.
Ironically, when this reporter tried to interview officials of the SFO on a different story he was pursuing, officials refused to comment because they do not have the mandate from the Executive Director to speak for the SFO. “Although every day work at the SFO has been going on, senior staff have refused to take critical decisions because they need permission from the Acting Executive Director, who is non existence,” a worried worker confided to this paper.
Our source explains that the problem of lack of capacity on the part of senior staffs is due to the fact that Mr Agyemang Duodu did not properly hand over. He disclosed that the former Executive Director just wrote a memo dated February 25 to notify senior staff that he was reverting back to his former position at the Ministry of Justice effective February 27. He however failed to designate his temporary replacement.
According to him, although by the public service regulation during such a period the most senior staff should take charge until a substantive head is appointed, “the internal power struggle characteristic of the SFO would not allow that and such a practice would be an exercise in futility”.
Most workers The Statesman spoke to appealed to the President through the Minister of Justice to appoint a substantive head to the SFO because they have had enough of acting heads. Others are of the view that any future appointment should be in-house, that is from any of the Assistant Directors, instead of drafting in someone from outside who may not have a proper grounding in the ways the SFO operates. Nonetheless, they all agreed that “there is a lot of work to be done and if the SFO is kept without a leader, coupled with lack of logistics and motivation the essence of its establishment would be defeated”.
Since its establishment by an Act of Parliament, 1993, Act 466; the SFO has never had a substantive Executive Director. It has always been headed by Acting Executive Directors and an attempt by government in 2007 to appoint it first Executive Director generated so much controversy that the idea was dropped.
The SFO is a specialised agency of government mandated to monitor, investigate and, on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute any offence involving serious financial or economic loss to the state and to make provision for connected and incidental purposes.
05/03/09
Information reaching The Statesman indicates that the Acting Executive Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Edward Agyemang Duodu, has vacated his position and reverted back to his former post at the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s Office as a public prosecutor.
As a result, our sources at the SFO say management met on Monday March 2 and wrote to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s office for a substantive Executive Director to be appointed.
According to a source, Mr Agyemang Duodu’s decision to vacate his post was informed by the fact that he had no appointment letter confirming him as the Acting Executive Director of the SFO from the Ministry of Justice, although he was inaugurated into office together with the SFO Board by the then Minister late last year. He also told this paper that the dissolving of all Boards by President Atta Mills must be a contributory factor as Mr Agyemang Duodu felt he had to leave with the Board he was inaugurated with.
The source further alleged that he suspected that some people from the Ministry of Justice deliberately put pressure on the former Executive Director to quit in view of the anomaly because they were not able to get him to carry out their agenda, however noting, “This is my suspicion, I may be wrong or right”.
Another source told The Statesman that Mr Agyemang Duodu’s departure has crippled the SFO and is likely to bring back the power struggle at the office. He described the former Executive Director as “very good and simple, open minded, listens to everyone and very affable.”
A source close to Mr Agyemang Duodu confirmed that the former Acting Executive Director has indeed moved back to the Ministry of Justice. He however refused to comment on the circumstances that led to his decision.
Ironically, when this reporter tried to interview officials of the SFO on a different story he was pursuing, officials refused to comment because they do not have the mandate from the Executive Director to speak for the SFO. “Although every day work at the SFO has been going on, senior staff have refused to take critical decisions because they need permission from the Acting Executive Director, who is non existence,” a worried worker confided to this paper.
Our source explains that the problem of lack of capacity on the part of senior staffs is due to the fact that Mr Agyemang Duodu did not properly hand over. He disclosed that the former Executive Director just wrote a memo dated February 25 to notify senior staff that he was reverting back to his former position at the Ministry of Justice effective February 27. He however failed to designate his temporary replacement.
According to him, although by the public service regulation during such a period the most senior staff should take charge until a substantive head is appointed, “the internal power struggle characteristic of the SFO would not allow that and such a practice would be an exercise in futility”.
Most workers The Statesman spoke to appealed to the President through the Minister of Justice to appoint a substantive head to the SFO because they have had enough of acting heads. Others are of the view that any future appointment should be in-house, that is from any of the Assistant Directors, instead of drafting in someone from outside who may not have a proper grounding in the ways the SFO operates. Nonetheless, they all agreed that “there is a lot of work to be done and if the SFO is kept without a leader, coupled with lack of logistics and motivation the essence of its establishment would be defeated”.
Since its establishment by an Act of Parliament, 1993, Act 466; the SFO has never had a substantive Executive Director. It has always been headed by Acting Executive Directors and an attempt by government in 2007 to appoint it first Executive Director generated so much controversy that the idea was dropped.
The SFO is a specialised agency of government mandated to monitor, investigate and, on the authority of the Attorney-General, prosecute any offence involving serious financial or economic loss to the state and to make provision for connected and incidental purposes.
Comments
Post a Comment