‘I’m shocked’ – Ayikoi Otoo denies Domelovo’s fake evidence claim

Nii Ayikoi Otoo, lead counsel for former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has responded to comments made by former Auditor-General Daniel Yao Domelovo, who recently accused him of submitting fake documents during the committee’s investigation into the former CJ.

Domelovo in an interview on the KSM Show alleged that Mr. Otoo presented forged documents to the investigative committee. Domelovo, a member of the committee, singled out a letter purportedly appointing the CJ, which he claimed was improperly issued by the Judicial Secretary instead of the President.

“It will interest you to know that it is the junior of the CJ, the Judicial Secretary, who appointed the CJ. That letter he produced is signed by the Judicial Secretary appointing a CJ,” Domelovo said, calling the document “fake.”

Rebutting this in an interview on Citi Eyewitness News,monitored by NSEMGH, on Tuesday, October 7, Otoo expressed deep shock at Domelovo’s claims, describing the committee’s conduct as unprofessional and politically motivated.

“I have listened to him and I am shocked by the things he went and sat there to do,” Otoo said. “If only he was doing politics. I have exposed them that they did a shoddy job — whether as a result of that they are now trying to find some face-saving measures.”

Otoo insisted the document in question was not fraudulent and accused Domelovo of misrepresenting the facts.

He further explained that as an Article 71 office holder, the Chief Justice’s full entitlements, including salaries and privileges, are determined after leaving office by a constitutionally mandated five-member committee. Until then, the organisation — in this case, the Judicial Service — has internal policies that guide interim arrangements.

“Were you not in this country when the CJ was appointed…Didn’t we know when she was appointed? Didn’t we see that the President gave a warrant?” he asked. “That warrant of appointment will not contain your terms of service.”

“When we are talking of conditions of service and the person brings you one and it is signed by the spending officer, you decide that that thing is a forgery? It is something that beats everyone’s imagination, having regard to his experience — unless we have put him too high, beyond where he really belongs.”

He reiterated that what was presented to the committee was merely a letter from the Judicial Service, not an appointment warrant, and rejected the assertion that any forged documents were submitted.

“So nothing of the sort happened. We only presented the letter,” he stressed.