Take me to General Legal Council — Tony Lithur
- By: Mabel Aku Baneseh | Graphiconline
- Mar 19, 2015
- 3 min read
An Accra-based legal practitioner, Mr Tony Lithur, has challenged Mr Martin Amidu to report him to the General Legal Council (GLC) if he (Amidu) has any adverse findings against him (Lithur).
“Martin Amidu, as a senior practitioner, knows what to do if he has definite information of unethical conduct of the nature that he accuses me of. If he has any facts to support them, he should take them to the correct forum and he will receive an appropriate response,” Mr Lithur stated in an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday.
Mr Lithur is a former partner of the current Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, in the law firm, Lithur, Brew and Co.
Speaking in reaction to Mr Amidu’s allegations of complicity against Lithur’s firm in connection with the GH¢51.2 million Woyome saga, Mr Lithur said the doors of the GLC were wide open to Amidu should he wish to take opportunity of that forum.
“Damaging a fellow practitioner’s reputation so publicly based on conjecture is much more unethical and quite irresponsible,” he opined.
Statement
Mr Amidu, a former Attorney-General, issued a statement to graphiconline on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 in reaction to Mr Lithur’s earlier interview with the network in which the latter had explained how his firm had had contact with Austro-Invest.
According to Mr Amidu, the Attorney-General deliberately left out the names of Austro-Invest and Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu in her entry of judgement which sought to seek the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 order to Woyome to refund the money.
Mr Lithur said Lithur, Brew & Co did not advise Woyome either directly or through Austro-Invest in relation to the claim from the government.
“The attempt to link Lithur, Brew & Co to the claim for compensation is, therefore, groundless,” he said.
Explaining further, he said “while payment by the government of the sum of GH¢51 million may have been made ostensibly in the joint names of Austro-Invest and Woyome, Austro-Invest did not receive any part of the money. In fact, it was because Woyome had refused to make any payment to Austro-Invest that they instructed Lithur, Brew and Co to take him to court”.
Illegal payment
Mr Lithur said he found out soon after filing the claim that the payment was illegal and advised Austro-Invest to discontinue the suit, which it did.
“Note that Woyome, even during the trial, maintained that he, and not Austro-Invest, was entitled to the compensation,” he said.
Reacting to Mr Amidu’s claim that his (Lithur’s) firm knew Austro-Invest was not in existence at the time it sued Woyome, Mr Lithur said “that is completely untrue and unfair. There is no basis for coming to that conclusion”.
“Even assuming the accusation was that Lithur, Brew & Co ought to have ascertained first whether or not Austro-Invest was still in existence at the time that it took instructions to sue him for a portion of the compensation, the simple answer would be: if Mr Amidu had an active and busy private practice, he would have realised that that imposition, while ideal, is neither practical nor can it form the basis upon which such general and sweeping ethical judgement could be made,” he asserted.
He said years before Austro-Invest and Woyome put in the claim for compensation, Mr Ray Smith, the principal of Austro-Invest, had, upon Woyome’s request, lent him (Woyome) about US$1 million which Woyome claimed he required to launch his foundation.
According to Mr Lithur, Woyome made several failed promises to pay the money and as a result of that “Lithur, Brew and Co was instructed to claim the money from him. When, after several correspondences and meetings, he still hadn’t paid, upon Smith’s instructions, Lithur, Brew and Co sued Woyome. He made payment of the debt by issuing cheques directly in the name of my clients”.
Source: Starrfmonline.com
By: Mabel Aku Baneseh
