Home / Politics / Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei Returns GH¢70,000 Allegedly Linked to Parliamentary Vetting

Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei Returns GH¢70,000 Allegedly Linked to Parliamentary Vetting

Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei has disclosed that she turned down GH¢70,000 reportedly sent to her by the Majority Chief Whip, explaining that she did not want to personally benefit financially from a parliamentary process involving the vetting of members of the Majority side.

The Asokwa Member of Parliament said she was uncomfortable keeping the money because she had not been told where it came from. She also indicated that she did not want to receive any financial benefit associated with the vetting of Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga and Deputy Majority Leader Zanetor Agyemang Rawlings.

In a memorandum dated September 2 and addressed to Minority Chief Whip Frank Annoh-Dompreh, with Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin copied, Mrs. Appiagyei instructed that the GH¢70,000 be returned to the Majority Chief Whip.

She explained that her primary reason for returning the money was that she was unaware of its source and therefore could not accept it.

Mrs. Appiagyei further linked her decision to the Minority Caucus’ stance on the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees. She stressed that she had no intention of receiving or demanding money in connection with the process involving the nominees.

She subsequently reaffirmed her commitment to the position adopted by the Minority Caucus, noting that her action was consistent with that of Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who had also reportedly returned his allocation.

The development comes amid tensions between the Minority Caucus and the Parliamentary Appointments Committee over the vetting of three nominees to the Supreme Court.

The nominees are Justice Sophia Rosetta Oduokuwa Bernasko Essah, Justice Edward Amoako Asante and Justice Anthony Forson Jnr.

The Minority Caucus withdrew from the vetting proceedings on August 27 after raising concerns about the procedure used by the Appointments Committee. The Caucus argued that the nominees had been scheduled for vetting without adequate prior notice.

SOURCE: myjoyonline

Tagged:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *