Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, has raised objections to allegations made by the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, regarding a recent raid conducted by operatives of the National Security at the residence of former Bank of Ghana Governor, Dr. Ernest Addison.

The controversial raid took place on Wednesday, March 19.

During a press conference on Thursday, March 20, the Minority Leader alleged that National Security operatives who carried out the operation had engaged in acts of misconduct, including the theft of cash and valuables such as earrings and necklaces belonging to the wife of Dr. Addison.

In response, Deputy Attorney General Justice Srem-Sai took to Facebook to refute the claims made by Afenyo-Markin, accusing him of exploiting parliamentary immunity to spread misinformation.

Srem-Sai expressed deep concern that the Minority Leader’s remarks had led to unwarranted public disaffection and reputational damage to individuals involved in the raid.

He underscored the constitutional provisions that grant Members of Parliament protection against defamation lawsuits, noting that these privileges exist to ensure robust and sincere parliamentary debate conducted in good faith.

However, he lamented that this legal protection was being misused by certain legislators to propagate falsehoods that could erode public trust and stir unnecessary controversy.

“The Constitution grants MPs some protection against defamation suits. By the law literature, the purpose of this protection is to enhance the quality of GOOD FAITH parliamentary debate. The protection is not a security for false or malicious commentary.

“Sadly, an MP has chosen to abuse this protection by using the premises of Parliament to peddle malicious falsehood which has resulted in creating public disaffection and opprobrium for persons.”
Justice Srem-Sai further sought to clarify the legality and conduct of the raid, asserting that the operation was carried out strictly in accordance with the court’s authorisation.

He wrote that Dr. Addison had access to legal counsel and was adequately represented throughout the search process.

“That, clearly, defeats the purpose of the constitutional protection. Dr Addison had access to legal counsel and representation throughout the search.

“The search was conducted in line with the terms of the court authorisation; and cordially. Such abuse of MPs’ constitutional protection will be corrected and remedied for the healthy growth of our democracy.”