We, the firm of Amarteifo & CO., are aggrieved by two publications under the above-named headings, which appeared in the Ghanaian Chronicle, of November 21, 2001 edition Vol. 10 No.35 and the November 22, 2001 edition Vol. 10 No. 10 respectively.

In the said articles, the Ghanaian Chronicle and its journalist Mr. Raymond Archer published of our Mr. Amarkai Amarteiflo, that as the Swedish Consul in Ghana he was involved in an illegal deportation syndicate, which facilitated the dumping of non-Ghanaian deportees into Ghana for his personal monetary gain.

The reports leave an unfortunate impression of lack of integrity on the part of our Mr. Amarkai Amarteiflo who has over many years of diligent work built a reputation at the Ghana Bar, in the country and in international circles.

Our Mr. Amarteiflo is not and has never been a member of any syndicate involved in the dumping of non-Ghanaian deportees from Sweden into Ghana whether for monetary gain or otherwise.

Further, the said articles are based on allegations which are either wholly untrue or have in a deliberate manner been so grossly distorted as to completely misrepresent the true state of affairs.

It was also alleged that Mr. Amarteiflo has usurped the powers and functions of the Ghana Immigration Service. This likewise is untrue.

The unfortunate impression was created that when an illegal immigrant is found in Sweden and there is the need to verify his nationality, Mr.

Amarkai Amarteiflo would merely sit in his office in Accra and listen to taped recordings of voices of those immigrants and casually certify the voices to be those of Ghanaians when he knows or ought to know that that is not the case.

This suggestion is also false. It will be appreciated that the need to verify the nationality of an illegal immigrant for the purposes of deportation arises because at the time of the verification process the illegal immigrant would have destroyed all his travel documents.

As there will be no document to rely on, the greater part of the process involves interviewing the illegal immigrant and evaluating the information given by him.

This takes place in Sweden. When it becomes necessary to do voice testing the process starts with voice analysis by a voice expert at the Upsala University in Sweden.

In a few cases where there is still some doubt, and the illegal immigrant is suspected to be a Ghanaian, a taped recording of the voice of the illegal immigrant will be sent to us in Ghana, we will listen to the tape with a view to determining whether the accent is Ghanaian.

It cannot be denied that the verification process, being a human exercise, there is some possibility of error, but actual errors have been minimal.

Where an error has occurred, it has been caused principally because the illegal immigrant has failed to give true information about himself.

Some deportees are found with documents which indicate sometimes, falsely, that they are Ghanaian. Such deportees can only be brought to Ghana.

With regard to the services for which fees are levied, it will be appreciated that even though Mr. Amarkai Amarteiflo is the Swedish Consul in Ghana, he is also a Solicitor admitted to practise as a lawyer in the Courts of Ghana. Mr. Amarteiflo is therefore entitled to represent any Swedish authority or concern as a lawyer in Ghana.

There is no legal requirement, which prohibits our Amarkai Amarteiflo, from being both the Swedish Consul and a practising lawyer in Ghana.

Indeed that fact is fully appreciated by the Swedish Immigration Board as they engaged our law firm, Amarteiflo and Co. to be their local Solicitors.

When an illegal immigrant is repatriated to Ghana, until such time that the Ghana Immigration Service accepts him as a Ghanaian, the Swedish Consulate remains responsible for him.

Until such time, Mr. Amarteiflo, as the Swedish Consul, bears those responsibilities and is reimbursed.

Likewise if a non-Ghanaian who has created the impression that he is a Ghanaian is rejected by the Ghanaian Immigration Service, it remains the responsibility of Mr. Amarkai Amarteiflo to ensure that he is sent out of Ghana.

However, we must note that a number of the deportations from Sweden to Ghana have been effected when Mr. Amarteiflo has been out of the country.

Also, Mr. Amarteiflo has NEVER accompanied any deportee to any of Ghana's borders, with or without Ghanaian traveling documents.

The fact of Mr. Ekwiri' s case, like all the others, have been grossly detoured.

If Mr. Ekwiri had truthfully informed the Swedish Immigration Board that he was a Ugandan. he would have been sent to Uganda from Sweden. He would not have been brought to Ghana.

However, prior to his deportation to Ghana, Mr. Ekwiri was interviewed in Sweden, and his voice was recorded and analysed at Upsala University in Sweden by an expert, who advised that he was from Ghana.

The tape of the recorded voice was sent to our Amarkai Amarteiflo, who listened and invited others to listen to the said tape and advise, as he normally does.

All those who listened to the tape in Ghana were left in no doubt that the person speaking on the tape was a Ghanaian because he used words which he might have picked up from Ghanaians in Sweden which words are very peculiarly Ghanaian.

He obviously wanted to confuse the experts so as to conceal his real identity. It was only then that we advised the deportation of the person whose voice was on the tape to Ghana.

The person turned out to be Peter Ekwiri who may have held the mistaken view that his deceit of the Swedish Immigration Board might prevent his deportation. In any case, the Swedish Immigration Board are at liberty to accept or reject our advice.

And, we do not have any authority to direct the Board to deport anybody, no matter his nationality, to Ghana. Since Mr. Ekwiri arrived in Ghana, he has had brushes with the law, including the prosecution of Mr. Ekwiri on a charge of defilement before a Circuit Tribunal, and offering violence to Policemen at Osu Police Station.

These problems have complicated the final repatriation of Mr. Ekwiri.

In spite of all the problems Mr. Ekwiri created after his arrival in Ghana, our Amarkai Amarteiflo and our firm have shown so much kindness to him.

We have taken care of his upkeep and medical bills which are all carefully documented by us. But, he has responded to our kindness with ingratitude.

He exhibited unruly behaviour in our Chambers on several occasions but we refused to react.

In fact, Mr. Ekwiri was assisted at considerable cost to go back to Uganda.

He, however, returned to Ghana after having connived with some Ugandan immigration officials, to refuse him entry and insisted that he should be sent back to Sweden.

This insistence we could not accede to. If Mr. Ekwiri was a political refugee, he would have been arrested upon arrival in Uganda.

And, if he is a Ugandan, as he indeed is, there is no reason to refuse him entry into Uganda. Mr. Ekwiri's refusal to go back to Uganda is premised on his singular goal of returning to Sweden, over which we have no control.

The Reporter admitted that he knew that the case of Mr. Ekwiri had been before CHRAJ.

A good Journalist, without an ulterior motive, would have checked Ekwiri's story from CHRAJ.

The writer also commented on our fees.

We wish to observe that the fees charged by our firm, for services rendered to the Swedish Police are exceedingly low, and far below the recommended fees of the Ghana Bar Association.

And the sums quoted in the report include expenses incurred in taking care of the deportees, and assisting them to go back home.

Further, the first and only interview our Amarkai Amarteiflo granted to your Reporter was on 19th November, 2001.

And, there was no one else present certainly no journalist from Sweden was present.

The Reporter, in the circumstances, did not act with candour in the report of his dealings with Mr. Amarkai Amarteiflo, and that is regrettable.

It must be pointed out that in a year such cases of mistaken national identity have been less than three on the average.

Almost all of such persons have been Nigerian or other ECOWAS citizens who are entitled to enter and remain in Ghana without visa for 90 days.

Such persons can also freely leave for their countries of origin, as they all did. And, we assisted them to do so.

To suggest that Mr. Amarteiflo has been motivated by monetary gain in such few cases and at such fees is not only an insult to him, but it also exposes the Reporter to ridicule by those who know the substance of Mr.

Amarteiflo,.

We deem it our constitutional right to demand that this letter is published with the same prominence accorded the reports complained of.