The ‘Citizen Vigilante,' Martin Amidu has been challenged by the representative of ISOFOTON SA in Ghana, Mr. Anane Agyei Forson, to reveal contracts which were executed under his control as deputy A-G during ex-President Rawlings’ regime, but never went through Parliamentary approval.

He urged the media to call Martin Amidu to confirm or deny the allegation of his involvement in a contract which as a deputy A-G under ex-President Rawlings did not go to Parliament for approval in 1998, but the company engaged was allowed to execute the project.

Speaking on Hot FM, he assured that, in a short while, he will be the second ‘Citizen Vigilante’ in Ghana as he prepares his documents to go to court to prove that, in the era of Martin Amidu as the deputy Attorney-General, certain companies went through with their contracts with the then government, but without Parliamentary approval.

He again said that in 2005, these same companies went through the second protocol without Parliamentary approval, but then under the watch of Hon. Joe Ghartey as the A-G, which these companies executed the contract without any court issue; adding that the Supreme Court must pronounce on them as well because, to him, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

He further said that his contract with the NPP government was abrogated by the then Chief Of Staff, Kwadwo Mpiani of erstwhile Kufuor’s administration because he was part of his cronies; adding that he will have time for this case to expose contracts which were executed without Parliamentary approval, affirming that ISOFOTON SA will surely collect its money from the Ghana government.

He, therefore, wondered why his company’s contract was abrogated on the grounds that the contract was not before Parliament for approval, whereas the company, which took over the contract, was allowed to complete and took their money on the project without the procedure upon which Mr. Mpiani annulled the government contract with ISOFOTON.

He, however, employed the services of the media to find out from the Supreme Court how some contracts without Parliamentary approval were allowed to be executed, but other contracts were annulled on the same modus operandi.