In a document, the acting A-G said: “We wish to state that we are satisfied with the processes and, therefore, propose that the lawyers inform the Supreme Court accordingly, to enable both parties go back to the High Court to continue with the proceedings in that court”.

In May this year, Mr Domelevo was found guilty of contempt by the court.

He failed to respond to a suit filed by Mr Osafo-Maafo in connection with the $1-m surcharge of the former finance minister.

Mr Domelevo had told the court that he was filing an audit report for parliament, thus, his inability to respond to the suit.

But the court, on Tuesday, 12 May 2020 found the excuse “untenable” and described it as an “afterthought.”

The judge, Justice Botwe, cautioned rather than sentenced Mr Demelevo due to the importance of his role.

In January this year, Mr Osafo-Maafo and four other public officers cited Mr Domelevo for contempt of the High Court in an application filed by Mr Yaw Oppong, a lawyer, for his refusal to file in court, the documents based on which he surcharged the former finance minister.

READ ALSO: Jubilating lottery winner kills 5

Mr Osafo-Maafo and the four others filed an appeal at the Registry of the High Court, Accra, in which they asked the court to set aside the A-G’s decision to disallow the payment of some $1m to Kroll & Associates and the subsequent surcharging of Mr Osafo-Maafo and the four.

Upon service of the appeal on the A-G, he was required to file the documents on which he based that decision and reply to the appeal 14 days after service.

A search conducted at the High Court Accra on 14 January 2020 revealed that the A-G was served with the appeal on 13 December 2019 but did not filed the said documents.

By law, the failure to file such documents 14 days after service of the appeal constitutes contempt of the High Court.

In compliance with the law, the Senior Minister and the four others filed an application for contempt to commit Mr Domelevo to prison or for the imposition of any other punishment.

According to the applicants, “The refusal of the respondent (the Auditor-General) to file in particular the documents on which he based the purported decision against us, exposes his contrived scheme deliberately fashioned to achieve his own invidious agenda and also with a view to prevent the Honourable Court from efficiently ascertaining the full circumstances of our case and effectually ruling on it in terms of Order 54A Rule(1) and (2) of CI 47 pursuant to amendment by CI 102 .”

READ ALSO: You’re “serial spinsters who just hate men out of personal experiences” – Lady blasts “toxic feminists”

They added: “The refusal of the respondent to file the relevant documents and a reply contrary to the relevant provisions of the law is a confirmation of our conviction that the Respondent in taking the decision against us and the subsequent resort to media propaganda to damnify us, and disparage our hard earned reputation, he was actuated by malice and lack of good faith and without any legal basis whatsoever”.

They, therefore, prayed the court to agree with them that the conduct of the A-G “clearly amounts to a gross contumacious disrespect to the authority and sanctity of the law and therefore ought to be punished in accordance with the law”.

The applicants also asked the court to make consequential orders including the setting aside of the impugned decision of the Respondent.