Dismissed Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Martin Amidu has sent a strong note of caution to government and its assigns including what he described as ‘criminal-minded and rented NDC media’ to stop peddling falsehood about him or he would be compelled to spill the beans.

“If they push me to the wall, I will respond appropriately. I have the right to respond,” he told Daily Guide in a telephone interview on Friday.

Mr. Amidu was sacked days after he threatened to expose a colleague Minister whom he claimed was concealing, in his own words, ‘gargantuan crimes’ against the state in the award of a GH¢58 million judgement debt to self-confessed financier of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

This was after he filed a case in court demanding a refund of the gargantuan payments from Woyome, since the man had no contract with the state to warrant the payment of such a whopping amount to him.

In the exclusive interview with Daily Guide, Amidu, who was sacked by President Mills last Thursday for what Chief of Staff Henry Martey-Newman described as ‘misconduct’, said he was not the least worried about the decision to relieve him of his appointment, since it was the sole prerogative of the President to fire and hire any member of his administration without assigning reasons.

He was therefore baffled by the explanations and justifications from the Presidency and other interest groups in the ruling NDC which suggested that he misconducted himself before the President during a meeting at the Castle two Fridays ago. The former Attorney General did not recall doing anything at the said meeting at the Castle that amounted to misconduct and therefore challenged his accusers, including the Presidency, to tell Ghanaians what he exactly did, denying speculations that he was rude to the President and nearly poked his finger into someone’s eye during the meeting.

The Castle meeting was said to have taken place in the President’s office and there were only five persons in attendance including president Mills. “They should state what the misconduct is. They are bigger than me. They are in government. The truth shall always come out,” he asserted.

He said it was strange that people who were not at the meeting were peddling falsehood about him. Though he admitted he could not fight government as an institution, the embattled former Attorney-General said if they continued to put out things that were not true about him, he would have no option but to defend and clear his name, credibility and integrity and by so doing, he might end up saying certain things that would not be in the interest of government. “Government can be powerful,” he said, adding that he had the right to equally defend himself.

It was for this reason that he warned government and its assigns, including the ‘criminally-minded and rented NDC press’, to desist from further publishing false information about him.

On the question of whether or not the President was aware and supported his (Amidu’s) decision to file a writ in court demanding the monies paid to Alfred Woyome, Mr. Amidu asked rhetorically, “Why not? If they didn’t want the money, they wouldn’t have asked me to pursue the case?”

He added, “I thought they want the money. If they did not want the money they should have told me.” This, according to him, was because he was given ample time to prepare and build his case before going to court the very week he was sacked.

Mr. Amidu laughed it off when asked whether he felt worried or embittered about the President’s decision. He said for the years that the NDC went into opposition and were struggling to return to power, he did not only survive but was “eating each and every other day”. For that matter, Mr. Amidu said he would be able to withstand the test of time, “When we were in opposition I was eating. I contributed to his (president) campaign,” he said.

On his court action to retrieve the Woyome money, he pointed out that he, as the Attorney General, could not have taken the action without the President’s consent. He asked rhetorically, “Why did he (president) allow me to go to court on Monday?”