NPP Rubbishes NDC Tantrums

Posted: Daily Guide |Wednesday, 17 March 2010

By Charles Takyi-Boadu
THE NEW Patriotic Party (NPP) has rubbished the call for the prosecution of members of the erstwhile Kufuor administration by some activists of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The party has indicated its preparedness to resist any such propaganda trials, describing it as ‘completely baseless’.

Communications Director of the NPP, Kwaku Kwarteng believes that the agitations are “nothing but a product of the campaign of falsehood churned out by the NDC in the build-up to the December 2008 elections”.

In a statement issued to the media, he noted that the NPP is observing with interest current agitations within the National Democratic Congress for the prosecution of appointees of the former New Patriotic Party government for unstated offenses.

He said the NPP as a party believes that the sources of this agitation are the gullible sections of the NDC who seem to have believed their party’s false and unfounded propaganda which sought to create the impression that NPP ministers and appointees were corrupt.

“If former appointees, through due process, are legitimately found to have involved themselves in unlawful conduct, by all means let the law take its course”, he noted.

That notwithstanding, the party’s Communications Director noted that such due process must interrogate the conduct of not just government appointees under the former NPP administration, but also those under the former NDC administration, stressing that “there are many cases involving appointees of the former NDC administration (some of them the subjects of Auditor General’s findings) that require further action”.

It is the belief of the NPP that state institutions must be allowed to work without interference from any political party whatsoever.

For this reason, the party is opposed to the manipulation of the state’s security services and judicial system to persecute appointees of the former NPP government in response to what it described as “useless agitation from gullible sections of the NDC who have believed the falsehood churned out by their party leadership in the last electioneering campaign”.

It has therefore served notice that it will fiercely resist any persecution and politically motivated trials of former NPP ministers and appointees by the NDC government.

The statement comes in the wake of unnecessary pressure being put on Attorney-General, Betty Mould-Iddrisu by members of her own party, including the retired Supreme Court justice, F. Kpegah, who has suddenly donned the cloak of the NDC, screaming from the rooftops.

Justice Kpegah claims the supposed inaction of the A-G in the face of what he describes as abundant evidence of corruption and graft against former government officials baffles many supporters of the National Democratic Congress who are now disillusioned.

Though the Attorney-General has called for evidence to enable her proceed to court to prosecute any former government official who may have dipped his or her hands in the nation’s coffers, Justice Kpegah thinks otherwise since, according to him, the A-G has no excuse to not prosecute anybody in the NPP.
Apart from him, supporters of the NDC in the La Dade Kotopon Constituency have equally threatened to demonstrate until the A-G is sacked by the President.

NDC Bribe Scandal

Posted: Daily Guide | Tuesday, 16 March 2010

By Charles Takyi-Boadu
Yesterday’s open hearing of the infamous Mabey and Johnson bribery scandal involving some high-profile members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was characterised by legal gymnastics and acrobatics when several lawyers appeared before the three-member Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) panel investigating the scandal on behalf of their clients.

The lawyers, representing members of the erstwhile Rawlings-led NDC administration who had been named as recipients of huge bribes from the United Kingdom-based construction company, engaged in a variety of ‘legal assaults’, using a host of technicalities to salvage their clients from the jaws of the Commission.

Just as the three-member panel, chaired by CHRAJ Commissioner Francis Emile Short, was about to commence hearing, lawyers representing Baba Kamara, currently Ghana’s High Commissioner to Nigeria, and those for former Minister for Roads and Highways, Dr Ato Quashie, raised technical issues on behalf of their clients.

Present at the hearing were only two of the named recipients, Dr George Sipa-Yankey, former Minister of Health, and Brigadier General (rtd) George Lord Attivor, Managing Director of Intercity STC, while Dr Ato Quarshie, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Kwame Peprah, Abubabar Saddique Boniface and Baba Kamara were absent upon the advice of their lawyers.

Sipa Yankey and Attivor were both dressed in immaculate black and brown suits respectively, with shoes to match.

The venue for the hearing was jam-packed with NDC activists who stormed the place to give moral support to their distressed members. Alhaji Amadu Seidu, who was not there, had some activists wearing his T-shirts.

Counsel for Baba Kamara, Samuel Cudjoe’s objection was that at the time of the alleged bribery, his client was not a public official and therefore could not be probed by CHRAJ, whilst Dr Ato Quarshie’s lawyer, Nana Ato Dadzie, who was most often on his feet, objected to the legal basis of CHRAJ investigating the subject matter since, according to him, the Commission lacked the jurisdiction.

CHRAJ however dismissed the objection raised by Dr Ato Quarshie and his lawyers, since, according to Commissioner Short, their claims were untenable.

A heated argument ensued between counsel for CHRAJ, Thadeus Sory and Nana Ato Dadzie when the latter and his colleague counsel for Baba Kamara, Samuel Cudjoe, sought to question the legal basis on which Mr Sory, who is a private legal practitioner, was made counsel for the Commission.

But Mr Sory ridiculed their objections since, according to him, as an independent Commission, CHRAJ regulates its proceedings and could engage the services of any lawyer to help discharge its constitutionally mandated duties.

He quoted portions of the Constitution to support his argument but the two lawyers were still not satisfied since they appeared not convinced.

At a point, Mr Short had to intervene when tempers were flaring between Mr Sory and Nana Ato Dadzie, to explain that counsel was not a member of the investigative panel which has himself, Anna Bossman and Richard Quayson, both Deputy Commissioners, as members respectively.

He described the objection as not only premature but also untenable and therefore cited numerous instances in which CHRAJ had to engage the services of private lawyers to discharge its duties, with the most recent being Dr Phillip Ebow Bondzie-Simpson who was counsel for the Commission when it was investigating the Road Transport Minister, Dr Richard Anane, to buttress his point.

Though the Commission rubbished the basis of the preliminary objection raised by lawyers for Baba Kamara, it however referred it to the Supreme Court for determination because of the constitutional issues involved.

Thus the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not upon a true and proper construction of Article 218 (e) of the 1992 Constitution, the mandate of the Commission to investigate on all instances of alleged or suspected corruption, applies to private individuals or entities.

It is also expected to determine whether or not the Commission has the mandate to investigate a private individual who is alleged to be involved or implicated in acts of corruption allegedly committed by public officials.

It is however the view of Mr Emile Short and the Commission that “in circumstances such as the case under investigation by the Commission, where a private individual who is alleged or suspected to be involved in alleged acts of corruption by public officials, (the individual) cannot object to the Commission investigating him alongside the public officials, on the basis that he is not a public official”.

The Commissioner was of the view that to uphold such an objection challenging the investigative mandate or powers of the Commission to investigate a private individual is not only untenable but is contrary to public policy.

He therefore noted that “such an objection carries with it the grave danger of frustrating and stultifying the constitutional mandate of the Commission to investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption”.

In any case, CHRAJ as a Commission believes that there was nothing in Article 218 of the Constitution which justifies the conclusion reached by Baba Kamara to the effect that its mandate is ousted in such circumstances.

The Commission’s position was that by the very nature of their functions, public officials are appointed to provide public services including serving private individuals and institutions.

Considering the fact that in most transactions involving public officials, private individuals and entities are at the other end of the spectrum, Mr Short emphasised that “invariably, it is the private individuals or entities that pay bribes to public officials, especially in large investment contracts executed by multi-national companies like the contracts awarded to Mabey and Johnson”.

For this reason, he noted that “the private person or entity cannot and ought not to be allowed to successfully prevent the Commission from investigating his or her involvement in the alleged corruption”.

Since Section 241 of the country’s Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) recognizes corruption of a public officer as a criminal offence, CHRAJ said “it would be defeating of the mandate of the Commission, the primary anti corruption agency of the state, if the Constitution were to be interpreted to preclude the Commission from investigating private persons who are alleged to be involved in corrupting public officials especially where monies are involved”.

Mr Short cited several cases of law including the most recent case of Ex-parte Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (Dr Richard Anane case) to buttress his point.

Earlier on, Commissioner Short had questioned the absence of Dr Ato Quarshie, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Kwame Peprah, Boniface Abubabar Saddique and Baba Kamara at the hearing, threatening to issue a bench warrant for them.

The answer given by Nana Ato Dadzie that “if the panel were to decide today after our submission that the panel does not have jurisdiction, we will not be expecting my client to be here the next day”, somewhat provoked the Commissioner.

His submission compelled Mr Short to say that “the way you stated your case, I think the Commissioner would issue a witness summons for the next hearing irrespective of the outcome of our ruling”.

Meanwhile, hearing has been adjourned until March 29, 2010 when the Supreme Court is expected to have made its ruling on the issues raised.

Mabey and Johnson bribery scandal

CHRAJ Begins Probe
Posted: Daily Guide |Monday, 15 March 2010

By Charles Takyi-Boadu
THE COMMISSION on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) will today begin public hearing and possibly receive testimonies about some top members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) accused of receiving kickbacks in the infamous Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal.

CHRAJ Commissioner, Francis Emile Short, told DAILY GUIDE over the weekend that all was set for him and his team to begin proceedings into the bribery scandal.

Mr Short hinted that his outfit had already received all the needed information on the case, and expressed optimism that the commission would take off on schedule since CHRAJ, as an institution, had started the needed contacts to get documents from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK.

It was also revealed that in spite of all the noise about the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Betty Mould-Iddrisu’s trip to the UK to meet officials there to get details of the case, she managed to give CHRAJ only part of what was needed, and that there were still more materials expected from her outfit.

“There are quite a number of documents which she is trying to get for us,” Mr Short said.

Though he admitted meeting the Chief Prosecutor in the M&J case, John Hardy, who was in the country on the invitation of the Danquah Institute (DI) to deliver a series of lectures on money laundering and international corruption, Commissioner Short noted that their discussion mostly centered on the lectures he delivered and not on the M&J case.

This, he said, was because “the main things that we want are the documents but he is not in a position to give us those documents.”

The M&J scandal involves six current and former government appointees including former Finance Minister, Kwame Peprah; Alhaji Baba Kamara, Ghana’s High Commissioner to Nigeria; former Minister of State at the Office of the President, Alhaji Amadu Seidu; Dr Ato Quarshie, a former Minister of Roads and Highways, who allegedly received the largest chunk of the bribe money; former Water Resources, Works and Housing Minister, Alhaji Saddique Boniface; former Minister of Health, Dr. George Adja-Sipa Yankey; and Edward Lord Attivor, currently Acting Managing Director of Intercity STC. He was Board chairman of STC at the time he allegedly took the M&J bribe.

The NDC officials, who mostly served in the Jerry Rawlings regime and carried over to the Atta Mills Administration, were accused of taking bribes totaling over £750,000, when M&J took up contracts to build bridges in Ghana in the 1990s.

From the mid 1980s until approximately 1996, M&J’s interests in Ghana were represented by one Kwame Ofori, also known as Danny Ofori-Atta, who controlled a Ghanaian bridge-building company, and apparently had influence within the circles of the then ruling NDC government then.

It was accepted by M&J that through the creation of the Ghana Development Fund (GDF), its executives facilitated corruption on behalf of the company and that they were in (or sought to create) a corrupt relationship with a variety of decision-making Ghanaian public officials.

These funds were purportedly for the development of M&J business in Ghana but, in reality, were capable of and were understood to be capable of being used for corrupt purposes.

Mr. Peprah was at that time Minister of Finance. The role of Baba Kamara and his value as an agent to M&J was made clear in a document authored by an M&J executive, probably prior to July 1996, and sent to its Directors.

Dr. Ato Quarshie, according to the report, received a cheque when he visited London in July 1995 in the sum of £55,000 for supposed ‘contract consultancy’.

This cheque was drawn on M&J’s Clydesdale Bank account at the Victoria branch in Buckingham Palace Road, and signed by two of the company’s Directors.

It was therefore the case of the prosecution that the payment to Dr. Quarshie and the following payments were but examples of a series of bribes to various ministers and officials.

Other relatively junior officials who were also alleged to have received some of the bribes included Alhaji Abubakar Saddique Boniface, then an ECGD desk officer at the Ministry of Finance.

He had a bank account at the National Westminster Bank in Rickmansworth. On 29th February 1996, Saddique Boniface received a transfer of £10,000 from M&J to an account at Barclays Bank Plc in Watford.

On 29th October 1996, the same account received a transfer of £13,970 from M&J. On or about 29th October 1996, Amadu Seidu, the Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Roads and Highways, received £5000 in his Woolwich account held in St. Peter Port, Guernsey.

Dr. George Yankey, the Director of Legal and International Affairs at the Ministry of Finance, received £10,000 in his Midland Bank account in Hill Street, London W1; and Edward Lord Attivor, also received £10,000 in his London bank account.

Interestingly, it was the same branch of the Clydesdale Bank which was used by M&J.

Amadu Seidu received a further £5,000 on 7th March 1997, the same date on which Saddique Boniface received a further £2,500.

Although the amount was relatively small, the prosecution noted that it was indicative of the nature of the corruption M&J was then practising.

M&J's payments to Dr. Yankey were not confined to the payment on or about 24th October 1996, since his Hill Street account received £5,000 on 26th August 1998 from M&J.

Following the revelations, Dr. Yankey resigned as Health Minister, ostensibly to clear his name in the matter. And in the heat of the brouhaha, Alhaji Amadu Seidu was dropped as Minister of State at the Office President Mills, even though it was not clear why he was removed.

A potential appointee to the High Commission to Nigeria, Alhaji Baba Kamara, was however confirmed.

Dr Ato Quarshie also resigned his position as Probe Chairman of Metro Mass Transit while Lord Attivor and Kwame Peprah hold on to their positions as STC MD and SSNIT Board Chairman respectively.