THE Accra Fast Track High Court last Wednesday restrained an attempt by Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd (HTIL), the majority shareholder in Kasapa Telecom Ltd, to sell the company.
The court granted a motion ex-parte application for interlocutory injunction moved by Mr Atta Akyea, counsel for Kludjeson International Ltd, the plaintiff and claimant of a 20 per cent interest in Kasapa.
It said the order was valid for 10 days and subject to renewal and also affected Certwell Ltd, the second defendant/respondent.
Despite the fact that there is court action pending in Ghana, Hutchison Ltd through their agents, HSBC Bank Plc of South Africa, have offered Kasapa for sale and closed bidding on August 10, 2007.
According to the Kasapa Information Memorandum, “bidders were expected to deliver a written indicative offer (the "Indicative Offer”) not later than 12 p.m. South African time” on the said date to Andrew Hunt at HSBC in South Africa.
“The selection of parties for Phase II of the bidding process will entirely and exclusively be within HTIL’s discretion. HTIL reserves the right to reject any Indicative Offer, without offering any reason for its discretion,” the memorandum stated.
It said the memorandum had been prepared by HSBC Bank Plc (including, where applicable, its subsidiaries and affiliates on behalf of HTIL and was being made available to a number of recipients to assist them in deciding whether to proceed with a further investigation of Kasapa.
Furthermore, it was not intended to form the basis of any investment activity or any decision to purchase HTIL’s 100 per cent shareholding in the company.
“This Memorandum is being made available only to parties who have signed and returned the confidentiality agreement between HTIL (for HSBC acting as an agent on behalf of HTIL) and the recipient (Confidentiality Agreement), and the recipient is, therefore, bound by that confidentiality agreement in respect of all information,” it said.
It noted that HTIL was contemplating selling its 100 per cent shareholding in Kuwata Ltd, a company with an indirect 100 per cent interest in Kasapa, and that both Kuwata and Certwell Ltd were holding companies with no operational activity.
Kasapa, it noted, was HTIL’s only operation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Regarding litigation and other issues, the memorandum said, Kludjeson International, a former 20 per cent shareholder of Kasapa, initiated proceedings in the Ghanaian courts in October 2001 against Kasapa and several individuals, including members of the management.
It said Kludjeson International alleged that the Managing Director of Kasapa had not been properly appointed and, therefore, a number of actions taken by the management of Kasapa were improper.
“Kasapa successfully defended the action and in April 2005, a judgement was entered in favour of Kasapa and the other defendants.
“However, in a separate action brought by Kludjeson International before a different judge, the court on April 25, 2007, ruled, among others things, that the present Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer had not been properly appointed to their current positions and to the Board of Directors ( as directors or alternates), and that the change of the company’s name from Celltel Ltd to Kasapa was void,” it said.
It said the company had appealed against the April 25, 2007 decision on various grounds, including the fact that the court dealt with matters which had already been adjudicated in favour of Kasapa in the April 2005 judgement.
“A stay of execution had been granted pending resolution of the appeal. Management has sought legal advice and believes that this matter will be resolved in favour of Kasapa,” the memorandum said.
However, in his affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, Mr Kwame Kludjeson, director and shareholder of Kludjeson International, stated that the company was incorporated under the laws of Ghana, carrying telecommunications business and a shareholder of Celltel, which name was purportedly changed to Kasapa but the original name was restored by a High Court judgement of April 12, 2007.
He said by a share purchase agreement and a shareholders’ agreement both executed on March 30, 1998 between Kludjeson International and HTIL, it was agreed that HTIL purchase 80 per cent shares in the company, leaving Kludjeson International with 20 per cent.
Mr Kludjeson said to induce Kludjeson International to finalise the agreements that would transfer to HTIL its equity of the company, HTIL by a shareholders’ resolution dated June 10, 1998, disclosed that it was nominating Certwell Ltd, which it falsely represented as its subsidiary, to hold the shares in the company on its behalf.
The plaintiff said based on that reliance, it agreed to transfer 80 per cent of the shares in the company to HTIL and the company was led by HTIL to believe that it was at all material times dealing with HTIL through Certwell.
Kludjeson International stated that it subsequently discovered that at all material times Certwell was not a wholly owned subsidiary of HTIL, contrary to the representation it made; rather Certwell was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kuwata Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Island and a total stranger to the arrangements between them.
The share offer, it said, was being done clandestinely under confidential cover and unless the court swiftly restrained the defendants from disposing of the shares, Kludjeson International would suffer irreparable damage.
Friday, August 24, 2007
NDEGO AGAIN
THE searchlight at two of the ongoing narcotic trials in the country yesterday focussed on a key potential witness, Ben Ndego, the interdicted official of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), on whom a subpoena was served last week.
Ndego had earlier been mentioned in the trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, as the one who authorised the recording of a conversation that took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the former Director General of Police Operations.
Then yesterday, in a different trial also involving the attempted exportation of Indian hemp, Ndego was again mentioned as the official who instructed a team of policemen not to effect the arrest of a narcotic suspect, when the arresting team went to the suspect’s house at Dansoman.
That intervention by Ndego, according to the police investigator, allowed the main suspect to abscond and in his place, a freelance journalist, Yaw Osafo Djan, was arrested and sacrificed for the offence by way of getting remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on February 28, 2006.
He was, however, granted bail yesterday after the court heard his story and a corroboration by the investigator that on the instructions of Mr Ndego, the police allowed the main suspect to abscond.
In the Abass and Tagor trial, Ndego’s lawyer yesterday informed the court that the NACOB man was willing to testify in the case on condition that the defence would pay for his travelling expenses.
That was contained in a letter written on behalf of Mr Ndego by his solicitors, Dery and Co., to the effect that Mr Ndego was currently studying in the United Kingdom and was willing to testify in the case provided his travelling expenses would be taken care of.
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, Mr Ndego said his attention had been drawn to a Daily Graphic publication that he was to appear and testify in the case in which Abass and Tagor were alleged to have dealt in narcotic drugs.
The letter, which was read to the court by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court on the instructions of the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice J. Dotse, was copied to the defence lawyers.
Abass had, in his evidence-in-chief, admitted that a meeting, which took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, was recorded by him based on instructions from Mr Ndego.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego to testify in the trial, the court ordered the subpoena to be posted on his house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and as a publication in the Daily Graphic.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Reacting to the contents of the letter, counsel for Abass, Mr Mohammed Atta, prayed the court to order NACOB to recall Mr Ndego for purposes of the trial but the trial judge disagreed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to grant counsel's request.
Mr Justice Dotse further stated that Mr Ndego was not a party in the case and for that reason the court could not give such an order.
Mr Atta then prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to confer with Mr Ndego's solicitors.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to August 29, 2007 and expressed the hope that the defence team would come back ready to facilitate the trial.
Earlier, a defence witness, Kingsley Manteaw, alias Gonu, informed the court that the investigator in the case, Mr Charles Adaba and other police officers whom he only named as Sulley, Nana and the ‘pot-bellied man’ (later identified only as Mohammed) allegedly allowed the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, to abscond.
Gonu, who claimed he was arrested three days after Abass had informed the court that he (Gonu) and another witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond, said he was currently being held for murder, although, he was not identified by witnesses in an identification parade organised by the police.
The witness said he agreed to assist the police to apprehend Sheriff and Killer, a Korean national who is also a cocaine suspect, because the police had assured him (Gonu) that they would free Abass if he was able to assist them.
According to the witness, who testified in Twi through an interpreter, the police also promised to give him and Nana Yaw ¢40 million if they were able to assist them (police) to apprehend any of the suspects.
He said he and Nana Yaw provided the police with vital information, resulting in the arrest of workers on the boat which was used to cart the cocaine, as well as Killer's wife and brother.
Gonu further stated that he and Nana Yaw took the police officers to Ada, where Sheriff was said to have attended a funeral but on reaching there, the police allowed the suspect to abscond.
He informed the court that he visited Abass and informed him of what had happened at Ada, adding that he later went to the police to claim the ¢40 million he had been promised but the police kept giving him excuses.
Gonu alleged that the police eventually took back the mobile phone they had given him (Gonu) to provide them (police) with vital information, adding that he and Nana Yaw were not given the ¢40 million.
The witness, who expressed his disappointment with the action of the police, said he heard through the media that he and Nana Yaw were expected to testify in the case involving Abass and Tagor.
Narrating how he was arrested for allegedly murdering Nii Kwatei Quartey, Gonu said he was with his mother when two colleagues of his called him and informed him that they could help him to retrieve his Golf car which had been impounded by the police on expiration of a Togolese number plate.
He said he took along ¢1 million which had been demanded by the two, who claimed they had links with the police, and went towards the Tema Motorway Roundabout where they said they would meet him (Gonu).
On reaching the Tema Motorway Roundabout, the witness said, the two handed over the car keys to him and he gave them the ¢1 million. He said when he was about to turn on the ignition, eight police officers from the Ashaiman Police Station effected his arrest.
He said the police began to assault him upon his arrest, handcuffed him and took him to the Ashaiman Police Station cells.
The witnes said he was threatened by Mr Adaba not to inform the court that he (Mr Adaba) was among police officers who went to Ada to arrest Sheriff.
During cross-examination by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, witness told the court that the trip he undertook with the police to Ada was not a wild goose chase because they spotted Sheriff.
He insisted that Mr Adaba was at Ada when the prosecution suggested to him that Mr Adaba was not among the police officers who were detailed to go to Ada and effect the arrest of Sheriff.
He also refuted claims by the prosecution that he was arrested on July 22, 2007 and not July 27, 2007 as he stated, adding that his mother could attest to the fact that he was arrested on July 27, 2007.
The witness, who said amid laughter from the audience in the courtroom that he knew Abass was standing trial because of Sheriff, stated that he did not know anything about the conversation which took place in Mr Boakye's house.
Gonu informed the court during cross-examination by counsel for Tagor, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, that he was put on parade among other suspects for the public to identify but was not pointed at by anybody.
He said the identification parade was organised on July 31, 2007 and he was arraigned on August 6, 2007.
Ndego had earlier been mentioned in the trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, as the one who authorised the recording of a conversation that took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the former Director General of Police Operations.
Then yesterday, in a different trial also involving the attempted exportation of Indian hemp, Ndego was again mentioned as the official who instructed a team of policemen not to effect the arrest of a narcotic suspect, when the arresting team went to the suspect’s house at Dansoman.
That intervention by Ndego, according to the police investigator, allowed the main suspect to abscond and in his place, a freelance journalist, Yaw Osafo Djan, was arrested and sacrificed for the offence by way of getting remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on February 28, 2006.
He was, however, granted bail yesterday after the court heard his story and a corroboration by the investigator that on the instructions of Mr Ndego, the police allowed the main suspect to abscond.
In the Abass and Tagor trial, Ndego’s lawyer yesterday informed the court that the NACOB man was willing to testify in the case on condition that the defence would pay for his travelling expenses.
That was contained in a letter written on behalf of Mr Ndego by his solicitors, Dery and Co., to the effect that Mr Ndego was currently studying in the United Kingdom and was willing to testify in the case provided his travelling expenses would be taken care of.
In a letter dated August 23, 2007, Mr Ndego said his attention had been drawn to a Daily Graphic publication that he was to appear and testify in the case in which Abass and Tagor were alleged to have dealt in narcotic drugs.
The letter, which was read to the court by the Registrar of the Fast Track High Court on the instructions of the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice J. Dotse, was copied to the defence lawyers.
Abass had, in his evidence-in-chief, admitted that a meeting, which took place at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, was recorded by him based on instructions from Mr Ndego.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego to testify in the trial, the court ordered the subpoena to be posted on his house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and as a publication in the Daily Graphic.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Reacting to the contents of the letter, counsel for Abass, Mr Mohammed Atta, prayed the court to order NACOB to recall Mr Ndego for purposes of the trial but the trial judge disagreed on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to grant counsel's request.
Mr Justice Dotse further stated that Mr Ndego was not a party in the case and for that reason the court could not give such an order.
Mr Atta then prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the defence to confer with Mr Ndego's solicitors.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to August 29, 2007 and expressed the hope that the defence team would come back ready to facilitate the trial.
Earlier, a defence witness, Kingsley Manteaw, alias Gonu, informed the court that the investigator in the case, Mr Charles Adaba and other police officers whom he only named as Sulley, Nana and the ‘pot-bellied man’ (later identified only as Mohammed) allegedly allowed the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, to abscond.
Gonu, who claimed he was arrested three days after Abass had informed the court that he (Gonu) and another witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond, said he was currently being held for murder, although, he was not identified by witnesses in an identification parade organised by the police.
The witness said he agreed to assist the police to apprehend Sheriff and Killer, a Korean national who is also a cocaine suspect, because the police had assured him (Gonu) that they would free Abass if he was able to assist them.
According to the witness, who testified in Twi through an interpreter, the police also promised to give him and Nana Yaw ¢40 million if they were able to assist them (police) to apprehend any of the suspects.
He said he and Nana Yaw provided the police with vital information, resulting in the arrest of workers on the boat which was used to cart the cocaine, as well as Killer's wife and brother.
Gonu further stated that he and Nana Yaw took the police officers to Ada, where Sheriff was said to have attended a funeral but on reaching there, the police allowed the suspect to abscond.
He informed the court that he visited Abass and informed him of what had happened at Ada, adding that he later went to the police to claim the ¢40 million he had been promised but the police kept giving him excuses.
Gonu alleged that the police eventually took back the mobile phone they had given him (Gonu) to provide them (police) with vital information, adding that he and Nana Yaw were not given the ¢40 million.
The witness, who expressed his disappointment with the action of the police, said he heard through the media that he and Nana Yaw were expected to testify in the case involving Abass and Tagor.
Narrating how he was arrested for allegedly murdering Nii Kwatei Quartey, Gonu said he was with his mother when two colleagues of his called him and informed him that they could help him to retrieve his Golf car which had been impounded by the police on expiration of a Togolese number plate.
He said he took along ¢1 million which had been demanded by the two, who claimed they had links with the police, and went towards the Tema Motorway Roundabout where they said they would meet him (Gonu).
On reaching the Tema Motorway Roundabout, the witness said, the two handed over the car keys to him and he gave them the ¢1 million. He said when he was about to turn on the ignition, eight police officers from the Ashaiman Police Station effected his arrest.
He said the police began to assault him upon his arrest, handcuffed him and took him to the Ashaiman Police Station cells.
The witnes said he was threatened by Mr Adaba not to inform the court that he (Mr Adaba) was among police officers who went to Ada to arrest Sheriff.
During cross-examination by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, witness told the court that the trip he undertook with the police to Ada was not a wild goose chase because they spotted Sheriff.
He insisted that Mr Adaba was at Ada when the prosecution suggested to him that Mr Adaba was not among the police officers who were detailed to go to Ada and effect the arrest of Sheriff.
He also refuted claims by the prosecution that he was arrested on July 22, 2007 and not July 27, 2007 as he stated, adding that his mother could attest to the fact that he was arrested on July 27, 2007.
The witness, who said amid laughter from the audience in the courtroom that he knew Abass was standing trial because of Sheriff, stated that he did not know anything about the conversation which took place in Mr Boakye's house.
Gonu informed the court during cross-examination by counsel for Tagor, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, that he was put on parade among other suspects for the public to identify but was not pointed at by anybody.
He said the identification parade was organised on July 31, 2007 and he was arraigned on August 6, 2007.
THE Accra Fast Track High will next Monday determine the fate of Mr Napoleon Kpoh as he fights his purported removal from office as General Secretary of the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU).
The court fixed the date for its ruling on the matter after both counsel for the embattled ICU General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC) of the union had argued in respect of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by Mr Kpoh.
While the ICU boss is seeking the court’s order to restrain the NEC and for that matter five national executive members from removing him from office and interfere with the performance of his functions as General Secretary, the defendants had similarly filed the same action to restrain him from purporting to act as such.
Mr Kpoh together with the National Chairman of the ICU instituted the action against the defendants, namely, the two Deputy General Secretaries (Operations and Administration), National Vice-Chairman, and First and Second National Trustees, all of the ICU.
Bus loads of placard-bearing protesters of the ICU stormed the court premises amidst chanting to the effect that Mr Kpoh should give way to others to manage the affairs of the union.
But for the police presence, nobody knew what would have happened after the court sitting, as the protesters tried to prevent Mr Kpoh’s car from leaving the premises.
He was hooted at as his car was escorted by a police vehicle amidst chants of “Kpoh must go, Kpoh must go”.
Some of the inscriptions on the placards read “If reason fails force will prevail”, “Napo stop signing the cheques”, “NEC Ayekoo”, and “Napo leave the little-minded members alone”.
The NEC, the second highest decision-making body after the delegates conference of the ICU, declared after last Thursday’s acrimonious meeting that it was dissatisfied with the leadership’s preparation towards congress and had, therefore, constituted an Interim Management Committee (IMC) without the General Secretary.
However, Mr Kpoh maintained that all governing body meetings of the ICU were, by the union’s constitution, to be presided over by the National Chairman, Mr A. Y. B. Salifu, but the National Chairman was excluded from that meeting; therefore, his purported removal was null and void.
At the court’s sitting, counsel for the defendants, Mr Albert Adaare, said that his instructions were that the positions of the first to fifth defendants had been vacant since August 10, 2007, and for that reason, he was representing the NEC.
But counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr C.K. Koka, replied that the defendants were in office and if they intended to struck their names then that was not the proper procedure.
In the heat of the arguments, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori Atta, stated that it would entertain everything except the papers filed in the morning.
Mr Koka argued that the tenure of the ICU General Secretary had not ended and that the normal practice was that it ended at the ICU delegates’ conference where the General Secretary presented a report about his stewardship.
“It is at the delegates’ conference that the General Secretary is required to give a report and the Chief Labour Officer dissolves the old executive,” counsel said, and added that the ICU Constitution provided that the NEC had no power to change the decision of the conference.
According to him, by the constitution, it was the National Chairman who was to preside over all governing body meetings of the ICU but the National Chairman was excluded from the meeting at which the purported decision to sack Mr Kpoh was taken.
“A decision of the union passed without the National Chairman and the General Secretary is a nullity because the chairman must preside over such issues,” counsel stated, adding that if the basis for removing the General Secretary was a nullity then the action was illegal.
He said those purporting to have sacked the General Secretary did not have the capacity to even hold the meeting to change the decision of a delegates’ conference and as had been the practice, a caretaker administration should have been constituted until the next delegates’ conference.
Mr Koka said those purporting to have removed Mr Kpoh were doing that in order to remain in office through the “back door because some of those being sent out are part of the NEC”.
Responding, Mr Adaare said the remedy being sought in the court was equitable and that the tenure of office of the General Secretary was clearly stated in the ICU constitution.
“Their tenure has expired and it is the ruling of the court which can extend that mandate,” counsel said, and maintained that nobody had been sacked from office except that their tenure had expired.
He said by their action the plaintiffs were seeking to perpetuate their interest and tenure of office to the suffering of the common union members and, therefore, the action should be refused.
The court fixed the date for its ruling on the matter after both counsel for the embattled ICU General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC) of the union had argued in respect of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by Mr Kpoh.
While the ICU boss is seeking the court’s order to restrain the NEC and for that matter five national executive members from removing him from office and interfere with the performance of his functions as General Secretary, the defendants had similarly filed the same action to restrain him from purporting to act as such.
Mr Kpoh together with the National Chairman of the ICU instituted the action against the defendants, namely, the two Deputy General Secretaries (Operations and Administration), National Vice-Chairman, and First and Second National Trustees, all of the ICU.
Bus loads of placard-bearing protesters of the ICU stormed the court premises amidst chanting to the effect that Mr Kpoh should give way to others to manage the affairs of the union.
But for the police presence, nobody knew what would have happened after the court sitting, as the protesters tried to prevent Mr Kpoh’s car from leaving the premises.
He was hooted at as his car was escorted by a police vehicle amidst chants of “Kpoh must go, Kpoh must go”.
Some of the inscriptions on the placards read “If reason fails force will prevail”, “Napo stop signing the cheques”, “NEC Ayekoo”, and “Napo leave the little-minded members alone”.
The NEC, the second highest decision-making body after the delegates conference of the ICU, declared after last Thursday’s acrimonious meeting that it was dissatisfied with the leadership’s preparation towards congress and had, therefore, constituted an Interim Management Committee (IMC) without the General Secretary.
However, Mr Kpoh maintained that all governing body meetings of the ICU were, by the union’s constitution, to be presided over by the National Chairman, Mr A. Y. B. Salifu, but the National Chairman was excluded from that meeting; therefore, his purported removal was null and void.
At the court’s sitting, counsel for the defendants, Mr Albert Adaare, said that his instructions were that the positions of the first to fifth defendants had been vacant since August 10, 2007, and for that reason, he was representing the NEC.
But counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr C.K. Koka, replied that the defendants were in office and if they intended to struck their names then that was not the proper procedure.
In the heat of the arguments, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Ofori Atta, stated that it would entertain everything except the papers filed in the morning.
Mr Koka argued that the tenure of the ICU General Secretary had not ended and that the normal practice was that it ended at the ICU delegates’ conference where the General Secretary presented a report about his stewardship.
“It is at the delegates’ conference that the General Secretary is required to give a report and the Chief Labour Officer dissolves the old executive,” counsel said, and added that the ICU Constitution provided that the NEC had no power to change the decision of the conference.
According to him, by the constitution, it was the National Chairman who was to preside over all governing body meetings of the ICU but the National Chairman was excluded from the meeting at which the purported decision to sack Mr Kpoh was taken.
“A decision of the union passed without the National Chairman and the General Secretary is a nullity because the chairman must preside over such issues,” counsel stated, adding that if the basis for removing the General Secretary was a nullity then the action was illegal.
He said those purporting to have sacked the General Secretary did not have the capacity to even hold the meeting to change the decision of a delegates’ conference and as had been the practice, a caretaker administration should have been constituted until the next delegates’ conference.
Mr Koka said those purporting to have removed Mr Kpoh were doing that in order to remain in office through the “back door because some of those being sent out are part of the NEC”.
Responding, Mr Adaare said the remedy being sought in the court was equitable and that the tenure of office of the General Secretary was clearly stated in the ICU constitution.
“Their tenure has expired and it is the ruling of the court which can extend that mandate,” counsel said, and maintained that nobody had been sacked from office except that their tenure had expired.
He said by their action the plaintiffs were seeking to perpetuate their interest and tenure of office to the suffering of the common union members and, therefore, the action should be refused.
EX-NACOB OFFICIAL TO TESTIFY IN COCAINE TRIAL
ATTENTION at the cocaine trial involving Alhaji Issa Abass and Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, has shifted to the whereabouts of a key defence witness, Mr Ben Ndego, who is also an official of the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB), and a potential witness called Konu.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the trial ordered the subpoena to be posted on the witness’s house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and in the Daily Graphic.
But in the case of Konu, whom Alhaji Abass mentioned as a witness who had been picked by the police, the Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service was in court to explain that the man they were holding is Gonu, aka Kingsley Manteaw, who was being held in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
According to the court, the posting of Ndego’s subpoena shall remain in force for seven days and after that if Mr Ndego had not made himself available to the court, appropriate measures would be taken as would be requested by the defence counsel.
Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, gave the directive after the court’s registrar had informed the court about the fruitless effort to get Mr Ndego to be served with the subpoena.
The court registrar told the court that on August 13, 2007, when servers went to the house, they did not meet Mr Ndego; rather they met a man in the house and posted the service on the house and took some photographs.
Mr Ndego is being invited at the instance of Alhaji Abass, who told the court during his evidence-in-chief that the NACOB official instructed him to record the conversation that took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye, which has become the subject of the trial.
Alhaji Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Later, a driver called Nana Yaw (not real name) appeared before the court to testify as a defence witness for Alhaji Abass.
Led in evidence by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abass, the witness said he knew the accused person but did not know Tagor.
The witness said that he was at home sometime last year when Alhaji Abass called him to his office, where he met some CID personnel, who discussed with him how he could assist them to arrest Killer and Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man.
He named the CID personnel to include Inspector Charles Adabah, whom he identified in the court, Inspector Justice Nana Oppong, Alhaji and Sulley.
The witness narrated how he and Konu led the police to the house of Killer and how the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond when he was trailed to a funeral at Big Ada.
Nana Yaw claimed that the police even gave them three mobile phones to facilitate communication between them and also offered to give them ¢40 million as reward but they were given only ¢2 million.
He said when the police went to the house of Killer, they did not meet him but they managed to get some photographs of him.
According to him, he later heard that Sheriff was attending a funeral at Big Ada and, therefore, informed the police about it and he, together with Konu, led them to the place.
He said before they arrived at the funeral grounds, the police team placed themselves at vantage points while he went to look for Sheriff.
“I saw Sheriff’s wife first and a macho man. Not quite, I saw Sheriff in a black suit spotting a hair cut and immediately he saw me, he headed for his car”, the witness said through an Akan interpreter.
He said that he left to inform the police that Sheriff was about to move away in a Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glasses.
Nana Yaw said they all left the place in order to arrest Sheriff and while going Konu’s VW Golf developed an electrical fault so he stopped his motorbike to assist him.
He said when they opened the bonnet of the car, Sheriff came to pass at top speed and the police remarked that if they knew that they would have informed a nearby police barrier about the car’s registration number.
The witness said all the same the police gave Sheriff a chase and when he and Konu got to the motorway end of the road they saw the police car and they were informed by the policemen that they did not see Sheriff in his car but rather his wife and brother.
“I insisted that Sheriff was in the Land Cruiser”, he stated and added that the police gave him ¢100,000 to buy fuel.
According to him, he did not want to involve himself in the matter but for the ¢40 million reward promised him because every now and then he received telephone calls in which the callers threatened his life.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, the witness said he did not know anything about the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
He disagreed that Inspector Adabah could not have been part of the team that embarked on the operation to Big Ada because he was stationed at the Police Headquarters while those who went on the operation were from the Accra Regional Police.
“I am able to identify him (Inspector Adabah) because of the way he dresses,” the witness said.
According to the sequence of events as recorded in the diary of action, the police went to Big Ada but on reaching there, they realised that the funeral was being held at Kasei, where they proceeded to only to be informed that Sheriff left about 10 or 15 minutes earlier.
On Abass’s other witness, Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, denied that the police had in their custody a man called Konu as was being claimed by the suspect.
He said it was rather Gonu, who was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity, then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass, in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) evidence that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, to abscond.
Following futile attempts to serve a personal subpoena on Mr Ndego, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the trial ordered the subpoena to be posted on the witness’s house at Kasoa, on the notice boards of the court and in the Daily Graphic.
But in the case of Konu, whom Alhaji Abass mentioned as a witness who had been picked by the police, the Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service was in court to explain that the man they were holding is Gonu, aka Kingsley Manteaw, who was being held in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
According to the court, the posting of Ndego’s subpoena shall remain in force for seven days and after that if Mr Ndego had not made himself available to the court, appropriate measures would be taken as would be requested by the defence counsel.
Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Court of Appeal Judge, sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, gave the directive after the court’s registrar had informed the court about the fruitless effort to get Mr Ndego to be served with the subpoena.
The court registrar told the court that on August 13, 2007, when servers went to the house, they did not meet Mr Ndego; rather they met a man in the house and posted the service on the house and took some photographs.
Mr Ndego is being invited at the instance of Alhaji Abass, who told the court during his evidence-in-chief that the NACOB official instructed him to record the conversation that took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye, which has become the subject of the trial.
Alhaji Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have both pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Later, a driver called Nana Yaw (not real name) appeared before the court to testify as a defence witness for Alhaji Abass.
Led in evidence by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abass, the witness said he knew the accused person but did not know Tagor.
The witness said that he was at home sometime last year when Alhaji Abass called him to his office, where he met some CID personnel, who discussed with him how he could assist them to arrest Killer and Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man.
He named the CID personnel to include Inspector Charles Adabah, whom he identified in the court, Inspector Justice Nana Oppong, Alhaji and Sulley.
The witness narrated how he and Konu led the police to the house of Killer and how the police allegedly allowed Sheriff to abscond when he was trailed to a funeral at Big Ada.
Nana Yaw claimed that the police even gave them three mobile phones to facilitate communication between them and also offered to give them ¢40 million as reward but they were given only ¢2 million.
He said when the police went to the house of Killer, they did not meet him but they managed to get some photographs of him.
According to him, he later heard that Sheriff was attending a funeral at Big Ada and, therefore, informed the police about it and he, together with Konu, led them to the place.
He said before they arrived at the funeral grounds, the police team placed themselves at vantage points while he went to look for Sheriff.
“I saw Sheriff’s wife first and a macho man. Not quite, I saw Sheriff in a black suit spotting a hair cut and immediately he saw me, he headed for his car”, the witness said through an Akan interpreter.
He said that he left to inform the police that Sheriff was about to move away in a Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glasses.
Nana Yaw said they all left the place in order to arrest Sheriff and while going Konu’s VW Golf developed an electrical fault so he stopped his motorbike to assist him.
He said when they opened the bonnet of the car, Sheriff came to pass at top speed and the police remarked that if they knew that they would have informed a nearby police barrier about the car’s registration number.
The witness said all the same the police gave Sheriff a chase and when he and Konu got to the motorway end of the road they saw the police car and they were informed by the policemen that they did not see Sheriff in his car but rather his wife and brother.
“I insisted that Sheriff was in the Land Cruiser”, he stated and added that the police gave him ¢100,000 to buy fuel.
According to him, he did not want to involve himself in the matter but for the ¢40 million reward promised him because every now and then he received telephone calls in which the callers threatened his life.
During cross-examination by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, the witness said he did not know anything about the conversation that took place in ACP Boakye’s house.
He disagreed that Inspector Adabah could not have been part of the team that embarked on the operation to Big Ada because he was stationed at the Police Headquarters while those who went on the operation were from the Accra Regional Police.
“I am able to identify him (Inspector Adabah) because of the way he dresses,” the witness said.
According to the sequence of events as recorded in the diary of action, the police went to Big Ada but on reaching there, they realised that the funeral was being held at Kasei, where they proceeded to only to be informed that Sheriff left about 10 or 15 minutes earlier.
On Abass’s other witness, Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, denied that the police had in their custody a man called Konu as was being claimed by the suspect.
He said it was rather Gonu, who was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity, then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass, in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) evidence that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine, to abscond.
TEMA CRIME OFFICER TESTIFIES IN COKE TRIAL
THE Tema Regional Crime Officer of the Ghana Police Service has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to explain that they have arrested Kingsley Manteaw alias Gonu in connection with the murder of Nii Kwatei Quartey.
Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, however, denied that the police have in their custody a man called Konu as being claimed by Alhaji Issa Abass, one of two persons standing trial for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The Crime Officer’s appearance was on the orders of the judge that the Tema Regional Commander of the Ghana Police Service, the Regional Crime Officer or their representative should come and explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Konu.
Chief Supt Dogbeda said Gonu was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) statement that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine to abscond.
Abass had said in his evidence-in-chief that he had detailed two young men to assist police officers to identify Sheriff alias the Limping Man, at a funeral at Ada but instead of arresting the drug importer, the policemen deliberately allowed him to abscond.
He said at the funeral ground, Sheriff, who knew the young men, started moving towards his car when he saw them, adding that as Sheriff left the funeral ground in his four-wheel drive, the two men who had helped to identify him demanded an explanation for the lackadaisical posture of the policemen, upon which they were told that they (the policemen) were driving a vehicle with a smaller engine which could not chase Sheriff’s 4X4 vehicle.
He said subsequent to that, the police arrested Sheriff’s wife, as well as the wife and brother of another drug suspect called Killer, but they let both of them off the hook.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Chief Superintendent Joshua Tetteh Dogbeda, however, denied that the police have in their custody a man called Konu as being claimed by Alhaji Issa Abass, one of two persons standing trial for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
The Crime Officer’s appearance was on the orders of the judge that the Tema Regional Commander of the Ghana Police Service, the Regional Crime Officer or their representative should come and explain the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Konu.
Chief Supt Dogbeda said Gonu was arrested in Accra with other suspects and brought to Tema in connection of the murder of Nii Quartey.
That was after counsel for Alhaji Issa Abass had informed the court that his client’s witnesses were scared of testifying because one of them had been arrested.
Following that explanation, the court said that it did not know whether Alhaji Abbas did not pronounce Gonu well or not and if he appeared to be the same identity then he was in lawful custody.
Alhaji Abass in his evidence-in-chief on July 24, 2007 , told the court that Konu was a potential witness in the case but he was arrested after he had informed the court in his (Abass’s) statement that Konu and another potential witness, Nana Yaw, were present when the police allowed Sheriff Asem Dakeh, the importer of the 77 parcels of cocaine to abscond.
Abass had said in his evidence-in-chief that he had detailed two young men to assist police officers to identify Sheriff alias the Limping Man, at a funeral at Ada but instead of arresting the drug importer, the policemen deliberately allowed him to abscond.
He said at the funeral ground, Sheriff, who knew the young men, started moving towards his car when he saw them, adding that as Sheriff left the funeral ground in his four-wheel drive, the two men who had helped to identify him demanded an explanation for the lackadaisical posture of the policemen, upon which they were told that they (the policemen) were driving a vehicle with a smaller engine which could not chase Sheriff’s 4X4 vehicle.
He said subsequent to that, the police arrested Sheriff’s wife, as well as the wife and brother of another drug suspect called Killer, but they let both of them off the hook.
Abass is facing two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs, while Tagor faces four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the Fast Track High Court.
Initially, Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Abass, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were arraigned at the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs.
Some of them were said to have engaged in a conversation relating to the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin at the residence of ACP Kofi Boakye, the subject of which led to the setting up of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.
However, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi (not willing to prosecute), resulting in the discharge of the accused persons. But fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abass, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
POST MASTER ARRESTS NARCOTIC SUSPECT AT FUNERAL
THE Ejisu Post Master of Ghana Post Company, who was arrested for accepting an EMS parcel containing Cannabis Sativa (Indian hemp) for postage to the United Kingdom, got himself out of trouble when he arrested the sender at a funeral in Kumasi.
Mr Richard Tawiah had earlier been remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on a charge of abetment of crime relating to narcotic drug.
After his release on bail, Tawiah was either to look for the sender, Abena Boatema, alias Juliana Osei, or face the brunt of the law, but there was divine intervention as he spotted her having fun at a funeral in Kumasi.
That also almost landed Tawiah in another trouble because when he approached the lady, she fabricated a story that the Post Master wanted to rape her but that was not convincing enough to save her from being arrested and taken to the police station for onward transfer to Accra.
Following the arrest of Juliana, a trader, the tribunal has discharged Tawiah, who pleaded not guilty to the charge on his first appearance on February 13, 2007.
He was subsequently used as a prosecution witness against Juliana.
Juliana faces three counts of attempted exportation of Cannabis Sativa and another count of possession of that substance.
She was alleged to have attempted to respectively export 2.930 kilogrammes, 2.910 kilogrammes and 3.200 kilogrammes of the substance to Mr Opoku Adusei, Mr Osei Boateng and Mr Oppong Mensah, who are all in the UK.
She is also charged with possession of 8.186 kilogrammes of the substance.
According to the facts of the case, on December 21, last year, CEPS officials at the Aviance enforcement section in Accra intercepted three EMS parcels each containing two long compressed dried leaves wrapped in brown cellotape suspected to be Indian hemp and was to be posted to the UK.
They made a report to the Narcotic Control Board and investigations led to the arrest of the Post Master of the Ejisu branch of Ghana Post, where the parcels were posted.
Mr Tawiah said during interrogation that Juliana was the person who brought the substance to be posted to the UK and on examination, he thought the substances were herbal medication for male potency.
Mr Richard Tawiah had earlier been remanded by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on a charge of abetment of crime relating to narcotic drug.
After his release on bail, Tawiah was either to look for the sender, Abena Boatema, alias Juliana Osei, or face the brunt of the law, but there was divine intervention as he spotted her having fun at a funeral in Kumasi.
That also almost landed Tawiah in another trouble because when he approached the lady, she fabricated a story that the Post Master wanted to rape her but that was not convincing enough to save her from being arrested and taken to the police station for onward transfer to Accra.
Following the arrest of Juliana, a trader, the tribunal has discharged Tawiah, who pleaded not guilty to the charge on his first appearance on February 13, 2007.
He was subsequently used as a prosecution witness against Juliana.
Juliana faces three counts of attempted exportation of Cannabis Sativa and another count of possession of that substance.
She was alleged to have attempted to respectively export 2.930 kilogrammes, 2.910 kilogrammes and 3.200 kilogrammes of the substance to Mr Opoku Adusei, Mr Osei Boateng and Mr Oppong Mensah, who are all in the UK.
She is also charged with possession of 8.186 kilogrammes of the substance.
According to the facts of the case, on December 21, last year, CEPS officials at the Aviance enforcement section in Accra intercepted three EMS parcels each containing two long compressed dried leaves wrapped in brown cellotape suspected to be Indian hemp and was to be posted to the UK.
They made a report to the Narcotic Control Board and investigations led to the arrest of the Post Master of the Ejisu branch of Ghana Post, where the parcels were posted.
Mr Tawiah said during interrogation that Juliana was the person who brought the substance to be posted to the UK and on examination, he thought the substances were herbal medication for male potency.
Monday, August 06, 2007
COUNSEL MAKES SUBMISSION OF NO CASE
COUNSEL for the four crew members of MV Benjamin, the vessel which was allegedly used to import 77 slabs of cocaine, yesterday urged the Fast Track High Court to acquit and discharge the accused persons because the prosecution woefully failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
The lawyers described the trial of the suspects as “panic prosecution” in their submissions of no case because according to them, the police knew that Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, was the one who imported the cocaine.
According to them, since Sheriff was allowed to escape, their clients were being prosecuted as a face saving effort because of the defect or default of the Narcotic Control Board.
“There is no doubt about who imported or did business relating to narcotics. The prosecution know. These are people who found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time”, said Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The Arhin brothers are facing two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
In his argument, Mr Osei Owusu said the prosecution failed to establish a clear case of possession against his clients because the legal meaning of the offence meant his clients should have acted physically to control the object.
According to him, possession in its legal meaning connoted to “ own, control or occupy or monopolise an object and also exercise power or influence over an object”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s evidence should have told the court that the accused persons had the power to control and authority to use and manage the object to the exclusion of others and when the evidence did not give that indication, then there was no case for which his clients should be called upon to answer.
Mr Osei Owusu said the ingredient of the offence required that the accused persons should have knowledge of the nature and quality of the object and a prosecution devoid of that was fatal.
He said of all the 13 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, none of them indicated that his clients had knowledge of the nature and quality of the cocaine and that they had no exclusive control or access to it or it belonged to them.
According to the counsel, evidence adduced before the court indicated that his clients had no access to the locked hatch of the vessel where the cocaine was concealed in a locked black bag, therefore, they could not be held for having a mental knowledge of the cocaine.
“Even in the hatch the cocaine had been locked under seal in a black bag and no evidence was led to link my clients to it so for that reason no case has been made against them since the Captain and Chief Engineer of the vessel, who were owners of the cocaine, locked it in the hatch and kept the key to themselves,” Mr Osei Owusu said.
Regarding the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotics, counsel argued that no evidence was led to that effect since the Internal Revenue Service Act defined business as a trade, profession, or vocation, all of which the prosecution failed to link the accused persons to.
He said the prosecution should have linked his clients to the act of promoting narcotics business and their modus operandi, their business associates, among other things but it failed and rather tendered the business certificates of Sheriff.
Counsel said even when the accused persons were recruited as sailors and when they realised that they had spent so much time in arriving at Tema as they had been informed, they challenged the Captain who asked them to shut up.
He said the Captain pulled a gun when the accused persons challenged him on the high seas so they kept quiet in order not to change the course of the journey but to obey instructions for fear of their lives because they had been informed that the vessel was going to Tema or to tow a distressed vessel, among other reasons for the journey.
Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, associated himself with the submission of his colleague and stated that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory since Yin Xing was not a regular crew member of the vessel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah adjourned the case to August 9, 2007, to enable the prosecution to reply to the submissions of the defence team.
The lawyers described the trial of the suspects as “panic prosecution” in their submissions of no case because according to them, the police knew that Sheriff Asem Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, was the one who imported the cocaine.
According to them, since Sheriff was allowed to escape, their clients were being prosecuted as a face saving effort because of the defect or default of the Narcotic Control Board.
“There is no doubt about who imported or did business relating to narcotics. The prosecution know. These are people who found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time”, said Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons.
They are standing trial with the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean; Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, who were alleged to have played various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
The Arhin brothers are facing two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
In his argument, Mr Osei Owusu said the prosecution failed to establish a clear case of possession against his clients because the legal meaning of the offence meant his clients should have acted physically to control the object.
According to him, possession in its legal meaning connoted to “ own, control or occupy or monopolise an object and also exercise power or influence over an object”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s evidence should have told the court that the accused persons had the power to control and authority to use and manage the object to the exclusion of others and when the evidence did not give that indication, then there was no case for which his clients should be called upon to answer.
Mr Osei Owusu said the ingredient of the offence required that the accused persons should have knowledge of the nature and quality of the object and a prosecution devoid of that was fatal.
He said of all the 13 witnesses who testified for the prosecution, none of them indicated that his clients had knowledge of the nature and quality of the cocaine and that they had no exclusive control or access to it or it belonged to them.
According to the counsel, evidence adduced before the court indicated that his clients had no access to the locked hatch of the vessel where the cocaine was concealed in a locked black bag, therefore, they could not be held for having a mental knowledge of the cocaine.
“Even in the hatch the cocaine had been locked under seal in a black bag and no evidence was led to link my clients to it so for that reason no case has been made against them since the Captain and Chief Engineer of the vessel, who were owners of the cocaine, locked it in the hatch and kept the key to themselves,” Mr Osei Owusu said.
Regarding the charge of engaging in a prohibited business related to narcotics, counsel argued that no evidence was led to that effect since the Internal Revenue Service Act defined business as a trade, profession, or vocation, all of which the prosecution failed to link the accused persons to.
He said the prosecution should have linked his clients to the act of promoting narcotics business and their modus operandi, their business associates, among other things but it failed and rather tendered the business certificates of Sheriff.
Counsel said even when the accused persons were recruited as sailors and when they realised that they had spent so much time in arriving at Tema as they had been informed, they challenged the Captain who asked them to shut up.
He said the Captain pulled a gun when the accused persons challenged him on the high seas so they kept quiet in order not to change the course of the journey but to obey instructions for fear of their lives because they had been informed that the vessel was going to Tema or to tow a distressed vessel, among other reasons for the journey.
Mr Solomon Korli, counsel for the two Chinese, associated himself with the submission of his colleague and stated that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory since Yin Xing was not a regular crew member of the vessel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah adjourned the case to August 9, 2007, to enable the prosecution to reply to the submissions of the defence team.
UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT KILLINGS
My senior colleague, Kofi Akordor, almost took the wind out of my sail with his piece on this subject of contract killings which seem to be engulfing our otherwise peaceful country and shaking consciences. Be that as it may, it is necessary that I also let go this piece to offer some sociological touches to the stormy argument on the subject.
In fact, following the recent barbaric killings, particularly of journalist Samuel Ennin in Kumasi and Mr Rokko Frimpong, a top GCB official in Tema, Ghanaians have tended to associate these dastardly acts and probably others which did not attract much public cognisance with contract killings. This has led to lots of noise being bandied about and the debate seems not to be abating once no clues have been found to arrest the culprits or prevent them from committing their outrageous crimes.
Joined in this unfortunate debate are serial callers to various phone-in programmes on the FM stations who have assumed the title social commentators and some politicians, as well, all of whom are trying to score points from this monstrous model.
Is contract killing a new term which is creeping into the lexicon of Ghanaian media practitioners or the entire Ghanaian public? Is it just that we have been oblivious of a practice which might have been with us for sometime without us recognising it until now because of its magnitude or media reportage?
So far as there are no statistics or figures to buttress this definition, it will not be out of place to say that this seeming crime is rarely known. But should we keep mute and look on unconcerned as a nation?
We need to be careful in analysing this serious issue so that we do not take for granted what gained currency in our country in 2000 as the serial killing of women and also the shrinking of sex organs (mostly relating to males). The latter phenomenon after all, was peripatetic as it transcended the boarders of this country. How about the ritual killings and all that?
A contract killing (also contract murder or murder-for-hire) has been defined as a murder in which a killer is hired by another person to murder for material reward, usually money. These killers are sometimes known as contract killers, hit men (sometimes hitmen), or assassins.
In some advanced countries, and with the advancement in information and communication technology (ICT), some web-sites have even been created by people advertising themselves as hit killers or assassins.
In most countries with judicial systems such as ours, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law, since the customer cannot sue for specific performance likewise the contract killer, to sue for his pay. So it is like the cliché “man pass man” doing business.
However, when caught both can be found guilty of homicide.
It is my candid opinion that this model of killing is not new to Ghana. It has, actually, existed since history can tell us except that it is now assuming such magnitude with the advent of media pluralism and probably globalisation.
We are being exposed to the magnitude that we are all witnessing because of our free and pluralistic media environment in which nothing happens without being heard on the radio stations or in the press. If you remember the impact of the media, particularly radio, during the last two general elections, then you understand the point I am trying to drive at.
As a result of increased and improved communication and our being part of the global village, we have become associated with a faster news dissemination and reception. Therefore, foreign action-packed and Mafia-like films and lately, films from neighbouring countries have been storehouses to this practice.
Contract killing appeals to some criminals partially because it can be used to establish an "airtight" alibi for the person who takes out the contract.
The person who actually commits the murder may have little or no direct connection to the victim, making it much more difficult for investigators to establish what has happened. Although, it is also a fact that the killers may be taken round and shown where to strike.
In communities where such killings have gained currency and have been extensively studied, it has been established that contract killings are often, though not always, associated with organised crime, primarily because career criminals are likely to know contract killers, and believe contracting a murder will lessen the likelihood of being caught.
Depending on the region and era, contract killers have frequently been used to silence witnesses testifying against criminals and their likes, to eliminate rival criminals, people in relationships, rivals in relationships, politicians and people with similar interests such as dispute over property.
There are yet others who contract a murder in an attempt to reap some kind of financial windfall, usually as a beneficiary of the victim's wealth (or is it property?), or as heir to their estate. At least the latter motive had been known to predominate because there have been reported cases in both matrilineal and patrilineal communities where nephews and eldest sons, brothers or even parents clandestinely connive with others to indulge in this crime.
Come to think of the ritual murders in which case the hitmen are hired to slay their victims for money? Of the reported cases in the Ghanaian media, we often heard that even after the victims had been killed their mutilated bodies are displayed or left in the open to attract the communities’ attention in order to achieve the desired result. It is a truism that even in cases where relatives offer their relations to be killed for ritual purposes, they are motivated by money and then are hired to do the killing.
In terms of relationships, the most common motive usually involves simply ending an intimate relationship, albeit for an array of reasons.
There have been instances where contract killers make their crime an obvious murder, but may also try to make the death appear to be a suicide or even an accident, or may hide or destroy the body so that it is not clear to authorities that the victim is dead, only that they have disappeared.
Australians seem to have some kind of answer to what price to place on human life. A particular study of more than 150 contract killings in that country indicated that the average payment was $16,500.
A joint study into attempted and completed contract killings by the Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australian Police found the most common motive was not drugs or organised crime, but domestic violence disputes.
The main motivation for contract killing related to the category of dissolution of a relationship and within that there were reasons such as child custody, issues of money, and just issues of couples disagreeing to the point that one is driven to try and eliminate the other.
Payment for the actual killing (usually referred to as a "hit"), is normally divided by paying part of the total price to the contract killer beforehand, and the remainder after the successful completion of the hit.
The actual amount for a particular hit will obviously vary considerably based on things such as: The hit man in particular and his standards and usual fee, the difficulty and danger in accomplishing the actual "hit" based upon who the person to be killed is, where they are and any likely police, security and media attention, and also specifically if the client wants the target to be killed in a specific manner (to appear as an accident, for example).
A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology of 162 attempted or actual contract murders in Australia from 1989 to 2002 showed that the most common reason for murder for hire was "in relation to the dissolution of an intimate relationship". The study also found that the average payment for a "hit" was Australian $12,700 and the most commonly used weapons were firearms. According to the study, contract killings accounted for two per cent of murders in Australia during that time period.
It said that contract killings made up a relatively similar percentage of all killings elsewhere. For example, they made up about five per cent of all murders in Scotland from 1993 to 2002.
In the case of journalist Ennin, while his murder can pass off as a contract killing, it also best fits into a mistaken identity or armed robbery, judging from the way it was executed, more so when no clues had been found it is also difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
However, in the case of the GCB boss, it will be difficult to blame it on armed robbery, since his killers just walked straight to his house, demanded to see him and then p-a-w, the trigger was pulled to kill him.
Should we take the police serious when they say that it was premature for anybody to describe the recent murders as contract killings? To a greater extent, we must accept this explanation considering some of the points I have made above regarding no strong and valid conclusions having been made.
Are the police really on top of their job as a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr K.K. Manfo, made us to believe during a recent press confab, despite the feeling of insecurity in the country?
The police capo was quoted as saying that ongoing police investigations would determine if the killings were done for money. How is that going to be determined, when in most of the killings the killers had outsmarted the security agencies?
Once the police have not been able to make any meaningful headway in arresting the killers, what we need to do is to discard our lackadaisical attitude in handling issues in this country. It is no secret that Ghanaians are noted for not taking seriously threats of death, which appear to us like mere jargons and which could easily be said to anybody.
Need we discuss the situation in heightened terms when we have been trained not to ask questions and probe people for whatever they say or tell us but take what we are told hook, line and sinker?
It’s rather and most unfortunate that on flimsy pleadings very nasty things which could have been avoided happen to our people. If we have the probing mind, nobody can just walk into our houses and do what they like or want and walk away. After all, when they do come, our children or anybody who first have an encounter with them would easily let them in without asking our supposed visitor (s) a word, and where he/she is coming from and stuffs like that.
Even the planning of our buildings do not help much. In societies where some of these killings have been on a higher magnitude, they just cannot easily take place in peoples’ backyards. Such hitmen find it difficult to do their dirty jobs because the buildings have been structured in such a way that before an intruder or visitor got closer the insider might have noticed him or her already so that any suspicious character would be found out and denied access, except the perpetrator is from within.
Our security agencies need to liaise with social scientists to devise means of studying what is emerging as contract killings before they get out of hand. We need to rethink about these killings to save dear ones because Ghana needs each and every citizen to contribute their quota towards national development.
In fact, following the recent barbaric killings, particularly of journalist Samuel Ennin in Kumasi and Mr Rokko Frimpong, a top GCB official in Tema, Ghanaians have tended to associate these dastardly acts and probably others which did not attract much public cognisance with contract killings. This has led to lots of noise being bandied about and the debate seems not to be abating once no clues have been found to arrest the culprits or prevent them from committing their outrageous crimes.
Joined in this unfortunate debate are serial callers to various phone-in programmes on the FM stations who have assumed the title social commentators and some politicians, as well, all of whom are trying to score points from this monstrous model.
Is contract killing a new term which is creeping into the lexicon of Ghanaian media practitioners or the entire Ghanaian public? Is it just that we have been oblivious of a practice which might have been with us for sometime without us recognising it until now because of its magnitude or media reportage?
So far as there are no statistics or figures to buttress this definition, it will not be out of place to say that this seeming crime is rarely known. But should we keep mute and look on unconcerned as a nation?
We need to be careful in analysing this serious issue so that we do not take for granted what gained currency in our country in 2000 as the serial killing of women and also the shrinking of sex organs (mostly relating to males). The latter phenomenon after all, was peripatetic as it transcended the boarders of this country. How about the ritual killings and all that?
A contract killing (also contract murder or murder-for-hire) has been defined as a murder in which a killer is hired by another person to murder for material reward, usually money. These killers are sometimes known as contract killers, hit men (sometimes hitmen), or assassins.
In some advanced countries, and with the advancement in information and communication technology (ICT), some web-sites have even been created by people advertising themselves as hit killers or assassins.
In most countries with judicial systems such as ours, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law, since the customer cannot sue for specific performance likewise the contract killer, to sue for his pay. So it is like the cliché “man pass man” doing business.
However, when caught both can be found guilty of homicide.
It is my candid opinion that this model of killing is not new to Ghana. It has, actually, existed since history can tell us except that it is now assuming such magnitude with the advent of media pluralism and probably globalisation.
We are being exposed to the magnitude that we are all witnessing because of our free and pluralistic media environment in which nothing happens without being heard on the radio stations or in the press. If you remember the impact of the media, particularly radio, during the last two general elections, then you understand the point I am trying to drive at.
As a result of increased and improved communication and our being part of the global village, we have become associated with a faster news dissemination and reception. Therefore, foreign action-packed and Mafia-like films and lately, films from neighbouring countries have been storehouses to this practice.
Contract killing appeals to some criminals partially because it can be used to establish an "airtight" alibi for the person who takes out the contract.
The person who actually commits the murder may have little or no direct connection to the victim, making it much more difficult for investigators to establish what has happened. Although, it is also a fact that the killers may be taken round and shown where to strike.
In communities where such killings have gained currency and have been extensively studied, it has been established that contract killings are often, though not always, associated with organised crime, primarily because career criminals are likely to know contract killers, and believe contracting a murder will lessen the likelihood of being caught.
Depending on the region and era, contract killers have frequently been used to silence witnesses testifying against criminals and their likes, to eliminate rival criminals, people in relationships, rivals in relationships, politicians and people with similar interests such as dispute over property.
There are yet others who contract a murder in an attempt to reap some kind of financial windfall, usually as a beneficiary of the victim's wealth (or is it property?), or as heir to their estate. At least the latter motive had been known to predominate because there have been reported cases in both matrilineal and patrilineal communities where nephews and eldest sons, brothers or even parents clandestinely connive with others to indulge in this crime.
Come to think of the ritual murders in which case the hitmen are hired to slay their victims for money? Of the reported cases in the Ghanaian media, we often heard that even after the victims had been killed their mutilated bodies are displayed or left in the open to attract the communities’ attention in order to achieve the desired result. It is a truism that even in cases where relatives offer their relations to be killed for ritual purposes, they are motivated by money and then are hired to do the killing.
In terms of relationships, the most common motive usually involves simply ending an intimate relationship, albeit for an array of reasons.
There have been instances where contract killers make their crime an obvious murder, but may also try to make the death appear to be a suicide or even an accident, or may hide or destroy the body so that it is not clear to authorities that the victim is dead, only that they have disappeared.
Australians seem to have some kind of answer to what price to place on human life. A particular study of more than 150 contract killings in that country indicated that the average payment was $16,500.
A joint study into attempted and completed contract killings by the Australian Institute of Criminology and South Australian Police found the most common motive was not drugs or organised crime, but domestic violence disputes.
The main motivation for contract killing related to the category of dissolution of a relationship and within that there were reasons such as child custody, issues of money, and just issues of couples disagreeing to the point that one is driven to try and eliminate the other.
Payment for the actual killing (usually referred to as a "hit"), is normally divided by paying part of the total price to the contract killer beforehand, and the remainder after the successful completion of the hit.
The actual amount for a particular hit will obviously vary considerably based on things such as: The hit man in particular and his standards and usual fee, the difficulty and danger in accomplishing the actual "hit" based upon who the person to be killed is, where they are and any likely police, security and media attention, and also specifically if the client wants the target to be killed in a specific manner (to appear as an accident, for example).
A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology of 162 attempted or actual contract murders in Australia from 1989 to 2002 showed that the most common reason for murder for hire was "in relation to the dissolution of an intimate relationship". The study also found that the average payment for a "hit" was Australian $12,700 and the most commonly used weapons were firearms. According to the study, contract killings accounted for two per cent of murders in Australia during that time period.
It said that contract killings made up a relatively similar percentage of all killings elsewhere. For example, they made up about five per cent of all murders in Scotland from 1993 to 2002.
In the case of journalist Ennin, while his murder can pass off as a contract killing, it also best fits into a mistaken identity or armed robbery, judging from the way it was executed, more so when no clues had been found it is also difficult to arrive at such a conclusion.
However, in the case of the GCB boss, it will be difficult to blame it on armed robbery, since his killers just walked straight to his house, demanded to see him and then p-a-w, the trigger was pulled to kill him.
Should we take the police serious when they say that it was premature for anybody to describe the recent murders as contract killings? To a greater extent, we must accept this explanation considering some of the points I have made above regarding no strong and valid conclusions having been made.
Are the police really on top of their job as a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dr K.K. Manfo, made us to believe during a recent press confab, despite the feeling of insecurity in the country?
The police capo was quoted as saying that ongoing police investigations would determine if the killings were done for money. How is that going to be determined, when in most of the killings the killers had outsmarted the security agencies?
Once the police have not been able to make any meaningful headway in arresting the killers, what we need to do is to discard our lackadaisical attitude in handling issues in this country. It is no secret that Ghanaians are noted for not taking seriously threats of death, which appear to us like mere jargons and which could easily be said to anybody.
Need we discuss the situation in heightened terms when we have been trained not to ask questions and probe people for whatever they say or tell us but take what we are told hook, line and sinker?
It’s rather and most unfortunate that on flimsy pleadings very nasty things which could have been avoided happen to our people. If we have the probing mind, nobody can just walk into our houses and do what they like or want and walk away. After all, when they do come, our children or anybody who first have an encounter with them would easily let them in without asking our supposed visitor (s) a word, and where he/she is coming from and stuffs like that.
Even the planning of our buildings do not help much. In societies where some of these killings have been on a higher magnitude, they just cannot easily take place in peoples’ backyards. Such hitmen find it difficult to do their dirty jobs because the buildings have been structured in such a way that before an intruder or visitor got closer the insider might have noticed him or her already so that any suspicious character would be found out and denied access, except the perpetrator is from within.
Our security agencies need to liaise with social scientists to devise means of studying what is emerging as contract killings before they get out of hand. We need to rethink about these killings to save dear ones because Ghana needs each and every citizen to contribute their quota towards national development.
UNIQUE TRUST LOSES APPEAL
THE Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Unique Trust Financial Services Limited against a judgement of an Accra High Court that the company should pay ¢400 million to Ghatalia Limited for the wrongful sale of its goods.
The court, however, said instead of the ¢400 million which was due Ghatalia Limited, Unique Trust should pay ¢375.2 million and costs of ¢50 million with interest at the prevailing bank rate since July 22, 2005 and additional costs of ¢10 million.
The facts that led to the action at the High Court and the subsequent appeal were that Ghatalia imported assorted goods from Italy to Ghana for sale.
When the goods arrived at the Tema port, the company, due to financial constraints, was unable to clear the goods and, therefore, approached Unique Trust for a loan facility of ¢100 million on March 7, 2003.
The facility was to attract interest at the rate of nine per cent per month payable within 90 days and secured by the imported goods, which were kept in Unique Trust’s warehouse at Tema.
Ghatalia was able to pay ¢24.8 million and was unable to pay any extra money to Unique Trust until another company called West Coast Company Limited paid ¢25 million at the instance of Ghatalia to Unique Trust.
Subsequent to the payment of the ¢25 million on behalf of Ghatalia, the company could not make any further payment to Unique Trust.
Therefore, Unique Trust, without notice to Ghatalia, sold the remaining goods and offered no accounts or particulars of the sale to the company.
“Indeed, the quantity of the goods, their prices and date(s) of the sale were not supplied to the plaintiff (Ghatalia)”, said Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, who read the court’s unanimous decision.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey, with Mr Justice Osafo Sampong as the other member.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said aggrieved by the conduct of Unique Trust, Ghatalia commenced action at the High Court, while Unique Trust counter-claimed ¢252,511,997.26 being the payment of outstanding balance owed it.
He said according to Unique Trust, the amount realised from the sale of the assorted goods was only ¢50 million.
According to him, the trial judge entered judgement for Ghatalia on most of the reliefs sought and also entered judgement for Unique Trust for ¢255,511,997.29 but failed to award interest on it.
He said counsel for Unique Trust argued that by the terms of the loan agreement, Unique Trust had the power to sell the goods without reference to Ghatalia but that was ignored by the trial judge and in his opinion, the trial judge found unconvincing how a serious clause could be inserted in ink in the schedule of the agreement where the goods were described and not in the body of the agreement itself.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said another point raised by Unique Trust against the judgement was that the trial judge relied on an Authority Note to Stefano Pace to empower Unique Trust to sell the goods.
He said the trial judge was right when he questioned that the authority note did not give authority to Mr Pace to authorise Unique Trust to sell the goods on default as alleged because he did not understand why four of the directors of Ghatalia signed the authority note and Mr Pace could bypass the company’s representative in Ghana, Mr D.T. Darko, who, on record, executed the loan agreement, to authorise the sale of the goods.
On why the trial judge did not award interest in favour of Unique Trust, the judge said it was clear that it unilaterally abrogated the contract and proceeded to sell the goods illegally and it would be unconscionable under the circumstance for any court to award interest since there was no existing contract left for enforcement under the circumstance.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said since Ghatalia sold ¢24.8 million of the goods, it was wrong for the trial judge to have granted the company the entire amount of ¢400 million and, therefore, set aside that order and replaced it with ¢375.2 million.
The court, however, said instead of the ¢400 million which was due Ghatalia Limited, Unique Trust should pay ¢375.2 million and costs of ¢50 million with interest at the prevailing bank rate since July 22, 2005 and additional costs of ¢10 million.
The facts that led to the action at the High Court and the subsequent appeal were that Ghatalia imported assorted goods from Italy to Ghana for sale.
When the goods arrived at the Tema port, the company, due to financial constraints, was unable to clear the goods and, therefore, approached Unique Trust for a loan facility of ¢100 million on March 7, 2003.
The facility was to attract interest at the rate of nine per cent per month payable within 90 days and secured by the imported goods, which were kept in Unique Trust’s warehouse at Tema.
Ghatalia was able to pay ¢24.8 million and was unable to pay any extra money to Unique Trust until another company called West Coast Company Limited paid ¢25 million at the instance of Ghatalia to Unique Trust.
Subsequent to the payment of the ¢25 million on behalf of Ghatalia, the company could not make any further payment to Unique Trust.
Therefore, Unique Trust, without notice to Ghatalia, sold the remaining goods and offered no accounts or particulars of the sale to the company.
“Indeed, the quantity of the goods, their prices and date(s) of the sale were not supplied to the plaintiff (Ghatalia)”, said Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, who read the court’s unanimous decision.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice B. T. Aryeetey, with Mr Justice Osafo Sampong as the other member.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said aggrieved by the conduct of Unique Trust, Ghatalia commenced action at the High Court, while Unique Trust counter-claimed ¢252,511,997.26 being the payment of outstanding balance owed it.
He said according to Unique Trust, the amount realised from the sale of the assorted goods was only ¢50 million.
According to him, the trial judge entered judgement for Ghatalia on most of the reliefs sought and also entered judgement for Unique Trust for ¢255,511,997.29 but failed to award interest on it.
He said counsel for Unique Trust argued that by the terms of the loan agreement, Unique Trust had the power to sell the goods without reference to Ghatalia but that was ignored by the trial judge and in his opinion, the trial judge found unconvincing how a serious clause could be inserted in ink in the schedule of the agreement where the goods were described and not in the body of the agreement itself.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said another point raised by Unique Trust against the judgement was that the trial judge relied on an Authority Note to Stefano Pace to empower Unique Trust to sell the goods.
He said the trial judge was right when he questioned that the authority note did not give authority to Mr Pace to authorise Unique Trust to sell the goods on default as alleged because he did not understand why four of the directors of Ghatalia signed the authority note and Mr Pace could bypass the company’s representative in Ghana, Mr D.T. Darko, who, on record, executed the loan agreement, to authorise the sale of the goods.
On why the trial judge did not award interest in favour of Unique Trust, the judge said it was clear that it unilaterally abrogated the contract and proceeded to sell the goods illegally and it would be unconscionable under the circumstance for any court to award interest since there was no existing contract left for enforcement under the circumstance.
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said since Ghatalia sold ¢24.8 million of the goods, it was wrong for the trial judge to have granted the company the entire amount of ¢400 million and, therefore, set aside that order and replaced it with ¢375.2 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)