PUBLISHED ABOUT A WEEK AGO
The Meteorological Services Department has described the rainstorm that hit the northern parts of Accra and other areas of the country as a normal phenomenon, especially as the country moves away from the dry season.
Mr Amos Narh, a Senior Meteorologist told Daily Graphic that the occurrence was bound to happen in this transitional period of the year.
He said the rains also affected areas in the Eastern, Central and Western regions and Abetifi, for instance, recorded 46.1 mm, Asamankese 34.2 mm and Assin Fosu in the Central Region, 37.2 mm while Axim in the Western Region recorded the highest rainfall figure of 55.7 mm.
According to him, what happened was a local development, particularly over the high grounds and forest regions and it was an indication that the country was about to enter the rainy season.
He said more of what happened should be expected especially in the afternoons when the South Westerly winds become more stronger.
Mr Narh said that hilly areas should also expect the occurrence in the evenings and late afternoons.
He said the heavy rains that moved from the east to the west of the country would be experienced later in the year and there was the need to take precautionary measures to avoid the perennial floods in Accra.
The senior meteorologist said since parts of Accra got flooded in the peak of the rains, the drains and gutters should be desilted so that water ways would be free to enable rainwater to flow.
Friday, March 14, 2008
NATIONAL LOTTO AUTHORITY RESTRAINED BY COURT
AN Accra High Court today granted an interlocutory injunction filed by the Ghana Lotto Operators Association and six others to restrain the National Lottery Authority (NLA) from interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of those concerned.
However, according to the court, the order would be in force for one month during which the registrar of the court should take steps to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abadah said the order would elapse after the one month whether the matter had been referred to the highest court of the land or not .
According to the court, the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The plaintiffs including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter.”
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the National Lottery Authority to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the Director-General by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the National Lottery Authority to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role of the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conduct business for them or assist them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA in July advertised in the media about its establishment and said it was the only body that was mandated under the Act to operate lotto business in the country.
Plaintiffs contend that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons, who before Act 722 came into force had their own machine or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them as stipulated by Act 722 regarding the machines or equipment .
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA nor can the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
However, according to the court, the order would be in force for one month during which the registrar of the court should take steps to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abadah said the order would elapse after the one month whether the matter had been referred to the highest court of the land or not .
According to the court, the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The plaintiffs including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating business of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter.”
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the National Lottery Authority to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the Director-General by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the National Lottery Authority to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role of the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conduct business for them or assist them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA in July advertised in the media about its establishment and said it was the only body that was mandated under the Act to operate lotto business in the country.
Plaintiffs contend that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons, who before Act 722 came into force had their own machine or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them as stipulated by Act 722 regarding the machines or equipment .
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA nor can the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
JUDICIAL SERVICE INAUGURATES CLERKSHIP PROGRAMME
THE Judicial Service has inaugurated a clerkship programme to engage newly qualified lawyers to work with Justices of the Superior Courts.
The services that the Judicial Clerks would perform include legal research, drafting of memoranda, court opinions, proof reading and verification of references and citations.
The programme is being implemented by the Judicial Service in collaboration with the Faculties of Law of Fordham University in New York, USA and the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
The engagement is initially for one year and renewable depending on a number of conditions and factors.
It is based on the clerkship system in the US courts where the lawyers engaged were selected from the best graduates from the Law School.
For a start, four of such clerks were inaugurated into office in Accra yesterday and were each given a personal computer to work with.
In his inaugural address, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, a justice of the Supreme Court, urged the first batch of clerks to give their best in order to improve the quality of justice delivery in the superior courts.
The Judiciary, he noted, experimented with a similar programme in the 80s but could not be sustained for a number of reasons, among which was that the judges could not vouch for the confidentiality of the clerks.
Mr Justice Brobbey said following that the judges were not prepared to take risks with the new lawyers around them as far as leaking information on judgements before they were read publicly was concerned.
The services that the Judicial Clerks would perform include legal research, drafting of memoranda, court opinions, proof reading and verification of references and citations.
The programme is being implemented by the Judicial Service in collaboration with the Faculties of Law of Fordham University in New York, USA and the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
The engagement is initially for one year and renewable depending on a number of conditions and factors.
It is based on the clerkship system in the US courts where the lawyers engaged were selected from the best graduates from the Law School.
For a start, four of such clerks were inaugurated into office in Accra yesterday and were each given a personal computer to work with.
In his inaugural address, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, a justice of the Supreme Court, urged the first batch of clerks to give their best in order to improve the quality of justice delivery in the superior courts.
The Judiciary, he noted, experimented with a similar programme in the 80s but could not be sustained for a number of reasons, among which was that the judges could not vouch for the confidentiality of the clerks.
Mr Justice Brobbey said following that the judges were not prepared to take risks with the new lawyers around them as far as leaking information on judgements before they were read publicly was concerned.
MAN JAILED 25 YEARS FOR ABUSING DAUGHTER
A 36-year-old father of four, Joseph Adotey, who sexually abused his 11-year-old daughter and made her pregnant has been jailed 25 years by an Accra Circuit Court.
Medical reports indicated that the class five pupil tested positive for pregnancy but she had been bleeding following physical assault on her by the father.
A further test would be conducted by doctors today to find out whether there is a threat of miscarriage or not.
Adotey was arrested after his daughter had reported his conduct to a Good Samaritan who reported him to the Odorkor branch of the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service.
He admitted the offence but attributed it to the devil.
Adotey pleaded guilty to charges of incest, defilement and assault and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to 25 years to run concurrently.
The facts of the case are that Adotey lived with his four children at Darkuman Cable in Accra and last week, the victim reported to the Good Samaritan that her father had had sex with her for four times, the last, being on February 8, 2008.
When the girl went home she narrated what had transpired between her and the Good Samaritan to her other siblings who also informed their father about it.
According to the prosecution, Adotey did not take kindly to that and subjected the victim to severe physical assault and packed her personal belongings, threatening to burn them.
The Good Samaritan then reported Adotey to the police and he was arrested.
He told the court that he had a problem with his wife who had gone to her hometown, Gomoa Abofu in the Central Region.
The victim had been handed over to a responsible adult to take care of her.
Medical reports indicated that the class five pupil tested positive for pregnancy but she had been bleeding following physical assault on her by the father.
A further test would be conducted by doctors today to find out whether there is a threat of miscarriage or not.
Adotey was arrested after his daughter had reported his conduct to a Good Samaritan who reported him to the Odorkor branch of the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service.
He admitted the offence but attributed it to the devil.
Adotey pleaded guilty to charges of incest, defilement and assault and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to 25 years to run concurrently.
The facts of the case are that Adotey lived with his four children at Darkuman Cable in Accra and last week, the victim reported to the Good Samaritan that her father had had sex with her for four times, the last, being on February 8, 2008.
When the girl went home she narrated what had transpired between her and the Good Samaritan to her other siblings who also informed their father about it.
According to the prosecution, Adotey did not take kindly to that and subjected the victim to severe physical assault and packed her personal belongings, threatening to burn them.
The Good Samaritan then reported Adotey to the police and he was arrested.
He told the court that he had a problem with his wife who had gone to her hometown, Gomoa Abofu in the Central Region.
The victim had been handed over to a responsible adult to take care of her.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
SHIPPING MAGNATE'S SON CONVICTED
AFTER nine months in custody, Haleem Banda, a businessman was today sentenced to one years’ imprisonment and a fine of GH¢6,000 for threat of death and unlawful possession of arms and ammunition.
The Accra Fast Track High Court said the sentence is to take retrospective effect from June 12, 2007, when the 32-year-old managing director of a company in Tema and son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate was arrested.
The effect of the sentence is that if Banda is able to pay the fine, he would walk a free man, according to the prison calender.
The court convicted him on the two counts of possession of arms and ammunition and fined him 500 penalty units (GH¢12 per penalty unit) to run concurrently.
Banda was arrested for a nightclub brawl and faced two counts of threat of death and another two counts of possession of arms and ammunition without authority.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges but after the trial the court found him guilty on three of the counts and accordingly convicted him.
He was, however, acquitted and discharged on one count of threat of death.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge took into consideration the fact that Banda was not known to the law and offered him the opportunity to start his life afresh.
According to the prosecution, on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), a broadcaster, and Kiki Banson, a businessman, with death.
The suspect was said to have given KOD a heavy blow which sent him sprawling and threatened to kill him if he tried to get up.
On June 12, 2007, Banda was said to have in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
Regarding the first count of threat of death relating to KOD, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients in the particulars and the impression was that other people heard the gunshots fired by Banda while he was also seen with the pistol, which was later confiscated by the police.
That evidence, the court said, was at variance with what Banda said; that the pistol had been confiscated by the police about seven years earlier.
The court said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the second count of threat of death on Mr Banson did not match the particulars of that offence and was not credible enough.
It said the evidence relating to both counts of possession indicated that Banda possessed the arms and ammunition which had an expired permit.
Counsel for the convict, Mr Addo Atuah prayed the court to be lenient with his client because there was no evidence of any physical injury to any person in respect of the count of threat of death while he was also a first offender and a young man who had already spent nine months in custody.
The Accra Fast Track High Court said the sentence is to take retrospective effect from June 12, 2007, when the 32-year-old managing director of a company in Tema and son of Alhaji Asuma Banda, the shipping magnate was arrested.
The effect of the sentence is that if Banda is able to pay the fine, he would walk a free man, according to the prison calender.
The court convicted him on the two counts of possession of arms and ammunition and fined him 500 penalty units (GH¢12 per penalty unit) to run concurrently.
Banda was arrested for a nightclub brawl and faced two counts of threat of death and another two counts of possession of arms and ammunition without authority.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges but after the trial the court found him guilty on three of the counts and accordingly convicted him.
He was, however, acquitted and discharged on one count of threat of death.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge took into consideration the fact that Banda was not known to the law and offered him the opportunity to start his life afresh.
According to the prosecution, on June 10, 2007 at about 1:30 a.m., the accused person stormed the Cinderella Nightclub in Cantonments and threatened, Kofi Okyere Darko (KOD), a broadcaster, and Kiki Banson, a businessman, with death.
The suspect was said to have given KOD a heavy blow which sent him sprawling and threatened to kill him if he tried to get up.
On June 12, 2007, Banda was said to have in his possession four live pistol ammunition without authority while he also had in his possession a pump action gun with an expired licence.
Regarding the first count of threat of death relating to KOD, the court held that the prosecution was able to prove the ingredients in the particulars and the impression was that other people heard the gunshots fired by Banda while he was also seen with the pistol, which was later confiscated by the police.
That evidence, the court said, was at variance with what Banda said; that the pistol had been confiscated by the police about seven years earlier.
The court said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the second count of threat of death on Mr Banson did not match the particulars of that offence and was not credible enough.
It said the evidence relating to both counts of possession indicated that Banda possessed the arms and ammunition which had an expired permit.
Counsel for the convict, Mr Addo Atuah prayed the court to be lenient with his client because there was no evidence of any physical injury to any person in respect of the count of threat of death while he was also a first offender and a young man who had already spent nine months in custody.
BARCLAYS BANK MD IN COURT
THE Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Margaret Mwanakate and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Laureen Lokko, has appeared before the Accra Fast Track High Court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank following the pendency of a motion for injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
After hearing the arguments of lawyers of both parties, the court fixed April 16, 2008, to rule on the matter.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo, and Matthew Kotoku.
According to Mr Albert Adaare, counsel for the applicants, the respondents were in contempt of the court because they prevented the affected workers from going to work and violated provisions in their collective bargaining agreement that suspended employees shall continue to report to his or her nearest branch and during the period be paid their full salary.
He said that respondents were aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for the respondents, Mr Charles Hayibor, described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the applicants were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the applicants had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008, an assertion which was disproved by Mr Adaare that although the affected workers had been paid their January salaries they were paid for only 10 days in February.
The disagreement between the applicants and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the applicants in support of the motion for contempt said that on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective bargaining agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily was were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the applicants, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers as trade union leaders within the bank.
The applicants said that on February, 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said that the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner, were personally aware of the pendency of the application for injunction.
In spite of their knowledge, the applicants said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded and treated with disdain the application, which was a sacred process of the court.
The said that for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances, which they said the bank described as monthly salaries.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank following the pendency of a motion for injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
After hearing the arguments of lawyers of both parties, the court fixed April 16, 2008, to rule on the matter.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo, and Matthew Kotoku.
According to Mr Albert Adaare, counsel for the applicants, the respondents were in contempt of the court because they prevented the affected workers from going to work and violated provisions in their collective bargaining agreement that suspended employees shall continue to report to his or her nearest branch and during the period be paid their full salary.
He said that respondents were aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for the respondents, Mr Charles Hayibor, described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the applicants were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the applicants had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008, an assertion which was disproved by Mr Adaare that although the affected workers had been paid their January salaries they were paid for only 10 days in February.
The disagreement between the applicants and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the applicants in support of the motion for contempt said that on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective bargaining agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily was were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the applicants, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers as trade union leaders within the bank.
The applicants said that on February, 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said that the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner, were personally aware of the pendency of the application for injunction.
In spite of their knowledge, the applicants said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded and treated with disdain the application, which was a sacred process of the court.
The said that for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances, which they said the bank described as monthly salaries.
TOUR OPERATOR LIAISES WITH FOREIGN MINISTRY TO BRING BACK STRANDED PASSENGERS
SEASONS Travel and Tours (STT), the tour operator responsible for the 153 stranded passengers in Barbados, is liaising with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get them transit visas to return home via Europe.
The Manager of the company, Mr Eric Bannerman, said last Friday that the passengers included Nigerians, Jamaicans, Ghanaians and Canadians who were returning to their destinations and that the actual passengers who would return to Ghana were about 30.
He said the company was paying for their accommodation in decent guest houses while it awaited the arrangements with the Foreign Ministry.
Mr Bannerman was responding to questions on arrangements to bring back the passengers, especially when Ghana International Airlines Limited (GIA) had denied that the passengers were its passengers.
According to the airline, it did not have any contractual relationship with the passengers because the passengers bought their tickets from STT.
“GIA did not either directly or indirectly sell tickets to the passengers,” it said in reaction by its acting CEO, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, to protest about the headline of the story which portrayed the GIA as being responsible for the passengers.
The GIA said STT contracted the airline to transport its passengers to and from Barbados upon the payment of an agreed consideration fare (charter price) at seven days before each flight. The GIA under the agreement was to undertake two return flights to Barbados.
The first flight, according to GIA, left Accra on January 31, 2008 with 151 passengers and returned with no passengers to Accra on February 1, 2008 and STT paid the fixed portion of the charter price for that while the reimbursable expenses were yet to be paid by STT.
It said the second flight from Accra to Bridgetown was scheduled for February 15, 2008. However, STT had so far not been able to pay GIA the charter price.
The GIA said the problem had arisen because the Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport was demanding that STT repatriate the passengers who landed on February 1, 2008 before it would be allowed to bring in any more passengers.
It said STT insisted that it would run into huge financial loss if it did not put passengers on the aircraft that would fly from Accra to that country to bring the first group to Accra.
In view of the development, GIA said it offered to carry the passengers at an agreed fare on its schedule flight from London Gatwick to Accra if STT transported them from Bridgetown to London.
The GIA said that it was informed by STT that 19 of the 151 passengers were willing and ready to return to Accra and in pursuance of that GIA, upon a request from STT, wrote to the British High Commission in Bridgetown on February 22, 2008 confirming that seats had been reserved for all the 19 passengers on GIA flight from London to Accra on February 23, 2008.
But the visas were not issued because the British consulate needed additional documentation.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers were reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials said some of the passengers had officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Seasons Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” a government statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expect 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Seasons Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
The Manager of the company, Mr Eric Bannerman, said last Friday that the passengers included Nigerians, Jamaicans, Ghanaians and Canadians who were returning to their destinations and that the actual passengers who would return to Ghana were about 30.
He said the company was paying for their accommodation in decent guest houses while it awaited the arrangements with the Foreign Ministry.
Mr Bannerman was responding to questions on arrangements to bring back the passengers, especially when Ghana International Airlines Limited (GIA) had denied that the passengers were its passengers.
According to the airline, it did not have any contractual relationship with the passengers because the passengers bought their tickets from STT.
“GIA did not either directly or indirectly sell tickets to the passengers,” it said in reaction by its acting CEO, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, to protest about the headline of the story which portrayed the GIA as being responsible for the passengers.
The GIA said STT contracted the airline to transport its passengers to and from Barbados upon the payment of an agreed consideration fare (charter price) at seven days before each flight. The GIA under the agreement was to undertake two return flights to Barbados.
The first flight, according to GIA, left Accra on January 31, 2008 with 151 passengers and returned with no passengers to Accra on February 1, 2008 and STT paid the fixed portion of the charter price for that while the reimbursable expenses were yet to be paid by STT.
It said the second flight from Accra to Bridgetown was scheduled for February 15, 2008. However, STT had so far not been able to pay GIA the charter price.
The GIA said the problem had arisen because the Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport was demanding that STT repatriate the passengers who landed on February 1, 2008 before it would be allowed to bring in any more passengers.
It said STT insisted that it would run into huge financial loss if it did not put passengers on the aircraft that would fly from Accra to that country to bring the first group to Accra.
In view of the development, GIA said it offered to carry the passengers at an agreed fare on its schedule flight from London Gatwick to Accra if STT transported them from Bridgetown to London.
The GIA said that it was informed by STT that 19 of the 151 passengers were willing and ready to return to Accra and in pursuance of that GIA, upon a request from STT, wrote to the British High Commission in Bridgetown on February 22, 2008 confirming that seats had been reserved for all the 19 passengers on GIA flight from London to Accra on February 23, 2008.
But the visas were not issued because the British consulate needed additional documentation.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers were reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials said some of the passengers had officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Seasons Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” a government statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expect 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Seasons Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
SMART TURN OUT AT NATIONAL PARADE
A SMART turnout of schoolchildren and security agencies at the Independence Square in Accra yesterday climaxed the celebration of Ghana’s 51 years of independence.
The ceremony, which attracted a massive gathering of people from all walks of life, showcased military hardware and Ghanaian culture in dress and dance.
On show were armoured vehicles, multi-rocket launchers, jet fighters, Fokker 27 transport planes and police crowd control vehicles, among others.
Most of those who attended the ceremony were dressed in either kente, smock or white cloth as part of their show of patriotism and respect for the country.
At exactly 8.30 am, the President, dressed in a black suit over blue shirt with a multicoloured neck tie to match, and his wife Theresa emerged from the Ohene Djan Sports Stadium end of the square in his sleek black presidential Mercedes Benz.
His car was ushered in to the ceremonial grounds by a large motorcade and police personnel on beautifully decorated horses to add colour to the occasion, the last by President Kufuor, after what many have described as dedicated service to the nation.
Before his arrival, the Vice President, Alhaji Aliu Mahama, gorgeously dressed in his white ‘agbada’ with a black Muslim hat to match, and his wife Ramatu arrived to an abridged national salute by the mass band.
The President, on his arrival, immediately took the national salute and retired to his seat after exchanging pleasantries with some of the VVIP dignitaries, including The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Sakyi-Hughes, his wife, and the Chief Justice, Mrs Goergina Woode.
That set the tone for the commencement of proceedings for the simple but very colourful parade.
Traditional and Christian prayers were offered by pupils from the Osu Klottey sub-metropolis, while pupils from Ayawaso sub-metropolis also offered the Muslim prayers for peace and unity, a violence-free elections in the country and wisdom and vision for the nation’s leaders.
After that, President Kufuor, accompanied by the Inspector General of Police, Mr Patrick Kwarteng Acheampong, Chief of Defence Staff, Lt Gen J.B. Dankwa and the Ministers of the Interior and Defence, inspected the contingent and later lit the national flame at the Cenotaph for the unknown soldier.
A social dance of the Nzemas and the Ahantas from the Western Region, Kundum, was performed by pupils from the Chemuna and Sempe Junior High Schools in the Ablekuma sub-metropolis while pupils from the Labone SDA Preparatory School in Accra entertained the crowd to a splendid gymnastic activity in which the group wrote “51” and “So far so good”, probably to indicate Ghana’s achievement through the years.
A contingent of 45 officers and 900 other ranks drawn from the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Air Force, Navy, Police, Immigration Service, Ghana National Fire Service, Prisons Service and Customs Excise and Preventive Service, as well as the a Ghana Education Service (GES) contingent of 32 teachers and 480 schoolchildren. took part in the parade.
The GES contingent was made up of basic schools from Ablekuma North, Osu Klottey, 5 Garrison and Kpeshie sub-metropolis and two private schools, an HIV/AIDS awareness group and a special group from the Dzorwulu Special School.
The others were second cycle schools such as Accra High, Ebenezer Secondary School and Presbyterian Secondary School at La.
The Army cadet from Kinbu Secondary Technical, Navy Cadet from Labone Secondary School, Air Force cadet from Odorgonno Secondary School and Police cadet from Depot/Airport Basic School were also at the parade.
The parade was under the command of Brig Gen Austin Apogan-Yella and had the mass band of the central bands of the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Police, the Ghana Navy and the Ghana Air Force, as well as the GES Accra Metro School band providing music.
It was attended by people from all walks of life, including Ministers of State, Members of Parliament, traditional rulers, members of the Bar and the Bench, clergymen and politicians, and members of the Diplomatic Corps.
During the march past by the contingents, they formed a line to spell “Ayekoo”, meaning well done while the Ghana Armed Forces and Ghana Police Service displayed their might in working apparatus.
Some of the military equipment bore inscriptions such as” Ghana Armed Forces, Partners in development” and Ghana Armed Forces, Ensuring peace and stability”.
While the ceremony was on-going , the Ghana Armed Forces gave the crowd an added impetus of satisfaction when some helicopters and military aircraft simultaneously hovered past, spewing smoke of the national colours of red, gold and green.
At the same time, a Ghana Navy ship was sighted on the ocean doing some displays while the 21-gun salute also boomed in the background amidst cheers from the teeming crowd.
Before President Kufuor could deliver his last independence address, a student from the Armed Forces Secondary Technical performed a drum appellation, which was interpreted by a female student from the Labone Secondary School.
Some senior service commanders were presented with Ghana’s Golden Jubilee medals.
The ceremony, which attracted a massive gathering of people from all walks of life, showcased military hardware and Ghanaian culture in dress and dance.
On show were armoured vehicles, multi-rocket launchers, jet fighters, Fokker 27 transport planes and police crowd control vehicles, among others.
Most of those who attended the ceremony were dressed in either kente, smock or white cloth as part of their show of patriotism and respect for the country.
At exactly 8.30 am, the President, dressed in a black suit over blue shirt with a multicoloured neck tie to match, and his wife Theresa emerged from the Ohene Djan Sports Stadium end of the square in his sleek black presidential Mercedes Benz.
His car was ushered in to the ceremonial grounds by a large motorcade and police personnel on beautifully decorated horses to add colour to the occasion, the last by President Kufuor, after what many have described as dedicated service to the nation.
Before his arrival, the Vice President, Alhaji Aliu Mahama, gorgeously dressed in his white ‘agbada’ with a black Muslim hat to match, and his wife Ramatu arrived to an abridged national salute by the mass band.
The President, on his arrival, immediately took the national salute and retired to his seat after exchanging pleasantries with some of the VVIP dignitaries, including The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Sakyi-Hughes, his wife, and the Chief Justice, Mrs Goergina Woode.
That set the tone for the commencement of proceedings for the simple but very colourful parade.
Traditional and Christian prayers were offered by pupils from the Osu Klottey sub-metropolis, while pupils from Ayawaso sub-metropolis also offered the Muslim prayers for peace and unity, a violence-free elections in the country and wisdom and vision for the nation’s leaders.
After that, President Kufuor, accompanied by the Inspector General of Police, Mr Patrick Kwarteng Acheampong, Chief of Defence Staff, Lt Gen J.B. Dankwa and the Ministers of the Interior and Defence, inspected the contingent and later lit the national flame at the Cenotaph for the unknown soldier.
A social dance of the Nzemas and the Ahantas from the Western Region, Kundum, was performed by pupils from the Chemuna and Sempe Junior High Schools in the Ablekuma sub-metropolis while pupils from the Labone SDA Preparatory School in Accra entertained the crowd to a splendid gymnastic activity in which the group wrote “51” and “So far so good”, probably to indicate Ghana’s achievement through the years.
A contingent of 45 officers and 900 other ranks drawn from the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Air Force, Navy, Police, Immigration Service, Ghana National Fire Service, Prisons Service and Customs Excise and Preventive Service, as well as the a Ghana Education Service (GES) contingent of 32 teachers and 480 schoolchildren. took part in the parade.
The GES contingent was made up of basic schools from Ablekuma North, Osu Klottey, 5 Garrison and Kpeshie sub-metropolis and two private schools, an HIV/AIDS awareness group and a special group from the Dzorwulu Special School.
The others were second cycle schools such as Accra High, Ebenezer Secondary School and Presbyterian Secondary School at La.
The Army cadet from Kinbu Secondary Technical, Navy Cadet from Labone Secondary School, Air Force cadet from Odorgonno Secondary School and Police cadet from Depot/Airport Basic School were also at the parade.
The parade was under the command of Brig Gen Austin Apogan-Yella and had the mass band of the central bands of the Ghana Armed Forces, Ghana Police, the Ghana Navy and the Ghana Air Force, as well as the GES Accra Metro School band providing music.
It was attended by people from all walks of life, including Ministers of State, Members of Parliament, traditional rulers, members of the Bar and the Bench, clergymen and politicians, and members of the Diplomatic Corps.
During the march past by the contingents, they formed a line to spell “Ayekoo”, meaning well done while the Ghana Armed Forces and Ghana Police Service displayed their might in working apparatus.
Some of the military equipment bore inscriptions such as” Ghana Armed Forces, Partners in development” and Ghana Armed Forces, Ensuring peace and stability”.
While the ceremony was on-going , the Ghana Armed Forces gave the crowd an added impetus of satisfaction when some helicopters and military aircraft simultaneously hovered past, spewing smoke of the national colours of red, gold and green.
At the same time, a Ghana Navy ship was sighted on the ocean doing some displays while the 21-gun salute also boomed in the background amidst cheers from the teeming crowd.
Before President Kufuor could deliver his last independence address, a student from the Armed Forces Secondary Technical performed a drum appellation, which was interpreted by a female student from the Labone Secondary School.
Some senior service commanders were presented with Ghana’s Golden Jubilee medals.
COURT ISSUES WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PASTOR FOR DEFILEMENT
AN Accra circuit court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Pastor Nana Akwasi Agyeman who is accused of defiling eight girls under his care.
The court ignored pleas by counsel for Pastor Agyeman to stand the case down to enable them to provide evidence that the Man of God had been taken seriously ill and could not come to court.
Pastor Agyeman was alleged to have defiled the girls, aged between three and 12, between May and December 2006 at his St John’s residence near Dome in Accra.
The girls’ parents, who are all domiciled in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, were said to have arranged with the pastor to take care of the girls in Ghana.
Initially, the pastor faced eight counts of defilement and pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢50,000 with two sureties.
However, when the case was called yesterday, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in six of the counts, which unconfirmed information said would form the basis of a fresh trial at the Fast Track High Court.
According to the facts of the case, Pastor Agyeman was the pastor of the Shiva Linga Church based in Abidjan. He also runs a prayer centre in Accra, along with being a herbalist.
The complainants are either members of his church or became associated with the pastor through his prayer centre.
The prosecution said the accused person lived in both Abidjan and Accra and that while in Accra, he lived with a number of children who were brought from Abidjan to live with him.
Pastor Agyeman is alleged to have secretly had sexual intercourse with the eight girls in his bedroom and bathroom.
The prosecution said he was found out when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl who visited him from Abidjan in December 2006.
The girl said while she was on holidays in Accra, the accused person defiled her and she, therefore, reported the matter to her parents when she returned to Abidjan.
She was alleged to have also said that the accused person had defiled most of the girls under his care and when their parents called them on telephone to enquire, the allegation was confirmed to them.
When the accused person was confronted with the allegation, he denied it, but two other parents whose children were said to have fallen victim came to Ghana and reported the matter to the police.
When the victims were issued with medical forms to undergo medical examination, doctors confirmed that all the eight girls had been defiled.
The court ignored pleas by counsel for Pastor Agyeman to stand the case down to enable them to provide evidence that the Man of God had been taken seriously ill and could not come to court.
Pastor Agyeman was alleged to have defiled the girls, aged between three and 12, between May and December 2006 at his St John’s residence near Dome in Accra.
The girls’ parents, who are all domiciled in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire, were said to have arranged with the pastor to take care of the girls in Ghana.
Initially, the pastor faced eight counts of defilement and pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢50,000 with two sureties.
However, when the case was called yesterday, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in six of the counts, which unconfirmed information said would form the basis of a fresh trial at the Fast Track High Court.
According to the facts of the case, Pastor Agyeman was the pastor of the Shiva Linga Church based in Abidjan. He also runs a prayer centre in Accra, along with being a herbalist.
The complainants are either members of his church or became associated with the pastor through his prayer centre.
The prosecution said the accused person lived in both Abidjan and Accra and that while in Accra, he lived with a number of children who were brought from Abidjan to live with him.
Pastor Agyeman is alleged to have secretly had sexual intercourse with the eight girls in his bedroom and bathroom.
The prosecution said he was found out when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl who visited him from Abidjan in December 2006.
The girl said while she was on holidays in Accra, the accused person defiled her and she, therefore, reported the matter to her parents when she returned to Abidjan.
She was alleged to have also said that the accused person had defiled most of the girls under his care and when their parents called them on telephone to enquire, the allegation was confirmed to them.
When the accused person was confronted with the allegation, he denied it, but two other parents whose children were said to have fallen victim came to Ghana and reported the matter to the police.
When the victims were issued with medical forms to undergo medical examination, doctors confirmed that all the eight girls had been defiled.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
AYIETA FAMILY TO SETTLE CASE OUT OF COURT
The Court of Appeal has granted leave to the Ayieta family of the Builsa Traditional Area to attempt an out of court settlement in the case involving Robert Atong Abekabta and others on one side and Alexis Tampuri Azantilow and others.
Consequently, the court has adjourned the matter sine die and urged the parties to file the terms of settlement within 30 days beginning February 25, 2008.
Mr Justice B.T Aryeetey, presided, with Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban and Mr Justice R.K. Apaloo as the members.
The background of the case was that following the death of Nab Dr Azantilow Ayieta, paramount Chief of the Builsa Traditional Area on November 14, 2006, his biological children decided to put the body in a public mortuary in Bolgatanga.
That action was not acceptable to the rest of the Ayieta family who felt that was contrary to their customary practice.
The aggrieved family members allegedly broke into the mortuary to remove the corpse amidst fanfare, drumming and other activities.
After that they allegedly held an “adua” a Muslim rituals performed after 40 days of the death of an icon of tradition.
The rest of the family instituted an action against the biological children to restrain them from breaking tradition and also involve the nine constituents of the Ayieta family in the performance of the burial and funeral of the late Nab Azantilow.
The High Court declined jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that it affected chieftaincy.
Not satisfied with that position, the plaintiffs instituted the instant action at the Court of Appeal, which had urged the family to settle the matter out of court.
Consequently, the court has adjourned the matter sine die and urged the parties to file the terms of settlement within 30 days beginning February 25, 2008.
Mr Justice B.T Aryeetey, presided, with Mrs Justice Henrietta Abban and Mr Justice R.K. Apaloo as the members.
The background of the case was that following the death of Nab Dr Azantilow Ayieta, paramount Chief of the Builsa Traditional Area on November 14, 2006, his biological children decided to put the body in a public mortuary in Bolgatanga.
That action was not acceptable to the rest of the Ayieta family who felt that was contrary to their customary practice.
The aggrieved family members allegedly broke into the mortuary to remove the corpse amidst fanfare, drumming and other activities.
After that they allegedly held an “adua” a Muslim rituals performed after 40 days of the death of an icon of tradition.
The rest of the family instituted an action against the biological children to restrain them from breaking tradition and also involve the nine constituents of the Ayieta family in the performance of the burial and funeral of the late Nab Azantilow.
The High Court declined jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that it affected chieftaincy.
Not satisfied with that position, the plaintiffs instituted the instant action at the Court of Appeal, which had urged the family to settle the matter out of court.
CHINESE EMBASSY DONATES COMPUTERS TO JUDICIAL SERVICE
THE Chinese Embassy in Accra has donated eight Dell computers and accessories to the Judicial Service at a short ceremony at the Supreme Court buildings in Accra.
The Political Counsellor and Deputy Head of the Embassy, Mr Wang Lushan, presented the computers to Mr Justice William Atuguba, Justice of the Supreme Court, who received them on behalf of Her Ladyship, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood.
Mr Wang was hopeful that the computers would help to increase the efficiency of work in the Judicial Service.
He said that the presentation was part of the total effort of the Chinese government’s effort to support Ghana’s development process.
Mr Justice Atuguba thanked the government and people of China and said the presentation would enhance the establishment of healthy co-operation between Ghana and China at the judiciary level.
The Political Counsellor and Deputy Head of the Embassy, Mr Wang Lushan, presented the computers to Mr Justice William Atuguba, Justice of the Supreme Court, who received them on behalf of Her Ladyship, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood.
Mr Wang was hopeful that the computers would help to increase the efficiency of work in the Judicial Service.
He said that the presentation was part of the total effort of the Chinese government’s effort to support Ghana’s development process.
Mr Justice Atuguba thanked the government and people of China and said the presentation would enhance the establishment of healthy co-operation between Ghana and China at the judiciary level.
GHANAIAN PASSENGERS STRANDED
ONE hundred and fifty three passengers, made up of Ghanaians and some Nigerians, are stranded in Barbados after arriving on the island aboard a Ghana International Airlines (GIA) charter flight from Accra.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers are reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials say some of the passengers have officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
Reacting to the situation, the GIA said it was contracted by Season’s Travel and Tours, a company certified by the Ghana Tourists Board to permit a charter tour operation, to airlift the passengers to the Caribbean island on February 1, 2008 and that its services were paid for.
The tour operator had defaulted in paying for the return flight, especially when the government of that country required the GIA to fly empty to that country, a situation which could not be borne by the operator since it entailed extra cost, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, the acting Chief Executive Officer of the GIA, told the Daily Graphic in a telephone interview.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
A statement reportedly issued on the stranded passengers said the Ghanaians were among those who, on February 1, 2008, visited that country for a two-week stay, adding that as a result of the breakdown of private tour arrangements, the government had intervened and was actively seeking ways to facilitate their repatriation.
The visit, it noted, was organised through a private sector arrangement by the Ghanaian tour company, using a Barbadian counterpart as ground handler.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Season’s Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” the statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said, it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expected 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Season’s Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Ms Annan-Myers told the Daily Graphic that Season’s Travels and Tours contracted the GIA to lift the passengers to Barbados and that, after paying for the outward flight, the return flight had not been paid for.
According to her, the arrangement was that the tour operators were to pay the return flight seven days before February 15, 2008 and when their attention was drawn to that, the operators replied that the Barbados government wanted the GIA to send an empty flight to bring back the passengers. She said that entailed a heavy cost which the company could not bear.
Ms Annan-Myers said the GIA was ever ready and on standby when Season’s Travels were ready and that the airline had even offered to send the passengers to London from where it could bring them to Ghana.
After two postponements of the return flight on February 15 and February 29, 2008, the passengers are reported to have run out of money and many of them have resorted to working illegally as labourers.
Barbados government officials say some of the passengers have officially requested for work permits to allow them to support themselves while in that country.
Reacting to the situation, the GIA said it was contracted by Season’s Travel and Tours, a company certified by the Ghana Tourists Board to permit a charter tour operation, to airlift the passengers to the Caribbean island on February 1, 2008 and that its services were paid for.
The tour operator had defaulted in paying for the return flight, especially when the government of that country required the GIA to fly empty to that country, a situation which could not be borne by the operator since it entailed extra cost, Ms Gifty Annan-Myers, the acting Chief Executive Officer of the GIA, told the Daily Graphic in a telephone interview.
The Barbados Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport has stated that it is doing everything to ensure that the stranded passengers return home successfully.
A statement reportedly issued on the stranded passengers said the Ghanaians were among those who, on February 1, 2008, visited that country for a two-week stay, adding that as a result of the breakdown of private tour arrangements, the government had intervened and was actively seeking ways to facilitate their repatriation.
The visit, it noted, was organised through a private sector arrangement by the Ghanaian tour company, using a Barbadian counterpart as ground handler.
“The first indication received by the Ministry of Transport, Works and International Transport of any intention to operate a direct charter service from Ghana to Barbados was an e-mail application dated January 17, 2008 from the GIA, in association with Season’s Travel and Tours, to permit a charter tour operation into Barbados on January 20, 2008 and depart the next day,” the statement said.
Having received the application, the ministry said, it queried the actual period of the tour, since no return date had been given, but on January 28, 2008, a revised application was received from the GIA, stating in part that the revised dates were now January 31, 2008, with a subsequent service on February 15 to return passengers.
It said on January 29, 2008, the GIA advised the ministry that it should expected 160 passengers in Barbados on January 31, 2008, out of which 40 would be proceeding to other Caribbean countries via alternative arrangements.
The remaining 120 were to return to Ghana on the flight on February 15, 2008.
Based on the arrangement and exchanges, a permit for the charter was issued to the GIA and, according to immigration documents, 153 passengers were landed in Barbados from the GIA flight, including those going to other Caribbean countries.
The Barbados government said the local ground handling agency for Season’s Travel and Tours had been very proactive in efforts to repatriate the passengers, while it was taking urgent steps, through Ghana’s High Commission, towards the speedy repatriation of the stranded passengers.
Ms Annan-Myers told the Daily Graphic that Season’s Travels and Tours contracted the GIA to lift the passengers to Barbados and that, after paying for the outward flight, the return flight had not been paid for.
According to her, the arrangement was that the tour operators were to pay the return flight seven days before February 15, 2008 and when their attention was drawn to that, the operators replied that the Barbados government wanted the GIA to send an empty flight to bring back the passengers. She said that entailed a heavy cost which the company could not bear.
Ms Annan-Myers said the GIA was ever ready and on standby when Season’s Travels were ready and that the airline had even offered to send the passengers to London from where it could bring them to Ghana.
NINE NIGERIANS JAILED 5 YEARS FOR 419 FRAUD
NINE people who faked various documents, including the letterheads of the Office of The President, and used them to defraud a number of victims in Accra have each been jailed five years by an Accra circuit court.
The nine, all Nigerians and believed to belong to an advanced fee fraud (419) syndicate, also forged documents belonging to National Security, the Ministry of Defence, the Ghana Police Service, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Bank of Ghana, among others.
They include Victor Okechuku Okoye Ibuze, who is at large and was sentenced in absentia, and Ibrahim Mato, alias Edward Mensah.
The rest are Benson Nnadi, Budy Sampson, Raymond Popson, Ashanor Wright Waheed, Adeotan Oluwafemi Adenyi, Abolade Oluwaseyi Toyosi and Ekpemadu Chuku Andy.
They were convicted and sentenced to five years each on one count of conspiracy and another count of possessing forged documents, while Mato was further convicted and sentenced to 18 months on another count of forgery of passport.
All the counts are to run concurrently.
According to the facts of the case, the nine lived at Achimota in Accra and described themselves variously as businessmen, traders, computer engineers and technicians.
The prosecution said the group operated an Internet cafe at Achimota from where the convicts prepared forged documents to convince their victims that huge sums of money had been deposited in some banks in Ghana for them, for which the victims had to make payments in dollars as deposits.
Through their modus operandi, the prosecution said, the convicts convinced a French national that he had $8.5 million bequeathed to him at the Kokomlemle Branch of the SG-SSB Bank and that he had to pay 185,000 Euro for its release.
The prosecution said through some fraudulent correspondence with the forged documents, the syndicate managed to invite their victim to Ghana on May 25, 2005 and collected 35,000 Euro as part payment for the 185,000 Euro charge.
After that transaction, the victim was asked to go back to France, where he discussed the issue with a Ghanaian to whom he showed the forged documents.
The Ghanaian told the victim that all the documents had been forged and, therefore, he should report the matter to the Ghana Police, which he did.
Therefore, when the syndicate invited the victim to Ghana again on August 16, 2005, its members were arrested by the police when they went to pick him from the airport.
Upon their arrest and subsequent search, the forged documents and other items, including computers, were seized.
The nine, all Nigerians and believed to belong to an advanced fee fraud (419) syndicate, also forged documents belonging to National Security, the Ministry of Defence, the Ghana Police Service, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Bank of Ghana, among others.
They include Victor Okechuku Okoye Ibuze, who is at large and was sentenced in absentia, and Ibrahim Mato, alias Edward Mensah.
The rest are Benson Nnadi, Budy Sampson, Raymond Popson, Ashanor Wright Waheed, Adeotan Oluwafemi Adenyi, Abolade Oluwaseyi Toyosi and Ekpemadu Chuku Andy.
They were convicted and sentenced to five years each on one count of conspiracy and another count of possessing forged documents, while Mato was further convicted and sentenced to 18 months on another count of forgery of passport.
All the counts are to run concurrently.
According to the facts of the case, the nine lived at Achimota in Accra and described themselves variously as businessmen, traders, computer engineers and technicians.
The prosecution said the group operated an Internet cafe at Achimota from where the convicts prepared forged documents to convince their victims that huge sums of money had been deposited in some banks in Ghana for them, for which the victims had to make payments in dollars as deposits.
Through their modus operandi, the prosecution said, the convicts convinced a French national that he had $8.5 million bequeathed to him at the Kokomlemle Branch of the SG-SSB Bank and that he had to pay 185,000 Euro for its release.
The prosecution said through some fraudulent correspondence with the forged documents, the syndicate managed to invite their victim to Ghana on May 25, 2005 and collected 35,000 Euro as part payment for the 185,000 Euro charge.
After that transaction, the victim was asked to go back to France, where he discussed the issue with a Ghanaian to whom he showed the forged documents.
The Ghanaian told the victim that all the documents had been forged and, therefore, he should report the matter to the Ghana Police, which he did.
Therefore, when the syndicate invited the victim to Ghana again on August 16, 2005, its members were arrested by the police when they went to pick him from the airport.
Upon their arrest and subsequent search, the forged documents and other items, including computers, were seized.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER JAILED 8 YRS
AN Accra circuit court has sentenced Kwaku Owusu Bempah, 51, and the Chief Executive Officer of Temecular Investments Ltd to eight years’ imprisonment for stealing $100,982 belonging to the Adabraka branch of Merchant Bank.
The convict pleaded not guilty to the charge but after the hearing the court found him guilty, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.
Two others, Kwaku Gyamfi and Abena Gyimah, who were at large during the trial were, however, discharged because according to the court, they were exonerated by the convict who admitted in his evidence that he signed all the cheques to steal the money.
The facts of the case were that on March 1, 2006, the three persons presented documents to the Adabraka branch of the bank as business partners who wanted to open foreign accounts.
Consequently, the opened the accounts with a $100,982 cheque from the Citibank in New York in the name of Temecular Investments Ltd with Bempah as the sole signatory.
According to the prosecution, on March 29, 2006, Bempah began to withdraw money from the accounts and by July 31, 2006, he had exhausted money in the accounts.
However, on December 26, m2006, the bank received a fax message from Citibank in New York that the cheque, which was presented by Bempah was stolen.
It was found out that Bempah and his accomplices altered it to bear their company’s name.
Following that Merchant Bank was being compelled to pay the money to Citibank as Citibank had credited the Merchant Bank accounts.
When the case was reported to the police Bempah admitted the offence in his caution statement and stated that the cheque was brought by his two accomplices.
The cheque was originally issued in the name of Northrop Grumman Company but Bempah and his accomplices managed to lay hands on it and altered the same to read their company’s name.
The convict pleaded not guilty to the charge but after the hearing the court found him guilty, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.
Two others, Kwaku Gyamfi and Abena Gyimah, who were at large during the trial were, however, discharged because according to the court, they were exonerated by the convict who admitted in his evidence that he signed all the cheques to steal the money.
The facts of the case were that on March 1, 2006, the three persons presented documents to the Adabraka branch of the bank as business partners who wanted to open foreign accounts.
Consequently, the opened the accounts with a $100,982 cheque from the Citibank in New York in the name of Temecular Investments Ltd with Bempah as the sole signatory.
According to the prosecution, on March 29, 2006, Bempah began to withdraw money from the accounts and by July 31, 2006, he had exhausted money in the accounts.
However, on December 26, m2006, the bank received a fax message from Citibank in New York that the cheque, which was presented by Bempah was stolen.
It was found out that Bempah and his accomplices altered it to bear their company’s name.
Following that Merchant Bank was being compelled to pay the money to Citibank as Citibank had credited the Merchant Bank accounts.
When the case was reported to the police Bempah admitted the offence in his caution statement and stated that the cheque was brought by his two accomplices.
The cheque was originally issued in the name of Northrop Grumman Company but Bempah and his accomplices managed to lay hands on it and altered the same to read their company’s name.
THOMAS OSEI TESTED POSTIVE FOR COCAINE
A MEDICAL officer with the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), Dr Nana Okae Brako, yesterday affirmed that Thomas Osei, the man who ran his car into the President's car last year, tested positive for cocaine because traces of the substance were found in his urine sample.
According to him, Osei was tested for the abuse of 11 substances but the Medlab Laboratories, which conducted the examination, had the facility to test for nine of the substances, including cocaine, the quantity of which could not be determined.
He said when he diagnosed Osei, he did not think that Osei would test positive for cocaine or end up being prosecuted and that he did his job as a medical officer.
Dr Brako said Osei was not handed to him for any drug test but that on examining him, he realised the need to do a test for substance abuse because of the manifestation of tremors in Osei’s demeanour.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, Dr Brako said when Osei was handed over to him, he (Osei) did not pose any danger to people.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako said after Osei had been treated at the 37 Military Hospital, he was discharged because he was fit but he (Dr Brako) requested to do a test to confirm his suspicion because of Osei’s manifestation of withdrawal syndrome.
He explained that tremors could be caused by problems relating to the central nervous system, anxiety, anxiety and other manifestations and that a man who had been involved in an accident was likely to suffer those manifestations.
Asked why he did not take Osei to the premises of Medlab to take his urine sample, the witness replied that that was not possible because Osei’s condition at the time was not the best, while he was also taken home.
Dr Brako said when he submitted the urine sample to Medlab, he labelled it, although Osei did not acknowledge in writing that it was his urine sample.
He agreed with counsel that if care was not taken, a sample could be adulterated, but disagreed that it would be difficult to connect the sample with its result if it was improperly labelled.
He said the choice of Medlab Laboratories over the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) was influenced by the proximity of the place and stated that in terms of experience, he graded both facilities equally.
According to him, Osei was tested for the abuse of 11 substances but the Medlab Laboratories, which conducted the examination, had the facility to test for nine of the substances, including cocaine, the quantity of which could not be determined.
He said when he diagnosed Osei, he did not think that Osei would test positive for cocaine or end up being prosecuted and that he did his job as a medical officer.
Dr Brako said Osei was not handed to him for any drug test but that on examining him, he realised the need to do a test for substance abuse because of the manifestation of tremors in Osei’s demeanour.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, Dr Brako said when Osei was handed over to him, he (Osei) did not pose any danger to people.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako said after Osei had been treated at the 37 Military Hospital, he was discharged because he was fit but he (Dr Brako) requested to do a test to confirm his suspicion because of Osei’s manifestation of withdrawal syndrome.
He explained that tremors could be caused by problems relating to the central nervous system, anxiety, anxiety and other manifestations and that a man who had been involved in an accident was likely to suffer those manifestations.
Asked why he did not take Osei to the premises of Medlab to take his urine sample, the witness replied that that was not possible because Osei’s condition at the time was not the best, while he was also taken home.
Dr Brako said when he submitted the urine sample to Medlab, he labelled it, although Osei did not acknowledge in writing that it was his urine sample.
He agreed with counsel that if care was not taken, a sample could be adulterated, but disagreed that it would be difficult to connect the sample with its result if it was improperly labelled.
He said the choice of Medlab Laboratories over the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) was influenced by the proximity of the place and stated that in terms of experience, he graded both facilities equally.
SUPREME COURT ADJOURNS ELECTORAL COMMISSION CASE
THE Supreme Court has adjourned sine die the case in which three persons are challenging the duties of the Electoral Commission (EC) with respect to the manner in which the 2004 presidential elections were gazetted.
According to the court, there was no proof that the EC had been served with the necessary documents to enable it to react appropriately to the issues raised.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court for judicial interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, after it had granted a motion filed by counsel for the EC following a request made by the Supreme Court in its ruling of May 24, 2007.
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that the issues raised in the writ clearly required judicial interpretation and thereby urged the trial court to stay proceedings for immediate referral of the case for consideration.
The writ was issued against the EC by the three persons who are activists of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to challenge the way the 2004 general election and the presidential results were gazetted.
The plaintiffs, namely, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu and Kofi Portuphy, are seeking an order of the court to restrain the EC and its agents from destroying the said documents and materials, pending the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that at the time the Chairman of the EC declared the incumbent President winner of the presidential poll, it did not base its declaration on the total results from 230 constituencies of the country, since those from 225 constituencies were used.
According to them, the EC held a press conference and, basing its declarations on total results from 225 out of the 230 constituencies, declared the incumbent President winner of the poll.
Plaintiffs maintained that the results at the time should have been declared as provisional until all results from the 230 constituencies had been collated, stating, “Up to the date of instituting the present suit, the defendant has not declared the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004.”
Plaintiffs said the collation and declaration of election results in a transparent manner and on time formed an integral part of the constitutional duty of the defendant, which was mandated under the laws of the country to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda in Ghana.
Counsel for the EC, Mr Osei Aduama, had argued that the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional interpretation would prevail on whatever interpretation was given in the past.
According to him, the publication of constituency-to-constituency declaration of results in the gazette in respect of the presidential election, as requested by the plaintiffs, was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC fully discharged its constitutional duty with the publication of the Declaration of Presidential Election Instrument 2004.
The trial court, on February 14, 2006, ruled against the EC, indicating that it would deal with the case on its own merit before transferring any issue that required interpretation to the Supreme Court, after counsel for the EC had requested that the issue be transferred for interpretation.
That followed a motion filed by the EC seeking the postponement of proceedings at the FTC to enable the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision on the issue of gazetting general elections in the country that had been the subject of contention but it was refused by the trial High Court.
According to the court, there was no proof that the EC had been served with the necessary documents to enable it to react appropriately to the issues raised.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court for judicial interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, after it had granted a motion filed by counsel for the EC following a request made by the Supreme Court in its ruling of May 24, 2007.
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that the issues raised in the writ clearly required judicial interpretation and thereby urged the trial court to stay proceedings for immediate referral of the case for consideration.
The writ was issued against the EC by the three persons who are activists of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to challenge the way the 2004 general election and the presidential results were gazetted.
The plaintiffs, namely, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu and Kofi Portuphy, are seeking an order of the court to restrain the EC and its agents from destroying the said documents and materials, pending the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that at the time the Chairman of the EC declared the incumbent President winner of the presidential poll, it did not base its declaration on the total results from 230 constituencies of the country, since those from 225 constituencies were used.
According to them, the EC held a press conference and, basing its declarations on total results from 225 out of the 230 constituencies, declared the incumbent President winner of the poll.
Plaintiffs maintained that the results at the time should have been declared as provisional until all results from the 230 constituencies had been collated, stating, “Up to the date of instituting the present suit, the defendant has not declared the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004.”
Plaintiffs said the collation and declaration of election results in a transparent manner and on time formed an integral part of the constitutional duty of the defendant, which was mandated under the laws of the country to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda in Ghana.
Counsel for the EC, Mr Osei Aduama, had argued that the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional interpretation would prevail on whatever interpretation was given in the past.
According to him, the publication of constituency-to-constituency declaration of results in the gazette in respect of the presidential election, as requested by the plaintiffs, was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC fully discharged its constitutional duty with the publication of the Declaration of Presidential Election Instrument 2004.
The trial court, on February 14, 2006, ruled against the EC, indicating that it would deal with the case on its own merit before transferring any issue that required interpretation to the Supreme Court, after counsel for the EC had requested that the issue be transferred for interpretation.
That followed a motion filed by the EC seeking the postponement of proceedings at the FTC to enable the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision on the issue of gazetting general elections in the country that had been the subject of contention but it was refused by the trial High Court.
CJA THROWN OUT OF COURT AGAIN
FOR the second time in a week, the Accra Fast-Track High Court has thrown out the Committee for Joint Action’s (CJA) motion on notice for interim injunction seeking to restrain the government and three television stations from the use of video footage of the committee’s demonstrations.
According to the court, since the substantive issue had been struck out, there was no basis upon which the CJA could come before it to move for the interim injunction motion, moreso, when the instant motion was not before it.
There was no order as to costs, but Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta implored the CJA to do the right thing in having the case re-listed if it intended to have it heard.
He expressed the hope that by the time the case was re-listed, the initial costs of GH ¢150 which were awarded in favour of each of the respondents should be paid by the organisation.
The judge, after explaining the circumstances that led to the case to be struck out of the court, expressed concern about issues raised by counsel on radio, saying the case was as important as any other case, and he was not happy about the comments.
Mr Ayariga apologised and said he would advise the CJA members to be guarded in their utterances on the matter.
Mr Ayariga noted that it was not a true reflection of the records that the motion was not before the court since it was filed before the date was given for the hearing in the substantive matter.
Last Monday, the court, for want of prosecution, struck out the CJA’s motion that sought, among others, an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
On that day, the Attorney-General, the solicitor of the government, was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful, while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was also represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Counsel for GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel, prayed the court to strike out the matter, in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present, but after some time, there was still no representation for the CJA, and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
However, immediately after that counsel for the organisation filed another motion to seek an order to restrain the respondents from the continued use of its video footage.
When the matter came before the court, Mr Mahama Ayariga, counsel for the CJA, apologised to the court for his inability to appear before it on February 18, 2008, for the hearing of the substantive application.
According to the CJA, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against, violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson for the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group had organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a talk tax on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements, certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false and misleading, and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
According to the court, since the substantive issue had been struck out, there was no basis upon which the CJA could come before it to move for the interim injunction motion, moreso, when the instant motion was not before it.
There was no order as to costs, but Mr Justice K.A. Ofori-Atta implored the CJA to do the right thing in having the case re-listed if it intended to have it heard.
He expressed the hope that by the time the case was re-listed, the initial costs of GH ¢150 which were awarded in favour of each of the respondents should be paid by the organisation.
The judge, after explaining the circumstances that led to the case to be struck out of the court, expressed concern about issues raised by counsel on radio, saying the case was as important as any other case, and he was not happy about the comments.
Mr Ayariga apologised and said he would advise the CJA members to be guarded in their utterances on the matter.
Mr Ayariga noted that it was not a true reflection of the records that the motion was not before the court since it was filed before the date was given for the hearing in the substantive matter.
Last Monday, the court, for want of prosecution, struck out the CJA’s motion that sought, among others, an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
On that day, the Attorney-General, the solicitor of the government, was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful, while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was also represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Counsel for GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel, prayed the court to strike out the matter, in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present, but after some time, there was still no representation for the CJA, and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
However, immediately after that counsel for the organisation filed another motion to seek an order to restrain the respondents from the continued use of its video footage.
When the matter came before the court, Mr Mahama Ayariga, counsel for the CJA, apologised to the court for his inability to appear before it on February 18, 2008, for the hearing of the substantive application.
According to the CJA, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against, violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson for the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group had organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a talk tax on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements, certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false and misleading, and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
OSEI WAS TESTED FOR COCAINE BECAUSE OF HIS DEMEANOUR--DR TELLS COURT
A MEDICAL officer with the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) stated that Thomas Osei, the man who ran his car into the President's car last year, was tested for substance abuse because of his demeanour after the incident.
According to Dr Nana Okae Brako, Osei was at the time very confused, nervous and talking to himself, saying “why me, why me”, and for that reason he was tested to either confirm that suspicion or otherwise.
Dr Brako said that Osei’s demeanour after the accident made him (Dr Brako) to become suspicious, since Osei had a little tremor (showing signs of trembling ) and not of himself.
He was testifying as a prosecution witness.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako told the court that on the day of the accident, he was called by the director of BNI to assist in a bleeding case and when he got there he saw Osei seated and bleeding from the left side of his eye and smelling of alcohol.
He said Osei was taken to the 37 Military Hospital where a certain Dr Gyan who was on duty at the time treated Osei after thoroughly examining him.
Dr Brako said because Osei was smelling of alcohol, he was voluntarily tested and 0.41 per cent of alcohol was found in Osei’s breath.
“Medically, around that time he was very confused and talking to himself saying ‘why me, why me’,” he said, and stated that the next day he followed up to see whether Osei was still in that state and realised that the condition of Osei was that of a withdrawal syndrome.
According to the witness, that could be the result of either the alcohol that Osei took or any substance abuse, therefore, he informed the BNI director that he wanted to test Osei for abusive substances because of his behaviour.
He said he asked for introductory letters which were taken to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) and Medlab laboratories after he had taken blood samples from Osei for toxicology.
However, Dr Brako said when he got to Medlab, he was informed that the test he had required needed urine sample and not a blood sample, which made him to call back the BNI director for approval.
He said he also enquired where he could locate Osei and he was taken to the house of Osei from where the urine sample was taken and sent to the Medlab laboratory where it was confirmed Osei tested positive for cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, the witness said Osei told him that the cut he sustained above his left eye was as a result of assault by some officials after the accident.
Asked whether he took the temperature of the urine sample, Dr Brako replied in the negative and stated that he was aware that the urine temperature determined whether it was old or new urine.
He disagreed that in the absence of a temperature it would be difficult to say whether the urine sample belonged to Osei or not.
Dr Brako reiterated that the substance abuse test was done to confirm the suspicion that Osei was either nervous or had abused some substances.
According to him, after taking the urine sample, he put it in his own car and drove to the Medlab laboratory while Osei sat in another car but he (the doctor) did not tamper with it in anyway.
He said the content of cocaine found in the urine sample could not be quantified because the test was qualitative and agreed with counsel that there had been occasions that people had laced Akpeteshie with some substances such as Indian Hemp to sell as bitters.
The witness, however, said he was unaware that when cocaine was taken and a test was conducted on the user the result would be anything else but same cocaine.
According to Dr Nana Okae Brako, Osei was at the time very confused, nervous and talking to himself, saying “why me, why me”, and for that reason he was tested to either confirm that suspicion or otherwise.
Dr Brako said that Osei’s demeanour after the accident made him (Dr Brako) to become suspicious, since Osei had a little tremor (showing signs of trembling ) and not of himself.
He was testifying as a prosecution witness.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who, was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Dr Brako told the court that on the day of the accident, he was called by the director of BNI to assist in a bleeding case and when he got there he saw Osei seated and bleeding from the left side of his eye and smelling of alcohol.
He said Osei was taken to the 37 Military Hospital where a certain Dr Gyan who was on duty at the time treated Osei after thoroughly examining him.
Dr Brako said because Osei was smelling of alcohol, he was voluntarily tested and 0.41 per cent of alcohol was found in Osei’s breath.
“Medically, around that time he was very confused and talking to himself saying ‘why me, why me’,” he said, and stated that the next day he followed up to see whether Osei was still in that state and realised that the condition of Osei was that of a withdrawal syndrome.
According to the witness, that could be the result of either the alcohol that Osei took or any substance abuse, therefore, he informed the BNI director that he wanted to test Osei for abusive substances because of his behaviour.
He said he asked for introductory letters which were taken to the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) and Medlab laboratories after he had taken blood samples from Osei for toxicology.
However, Dr Brako said when he got to Medlab, he was informed that the test he had required needed urine sample and not a blood sample, which made him to call back the BNI director for approval.
He said he also enquired where he could locate Osei and he was taken to the house of Osei from where the urine sample was taken and sent to the Medlab laboratory where it was confirmed Osei tested positive for cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for Osei, the witness said Osei told him that the cut he sustained above his left eye was as a result of assault by some officials after the accident.
Asked whether he took the temperature of the urine sample, Dr Brako replied in the negative and stated that he was aware that the urine temperature determined whether it was old or new urine.
He disagreed that in the absence of a temperature it would be difficult to say whether the urine sample belonged to Osei or not.
Dr Brako reiterated that the substance abuse test was done to confirm the suspicion that Osei was either nervous or had abused some substances.
According to him, after taking the urine sample, he put it in his own car and drove to the Medlab laboratory while Osei sat in another car but he (the doctor) did not tamper with it in anyway.
He said the content of cocaine found in the urine sample could not be quantified because the test was qualitative and agreed with counsel that there had been occasions that people had laced Akpeteshie with some substances such as Indian Hemp to sell as bitters.
The witness, however, said he was unaware that when cocaine was taken and a test was conducted on the user the result would be anything else but same cocaine.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
FOUR SAILORS FACE OIL STEALING CHARGES
FOUR Filipino sailors have been arrested for allegedly stealing 73,900 barrels of crude oil valued at $7 million and belonging to the Saltpond Offshore Producing Company Ltd.
A fifth suspect, Elpifanio M. Moran Jnr, is said to be at large in connection with the same offence.
Those arrested are Ileofonso Pagay Pama, engineer; Felix Borre Climaco, seaman; Leonardo Planes Abrenica and Damilo Bagasot Bueno, both captains.
They were arrested in Nigeria through the assistance of Interpol Nigeria and brought to Ghana to face trial and they were sent to the Regional Tribunal last week to be remanded but their counsel raised an objection that he had filed a habeas corpus writ for the suspects to be produced before the Fast Track High Court.
Following that, the suspects were discharged and taken away into custody by the police and the case handed over to the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.
A state attorney from the AG’s office today went to the Fast Track High Court to take a date until February 26, 2008, on the grounds that the habeas corpus writ was received at short notice.
Counsel for the suspects, Alhaji Musah Ahmed, was not in court yesterday but when he was reached for his reaction to the new development, he declined to elaborate and said what had been done to his clients amounted to hostage taking and kidnap.
According to the facts of the case, in November last year, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Saltpond Offshore Company, Mr Quincy Sintim-Aboagye, contracted a vessel, the MT Emerald , through its agents, NEPS, in Nigeria to cart crude oil from Saltpond to the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR).
The vessel was said to have set sail under the command of Moran Jr, with the other suspects as the crew.
According to the prosecution, on December 9, 2007 the crew sailed the vessel out of Ghana’s territorial waters and went away with the crude oil. A report was made to Interpol Ghana, which, with assistance from its Nigerian counterparts, arrested the suspects in Nigeria and brought them to Ghana.
The crude oil is yet to be retrieved.
However, the version of the story as stated by counsel for the suspects earlier at the Regional Tribunal is different.
According to him, the suspects were the wrong persons who had been arrested and that they were the crew for two different vessels, namely, the MT Stream and the MT Silver, which were sister vessels of the MT Emerald, of which Moran Jnr was the captain.
Investigations by the Daily Graphic indicated that sister vessels could be arrested for offences committed by a vessel but not its crew, who had not committed any offence.
A fifth suspect, Elpifanio M. Moran Jnr, is said to be at large in connection with the same offence.
Those arrested are Ileofonso Pagay Pama, engineer; Felix Borre Climaco, seaman; Leonardo Planes Abrenica and Damilo Bagasot Bueno, both captains.
They were arrested in Nigeria through the assistance of Interpol Nigeria and brought to Ghana to face trial and they were sent to the Regional Tribunal last week to be remanded but their counsel raised an objection that he had filed a habeas corpus writ for the suspects to be produced before the Fast Track High Court.
Following that, the suspects were discharged and taken away into custody by the police and the case handed over to the Attorney General’s (AG) Office.
A state attorney from the AG’s office today went to the Fast Track High Court to take a date until February 26, 2008, on the grounds that the habeas corpus writ was received at short notice.
Counsel for the suspects, Alhaji Musah Ahmed, was not in court yesterday but when he was reached for his reaction to the new development, he declined to elaborate and said what had been done to his clients amounted to hostage taking and kidnap.
According to the facts of the case, in November last year, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Saltpond Offshore Company, Mr Quincy Sintim-Aboagye, contracted a vessel, the MT Emerald , through its agents, NEPS, in Nigeria to cart crude oil from Saltpond to the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR).
The vessel was said to have set sail under the command of Moran Jr, with the other suspects as the crew.
According to the prosecution, on December 9, 2007 the crew sailed the vessel out of Ghana’s territorial waters and went away with the crude oil. A report was made to Interpol Ghana, which, with assistance from its Nigerian counterparts, arrested the suspects in Nigeria and brought them to Ghana.
The crude oil is yet to be retrieved.
However, the version of the story as stated by counsel for the suspects earlier at the Regional Tribunal is different.
According to him, the suspects were the wrong persons who had been arrested and that they were the crew for two different vessels, namely, the MT Stream and the MT Silver, which were sister vessels of the MT Emerald, of which Moran Jnr was the captain.
Investigations by the Daily Graphic indicated that sister vessels could be arrested for offences committed by a vessel but not its crew, who had not committed any offence.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF BANK FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRCUTION IN COURT
ONE HUNDRED and seventy four former employees of the Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC) have sued Kwame Pianim, a management and investment consultant, New World Investment Ltd, United Bank for Africa Ghana Ltd (UBA) and four others at the Commercial division of the High Court seeking damages for the breach of their statutory rights.
The rest of the defendants are Ben Amagatse, Kofi Amo-Addai and Hilda Malm, all members or trustees of the Consortium Investment Trust (CIT) under a trust deed dated April 5, 2000, and put together to receive funds belonging to the members, and Unique Access Properties Limited as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breach of their duties as trustees and using the trust reposed in them to acquire personal shares and profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
But the defendants have denied the averments and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claims.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order to strip the defendants of the positions they occupy and recover all monies and assets accruing to them at their expense because the purported dilution of shares held by the plaintiffs was wrongful.
They are further seeking for an order to the defendants to account for accruing income from the use of the assets purchased in the name of the CIT, to which the plaintiffs belong, among other reliefs.
After going through a mini trial, the court is expected to today (Thursday) begin the hearing into the issues raised by the parties.
The plaintiffs in an amended statement of claim said they were all former employees of the liquidated BHC and members of the CIT, which was set up in 2000 to take-over parts of assets of BHC while Mr Pianim was a management and investment consultant as well as CEO of New World Investments and Board Chairman of UBA.
According to them, the co-defendant had been purportedly promoted and registered by Mr Pianim to receive or hold assets originally acquired with the support and contributions of the plaintiffs.
They said that prior to the liquidation of the BHC, Mr Pianim was introduced to the representatives of the unionised staff BHC of which the plaintiffs were part and tasked him with the duty of securing a worker/management buy-out deal with the government in order to save the jobs of as many of their members.
They said that when that arrangement failed, the workers with assurances of support from the government decided to pool their end of service benefits under the management of New World Investment to buy some assets of BHC for onward transfer to a new bank to be launched through the promotional efforts of CIT members and Mr Pianim and New World Investment.
The plaintiffs said that under the trust deed New World Investment was appointed as fund manager with the responsibility for managing the resources pooled by CIT pending the incorporation and licensing of the proposed bank.
According to plaintiffs, funds amounting to ¢1,098,035,000.00 being their end of service benefits were entrusted to New World Investment Mr Amagatse, Mr Amo-Addai and Ms Malm first for investment in money market instruments and then later equity investment in UBA (formerly standard trust bank ltd).
They said that by Mr Pianim’s representation to the CIT, an amount of ¢600,000,000.00 was transferred to the UBA in return for shares.
Mr Pianim, they said, in a letter dated June 23, 2000 introduced himself to Price Waterhouse Coopers as the investment advisors of the CIT and promoters of UBA and further disclosed the formation and incorporation of the proposed bank, which required that the allocated assets be put in the name of the bank.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware of any meeting to admit the Nigerian entity in UBA and the allotment of its shares and that the terms and conditions under which the Nigerian entity was admitted into the bank was never disclosed to members of CIT although a letter dated December 21, 2002, from STB Capital Markets Ltd referred to an agreement to be entered into with New World Investment.
They said that aside the board of directors of the bank was constituted without any representation for members of the CIT.
According to them, Mr Pianim breached his obligations as a trustee by using it as a means to derive personal benefits by accepting and taking a post of Chairman in the bank and also holding shares in his own name.
The defendants responded that save that Mr Pianim was selected as the Chairman of the Board of UBA by its strategic investors on the basis of his professional expertise, experience, personal integrity and credentials, there was no obligation or understanding that precluded him from investing alongside CIT or accepting a seat on the Board.
They said that save that the worker-management buy out failed, the plaintiffs initially pooled their end-of-service benefits for the purpose of that deal as stated in the trust deed of the CIT and that sections of the rules of the CIT incorporated inn the trust deed, membership and participation in the trust was no guarantee of employment, immediate or otherwise in the proposed bank.
The defendants said that the CIT was established only as an investment vehicle for the ex-workers of the liquidated BHC and by the objects of the trust deed, the trustees were to invest the contributions of members of the CIT towards the worker-management buy out arrangement in prudent investment and money market instruments.
The rest of the defendants are Ben Amagatse, Kofi Amo-Addai and Hilda Malm, all members or trustees of the Consortium Investment Trust (CIT) under a trust deed dated April 5, 2000, and put together to receive funds belonging to the members, and Unique Access Properties Limited as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breach of their duties as trustees and using the trust reposed in them to acquire personal shares and profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
But the defendants have denied the averments and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claims.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order to strip the defendants of the positions they occupy and recover all monies and assets accruing to them at their expense because the purported dilution of shares held by the plaintiffs was wrongful.
They are further seeking for an order to the defendants to account for accruing income from the use of the assets purchased in the name of the CIT, to which the plaintiffs belong, among other reliefs.
After going through a mini trial, the court is expected to today (Thursday) begin the hearing into the issues raised by the parties.
The plaintiffs in an amended statement of claim said they were all former employees of the liquidated BHC and members of the CIT, which was set up in 2000 to take-over parts of assets of BHC while Mr Pianim was a management and investment consultant as well as CEO of New World Investments and Board Chairman of UBA.
According to them, the co-defendant had been purportedly promoted and registered by Mr Pianim to receive or hold assets originally acquired with the support and contributions of the plaintiffs.
They said that prior to the liquidation of the BHC, Mr Pianim was introduced to the representatives of the unionised staff BHC of which the plaintiffs were part and tasked him with the duty of securing a worker/management buy-out deal with the government in order to save the jobs of as many of their members.
They said that when that arrangement failed, the workers with assurances of support from the government decided to pool their end of service benefits under the management of New World Investment to buy some assets of BHC for onward transfer to a new bank to be launched through the promotional efforts of CIT members and Mr Pianim and New World Investment.
The plaintiffs said that under the trust deed New World Investment was appointed as fund manager with the responsibility for managing the resources pooled by CIT pending the incorporation and licensing of the proposed bank.
According to plaintiffs, funds amounting to ¢1,098,035,000.00 being their end of service benefits were entrusted to New World Investment Mr Amagatse, Mr Amo-Addai and Ms Malm first for investment in money market instruments and then later equity investment in UBA (formerly standard trust bank ltd).
They said that by Mr Pianim’s representation to the CIT, an amount of ¢600,000,000.00 was transferred to the UBA in return for shares.
Mr Pianim, they said, in a letter dated June 23, 2000 introduced himself to Price Waterhouse Coopers as the investment advisors of the CIT and promoters of UBA and further disclosed the formation and incorporation of the proposed bank, which required that the allocated assets be put in the name of the bank.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware of any meeting to admit the Nigerian entity in UBA and the allotment of its shares and that the terms and conditions under which the Nigerian entity was admitted into the bank was never disclosed to members of CIT although a letter dated December 21, 2002, from STB Capital Markets Ltd referred to an agreement to be entered into with New World Investment.
They said that aside the board of directors of the bank was constituted without any representation for members of the CIT.
According to them, Mr Pianim breached his obligations as a trustee by using it as a means to derive personal benefits by accepting and taking a post of Chairman in the bank and also holding shares in his own name.
The defendants responded that save that Mr Pianim was selected as the Chairman of the Board of UBA by its strategic investors on the basis of his professional expertise, experience, personal integrity and credentials, there was no obligation or understanding that precluded him from investing alongside CIT or accepting a seat on the Board.
They said that save that the worker-management buy out failed, the plaintiffs initially pooled their end-of-service benefits for the purpose of that deal as stated in the trust deed of the CIT and that sections of the rules of the CIT incorporated inn the trust deed, membership and participation in the trust was no guarantee of employment, immediate or otherwise in the proposed bank.
The defendants said that the CIT was established only as an investment vehicle for the ex-workers of the liquidated BHC and by the objects of the trust deed, the trustees were to invest the contributions of members of the CIT towards the worker-management buy out arrangement in prudent investment and money market instruments.
FORMER FIRST LADY'S CASE ADJOURNED UNTIL APRIL 2008
THE Accra Fast Track High Court today adjourned to April 16, 2008, the case in which Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and four others are standing trial for allegedly causing financial loss to the state.
Lawyers for the parties met in the judge’s chambers to take the date but no official reason was assigned.
However, the former first lady as well as the other defendants were in court, and as usual, they were accompanied by a large crowd.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of CDCL, and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses to public property in 1995 running into billions of cedis following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, acquired by CDCL, which is owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
On December 18, last year, the court dismissed an application for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants to enable them to pursue the civil aspect of the matter but according to the court, where there were both a civil and criminal proceedings pending over an issue, the criminal action outweighed the civil one and, therefore, refused the application.
Counsel for Nana Konadu, Mr Tony Lithur, prayed the court on November 15, 2007 to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit between Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL) and the Attorney-General (A-G) over the ownership of the company, which is pending at the High Court, or in the interim, dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
The court ruled that the civil suit and the instant case were not related, neither did they merge, because the latter involved a declaration of ownership and abrogation of contract, while the ingredients required to prove them were different.
It said although it was not for counsel to speculate the probable findings, the court was bound to protect itself from abuse.
Regarding an assertion by counsel that the Attorney-General, as a public officer and member of the executive, was exercising arbitrary power to abuse the court process, the court ruled that the Constitution mandated the A-G, as a duty, to initiate and conduct all criminal proceedings in the country.
The court admitted that while the A-G was bound to do that, he must not be arbitrary or capricious and stated that the trial in both cases had not commenced.
It said although the arguments put up by the counsel was ingenuous, they did not impress the court because once and until it was progressing, the A-G was entitled to substitute the charges and those rights of the A-G could not be taken away from him.
Counsel had argued that the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason, if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
Lawyers for the parties met in the judge’s chambers to take the date but no official reason was assigned.
However, the former first lady as well as the other defendants were in court, and as usual, they were accompanied by a large crowd.
Nana Konadu, Sherry Ayittey, the Managing Director of CDCL, and Caridem as an entity filed the application for permanent stay of proceedings because the subject matter for which they were standing trial was being contested in another court in a civil suit brought against the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) and the Attorney-General by CDCL over the take-over of the GIHOC Nsawam Cannery.
Also standing trial alongside the applicants are Emmanuel Amuzu Agbodo, a former Executive Secretary of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC), and Kwame Peprah, a former Minister of Finance and former Chairman of the DIC.
They are facing various charges of conspiracy, causing financial loss to public property, conspiracy to obtain public property by false statement, obtaining public property by false statement and altering forged document.
They have denied the offences and have been admitted to self-recognisance bail.
The accused persons were alleged to have caused losses to public property in 1995 running into billions of cedis following the divestiture of the GIHOC Cannery at Nsawam, a government cannery, acquired by CDCL, which is owned by the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM).
On December 18, last year, the court dismissed an application for stay of proceedings filed by the defendants to enable them to pursue the civil aspect of the matter but according to the court, where there were both a civil and criminal proceedings pending over an issue, the criminal action outweighed the civil one and, therefore, refused the application.
Counsel for Nana Konadu, Mr Tony Lithur, prayed the court on November 15, 2007 to stay proceedings in the matter because of a civil suit between Caridem Development Company Limited (CDCL) and the Attorney-General (A-G) over the ownership of the company, which is pending at the High Court, or in the interim, dismiss the case and stated that the criminal proceedings brought against his clients amounted to an abuse of power by the Attorney-General.
Mr Lithur said the court had power to question the activities of the Executive, of which the Attorney-General was part, and if that was not done, it would place the Attorney-General above the Constitution of the land.
The court ruled that the civil suit and the instant case were not related, neither did they merge, because the latter involved a declaration of ownership and abrogation of contract, while the ingredients required to prove them were different.
It said although it was not for counsel to speculate the probable findings, the court was bound to protect itself from abuse.
Regarding an assertion by counsel that the Attorney-General, as a public officer and member of the executive, was exercising arbitrary power to abuse the court process, the court ruled that the Constitution mandated the A-G, as a duty, to initiate and conduct all criminal proceedings in the country.
The court admitted that while the A-G was bound to do that, he must not be arbitrary or capricious and stated that the trial in both cases had not commenced.
It said although the arguments put up by the counsel was ingenuous, they did not impress the court because once and until it was progressing, the A-G was entitled to substitute the charges and those rights of the A-G could not be taken away from him.
Counsel had argued that the residual power of the Supreme Court was superior to any legislation and for that reason, if the court did not accept what the Attorney-General was doing, then it meant the Executive could not be checked.
The Attorney-General, Mr Joe Ghartey, had described the application as unmeritorious because it was totally unknown in criminal law and the Constitution.
He said the institution of criminal action against the five was based on the Auditor-General's report on the malfeasance they committed in the acquisition of the GIHOC/Nsawam Cannery.
COMMITTEE FOR JOINT ACTION GOES TO COURT AGAIN
THE Committee for Joint Action (CJA) has gone back to court after losing the initial bid to prohibit the Attorney-General and three television stations from the use of video footage of the committee’s demonstrations.
The CJA’s motion was struck out by an Accra Fast Track High Court last Monday but it filed today (Wednesday) for another motion on notice for interim injunction against the respondents seeking to restrain them from the continued use of its video footage.
The Fast Track High Court will on Friday hear the motion, which was filed by Mr Mahama Ayariga.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, on Monday struck out the CJA’s motion for want of prosecution and awarded costs of GH¢150 in favour of each of the respondents, namely, the Attorney General, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), TV3 Network Ltd and Metro TV.
The CJA filed the motion to seek among others an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
According to the group, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
It, therefore, sought a declaration that the inscriptions accompanying the images used in the advertisements that the demonstrators were unemployed was misleading and wrong.
When the matter came before the court, there was no official from the parties, including the CJA. The CJA was also not represented by any legal counsel.
The Attorney-General was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Consequently, counsel for the GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel prayed the court to strike out the matter in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present but after some time there was still no representation for the CJA and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson of the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a tax on talking on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false, misleading and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
The CJA’s motion was struck out by an Accra Fast Track High Court last Monday but it filed today (Wednesday) for another motion on notice for interim injunction against the respondents seeking to restrain them from the continued use of its video footage.
The Fast Track High Court will on Friday hear the motion, which was filed by Mr Mahama Ayariga.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, on Monday struck out the CJA’s motion for want of prosecution and awarded costs of GH¢150 in favour of each of the respondents, namely, the Attorney General, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), TV3 Network Ltd and Metro TV.
The CJA filed the motion to seek among others an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
According to the group, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
It, therefore, sought a declaration that the inscriptions accompanying the images used in the advertisements that the demonstrators were unemployed was misleading and wrong.
When the matter came before the court, there was no official from the parties, including the CJA. The CJA was also not represented by any legal counsel.
The Attorney-General was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Consequently, counsel for the GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel prayed the court to strike out the matter in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present but after some time there was still no representation for the CJA and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson of the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a tax on talking on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false, misleading and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
FORMER VOLTA RIVER AUTHORITY BOSS IN COURT
A Principal Administrative Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Mr Joseph Nii Togbor Annan, yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court that former Chief Executive Officer, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, was not entitled to any reliefs because he vacated his post.
He also said that the terms of Dr Wereko-Brobby’s employment as enshrined in the VRA Act required that the CEO tendered his resignation letter to the VRA Board and not the President as Dr Wereko-Brobby did.
He said it was Dr Wereko-Brobby who rather owed the VRA six months’ salary in lieu of his failure to give six months’ notice to the VRA on his resignation, as well as rent, a vehicle, furniture and other household items that he took from the official residence of the VRA.
Mr Annan was testifying when the VRA opened its defence in the GH¢220,000 suit instituted by Dr Wereko-Brobby against the authority as his entitlements from the VRA.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year, but resigned on September 17, 2003.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6,100, six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car, which was in his possession, were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April, 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May, the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Led in evidence by Mr F. K. Yeboah, VRA counsel, Mr Annan said apart from the stated terms and conditions of service either Dr Wereko-Brobby or VRA were to give six months’ notice on the termination of appointment or six months’ salary in lieu.
He said under the term, Dr Wereko-Brobby was required to give a maximum of six months’ notice on his separation from the VRA and if he did not do that he ought to pay.
Mr Annan said under the VRA Act, it was the Board members whose resignation should be sent to the President while the CEO’s should be handed over to the Board, which was the appointing body, and for Dr Wereko-Brobby to have handed his resignation to the President was improper.
“The VRA has formally not received a resignation letter from the plaintiff and technically speaking, if you are absent from work for 10 days, it is assumed that you have vacated your post,” he said, and added that the penalty for that was a dismissal.
He said anybody who on his or her own volition retired from the VRA did not benefit from any end-of-service award and in the case of Dr Wereko-Brobby with the exception of his end of year leave, which accrued at the time he resigned, he was not entitled to any other benefits.
The witness said it was not correct for the plaintiff to compare his service to VRA with some of the former CEOs who either resigned or were made redundant and paid entitlements, since he worked for barely two years.
During cross-examination by Mr Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, the witness said that he was not a member of the VRA Board.
He, however, said that he was not privy to minutes of the VRA Board regarding the appointment of Dr Wereko-Brobby.
He also said that the terms of Dr Wereko-Brobby’s employment as enshrined in the VRA Act required that the CEO tendered his resignation letter to the VRA Board and not the President as Dr Wereko-Brobby did.
He said it was Dr Wereko-Brobby who rather owed the VRA six months’ salary in lieu of his failure to give six months’ notice to the VRA on his resignation, as well as rent, a vehicle, furniture and other household items that he took from the official residence of the VRA.
Mr Annan was testifying when the VRA opened its defence in the GH¢220,000 suit instituted by Dr Wereko-Brobby against the authority as his entitlements from the VRA.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year, but resigned on September 17, 2003.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6,100, six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car, which was in his possession, were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April, 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May, the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Led in evidence by Mr F. K. Yeboah, VRA counsel, Mr Annan said apart from the stated terms and conditions of service either Dr Wereko-Brobby or VRA were to give six months’ notice on the termination of appointment or six months’ salary in lieu.
He said under the term, Dr Wereko-Brobby was required to give a maximum of six months’ notice on his separation from the VRA and if he did not do that he ought to pay.
Mr Annan said under the VRA Act, it was the Board members whose resignation should be sent to the President while the CEO’s should be handed over to the Board, which was the appointing body, and for Dr Wereko-Brobby to have handed his resignation to the President was improper.
“The VRA has formally not received a resignation letter from the plaintiff and technically speaking, if you are absent from work for 10 days, it is assumed that you have vacated your post,” he said, and added that the penalty for that was a dismissal.
He said anybody who on his or her own volition retired from the VRA did not benefit from any end-of-service award and in the case of Dr Wereko-Brobby with the exception of his end of year leave, which accrued at the time he resigned, he was not entitled to any other benefits.
The witness said it was not correct for the plaintiff to compare his service to VRA with some of the former CEOs who either resigned or were made redundant and paid entitlements, since he worked for barely two years.
During cross-examination by Mr Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Dr Wereko-Brobby, the witness said that he was not a member of the VRA Board.
He, however, said that he was not privy to minutes of the VRA Board regarding the appointment of Dr Wereko-Brobby.
BRITISH PAEDOPHILE JAILED 4 YRS
THOMAS Tichler, the 57-year-old Briton who was accused of causing harm and indecently assaulting a three-year-old girl, was yesterday sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by an Accra circuit court
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, convicted the accused on both counts and sentenced him to four and two years respectively to run concurrently effective November 2, 2007, when he was remanded in custody.
The court took into consideration the fact that Tichler was assaulted by the father of the girl while the physical injury to the victim was not permanent.
Tichler was said to have inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina but he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A total of seven prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents, the victim’s two siblings, a medical doctor and the investigator in the case testified against Tichler.
Tichler testified and denied any wrongdoing and called two witnesses to testify for him.
The facts of the case were that Tichler, who arrived in Ghana on September 25, last year for a three-month attachment with the Overseas Voluntary Service (VSO), committed the offence at the residence of the victim on October 13, 2007, barely a week after he had arrived in the country.
According to the prosecution, Tichler visited the victim’s father at North Legon, near Redco Flats, on October 13, 2007 and on reaching there, the victim’s father left the victim and her two siblings in the care of Tichler in order to purchase some items from town.
Tichler engaged the victim and her two siblings, aged eight and six, at the sitting room but later managed to engage the victim alone and succeeded in inserting his fingers into her vagina.
Not quiet long after the incident, the victim’s mother arrived from town and just as she entered the kitchen, Tichler followed her and requested for water to wash his hands.
Later, the victim went to her mother and said she wanted to urinate and while helping her, the mother noticed blood stains in the victim’s panties.
The victim mentioned the accused person as the one who inserted his fingers into her vagina when she was questioned by her mother.
Tichler was arrested and handed over to the Legon police.
The victim was later taken to hospital where she was examined, treated and discharged.
According to the court, the evidence of the little girl, which was taken in camera, was spontaneous and was not disjointed to seem as if it had been rehearsed as suggested by the defence.
It said the girl’s story was consistent, articulate and honest and found the convict’s act of carrying the girl on his shoulders and putting her down on the sofa were very contemporaneous with the time of the commission of the offence.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, convicted the accused on both counts and sentenced him to four and two years respectively to run concurrently effective November 2, 2007, when he was remanded in custody.
The court took into consideration the fact that Tichler was assaulted by the father of the girl while the physical injury to the victim was not permanent.
Tichler was said to have inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina but he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A total of seven prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents, the victim’s two siblings, a medical doctor and the investigator in the case testified against Tichler.
Tichler testified and denied any wrongdoing and called two witnesses to testify for him.
The facts of the case were that Tichler, who arrived in Ghana on September 25, last year for a three-month attachment with the Overseas Voluntary Service (VSO), committed the offence at the residence of the victim on October 13, 2007, barely a week after he had arrived in the country.
According to the prosecution, Tichler visited the victim’s father at North Legon, near Redco Flats, on October 13, 2007 and on reaching there, the victim’s father left the victim and her two siblings in the care of Tichler in order to purchase some items from town.
Tichler engaged the victim and her two siblings, aged eight and six, at the sitting room but later managed to engage the victim alone and succeeded in inserting his fingers into her vagina.
Not quiet long after the incident, the victim’s mother arrived from town and just as she entered the kitchen, Tichler followed her and requested for water to wash his hands.
Later, the victim went to her mother and said she wanted to urinate and while helping her, the mother noticed blood stains in the victim’s panties.
The victim mentioned the accused person as the one who inserted his fingers into her vagina when she was questioned by her mother.
Tichler was arrested and handed over to the Legon police.
The victim was later taken to hospital where she was examined, treated and discharged.
According to the court, the evidence of the little girl, which was taken in camera, was spontaneous and was not disjointed to seem as if it had been rehearsed as suggested by the defence.
It said the girl’s story was consistent, articulate and honest and found the convict’s act of carrying the girl on his shoulders and putting her down on the sofa were very contemporaneous with the time of the commission of the offence.
COURT THROWS OUT MOTION BY COMMITTEE FOR JOINT ACTION
A motion filed by the Committee for Joint Action (CJA) seeking an order to prohibit the Attorney-General and three television stations from the use of video footage of demonstrations organised by the organisation was struck out by an Accra Fast Track High Court for want of prosecution.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, awarded costs of GH¢150 in favour of each of the respondents, namely, the Attorney General, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), TV3 Network Ltd and Metro TV.
The CJA filed the motion to seek among others an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
According to the group, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
It, therefore, sought a declaration that the inscriptions accompanying the images used in the advertisements that the demonstrators were unemployed was misleading and wrong.
However, when the matter came before the court yesterday there was no official from the parties, including the CJA. The CJA was also not represented by any legal counsel.
The Attorney-General was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Consequently, counsel for the GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel prayed the court to strike out the matter in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present but after some time there was still no representation for the CJA and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson of the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a tax on talking on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false, misleading and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta, awarded costs of GH¢150 in favour of each of the respondents, namely, the Attorney General, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), TV3 Network Ltd and Metro TV.
The CJA filed the motion to seek among others an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from the further use of the images of its demonstration to protest against certain government policies in advertisements.
According to the group, the use of the video footage to advocate for a fiscal policy that it was against violated its rights, since the organisation disagreed with the policy.
It, therefore, sought a declaration that the inscriptions accompanying the images used in the advertisements that the demonstrators were unemployed was misleading and wrong.
However, when the matter came before the court yesterday there was no official from the parties, including the CJA. The CJA was also not represented by any legal counsel.
The Attorney-General was represented by Ms Ama Jantuah Bamful while TV3 and Metro TV were respectively represented by Mr Eugene Glover Tay and Daniyal Abdul-Karim. GBC was represented by Mr Anthony Matthews.
Consequently, counsel for the GBC, Mr Matthews, on behalf of the other counsel prayed the court to strike out the matter in view of the fact that the CJA was not represented.
The matter was stood down for sometime to enable counsel for the CJA to be present but after some time there was still no representation for the CJA and the judge had no option but to grant the application.
An affidavit in support of the motion deposed by Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Dansoman in Accra said he was the spokesperson of the organisation and had its authority to depose to the affidavit.
It said the group organised a series of demonstrations in various regional capitals in protest against certain government policies and hardships occasioned to the majority of Ghanaians due to taxes imposed by the government.
The respondents, it noted, were using the video footage of the demonstrations organised by the group to advertise for the imposition of a tax on talking on mobile phones, a policy that the applicants were against.
It said that on the said advertisements certain false and misleading statements regarding the employment status of the demonstrators had been made by the respondents.
The organisation said it had the right to ask that the images of the demonstrators should not be associated with messages that were false, misleading and which it did not either believe in or actually openly disagreed with.
Friday, February 15, 2008
CHILD LABOUR IN GHANA –THE MISCONCEPTION
RECENTLY, the media, both local and international, have spurned out stories about child labour in Ghana’s cocoa growing areas. Following this, there have been unwarranted calls by some interest groups for the boycott of the finest cocoa beans produced in the world.
There is no doubt that there are cases of child labour in the country, however, the picture painted about the kind of assistance or work done by children on cocoa farms was misplaced, because child labour is employed rather in subsistence agriculture.
In the urban (informal sector), other forms of the phenomenon equally exist.
As someone who grew up on a cocoa farm and from a typical cocoa growing community in Ghana, I am in this article attempting to lay bare the myth or as it were, the truth about the use of children on cocoa farms. And whether what pertains qualifies or fits the tag ‘child labour’ vis-à-vis other sectors, in contrast with what generally pertains in the rest of the world.
We should not allow such self-seeking people to throw dust into the eyes of the world to paint a gloomy picture about the future of the youth in this country, because what pertains is a complete misunderstanding of child labour.
As a child, it was always fun to accompany parents or relatives to the cocoa farm, especially when it was time to crack the pods to extract the beans.
My late uncle, under whose tutelage I grew up, had many wives as well as many children who assisted him on his vast cocoa farms. That work, for us children, was seasonal, because weeding or general work was done at a time that school was on long vacation. We would all leave the town for the village to assist, and what was interesting was the rats and other animals that we trapped during our activities. I reminisce being a poor shooter of the catapult, and I was always envious of my cousins who were good at shooting at birds and butchering the rats when it came to smoking them out.
While on vacation at the village, it was all work and no play and my uncle ensured none of us fell sick or got injured. He cautioned us to be careful and he bought some basic first aid drugs such as paracetamol, APC, codeine and the others which I cannot readily recollect.
He made sure that we worked, but that did not compromise our education in any way . All of us were in school with the elders among us in higher levels of the educational ladder at that time. Once you have not attained a certain standard of self-actualisation, going on vacation to the village was a must and something we relished so much. As soon as school re-opened, work on the cocoa farms ceased and off we left for the town to continue with our schooling.
In those days, that was the general practice in the villages of the Sefwi area where the bulk of Ghana’s cocoa is still produced. Even tenants who worked on such farms allowed their children to go to school, except a few who did not heed all advice.
The work of children involved general weeding, collection of cocoa pods to a cracking centre or point and helping in the drying of cocoa beans. I remember that when my uncle wanted us to have some money of our own, he would pay us extra for conveying the dry beans to the shed, and this we cherished, because we got extra income to buy other things for ourselves. After the cocoa beans had been fermented, we assisted in carting them to the dry beds.
At some point in time, I remember that as children, we engaged in what is called ‘nnoboa’ (akan), literally translated as “help one another”. By this system, a group of youngsters, usually siblings or friends would arrange for weeding and charge fees for very small cocoa farms which were not too overgrown with weeds.
This is not to say that what I have said here was the general trend in what is called child labour on cocoa farms if that is so, because some children obviously did not have the chance to go to school and so spent their entire lives on the farms.
It is, therefore, necessary to look at what actually constitutes child labour in the eyes of comity of nations and do some analyses on whether Ghana is being treated fairly.
From my point of view, working on cocoa farms was generally done by children or relatives of farmers on a subsistence basis and neither compromised nor harmed the education of those involved. The picture has been painted as if the practice exists only in poor countries or communities such as Ghana.
This is not to say that I am in support of the practice, especially since the 1990s when every country in the world, except Somalia and the United States have become signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
The CRC provides the strongest, most consistent international legal language prohibiting illegal child labour, although it does not make child labour illegal. The UNICEF State of the World’s Children’s Report (1997) lists four "myths" about child labour. That the practice is only a problem in developing countries. But in fact, children routinely work in all industrialised countries, and are engaged in hazardous forms of child labour. They are in many countries, including the US, for example, where it is said that children are employed in agriculture, a high proportion of them from immigrant or ethnic-minority families.
A 1990 survey of Mexican-American children working on the farms of New York State showed that almost half had worked in fields still wet with pesticides and over a third had themselves been sprayed.
Child labour is the employment of a child under an age determined by law or custom. This practice is considered exploitative by many countries and international organisations, hence the vain attack on Ghana.
Child labour was utilised to varying extents through most of history, but entered public dispute with the beginning of universal education, universal schooling, with changes in working conditions during industrialisation, and with the emergence of the concepts of labour rights and workers as well as children's rights.
Ghana’s constitution is in accordance with international conventions which define a child as those persons aged 18 years and under.
However, a child and childhood are defined differently by different cultures. A child is not necessarily delineated by a fixed age, that is why social scientists point out that children’s abilities and levels of maturity vary so much that defining a child’s maturity by calendar age can be misleading.
It is in the light of this that we should try to avoid confusion, when writing or speaking about child labour.
Generally speaking, child labour is about a work for children which, in turn, harms them or exploits them in some way, either physically, mentally, morally, or by blocking their access to education.
Not all work is bad for children though. That is why some social scientists point out that some kinds of work may be completely unobjectionable except for one thing about the work that makes it exploitative.
As UNICEF’s 1997 State of the World’s Children Report puts it, "Children’s work needs to be seen as happening along a continuum, with destructive or exploitative work at one end and beneficial work - promoting or enhancing children’s development without interfering with their schooling, recreation and rest — at the other.
In 2000, the ILO estimated that 246 million child workers, aged five and 17 were involved in child labour, of which 171 million were involved in work that, by its nature, is hazardous to their safety, physical or mental health, and moral development. Moreover, some 8.4 million children were engaged in so-called 'unconditional' worst forms of child labour, which include forced and bonded labour, the use of children in armed conflict, trafficking in children and commercial sexual exploitation.
According to a 1998 study by the ILO, there were 61 per cent child labourers in Asia, 32 per cent in Africa, and seven per cent in Latin America, one per cent in the US, Canada, Europe and other wealthy nations. In Asia, 22 per cent of the workforce is reported to be children. In Latin America, 17 per cent of the workforce is also children. The proportion of child labourers has been found to vary a lot among countries, and even regions inside those countries.
The UNICEF 1997 State of the World’s Children Report said in Africa, one child in three is at work, and in Latin America, one child in five works. In these continents, only a tiny proportion of child workers are involved in the formal sector, and the vast majority of work is for their families, in homes, in the fields or on the streets.
Child labour is very common, and that can be factory work, mining or quarrying, agriculture, helping in the parents' business, having one's own small business (for example selling food or apparel), or doing odd jobs. Some children work as guides for tourists, sometimes combined with bringing in business for shops and restaurants, where they may also work as waiters. Other children are forced to do tedious and repetitive jobs such as polishing shoes, pounding fufu in chop bars and cleaning. However, rather than in factories and sweatshops, most child labour occurs in the informal sector, selling on the street, or child domestic work hidden away in houses far from the reach of official labour inspectors and from media scrutiny.
E. P. Thompson in “The Making of the English Working Class”, (Penguin, 1968), said in the Industrial Revolution, children as young as four years were employed in production factories with dangerous, and often fatal, working conditions.
Poverty is widely considered the top reason why children work at inappropriate jobs for their ages. But there are other reasons such as family expectations and traditions as I have indicated in the case of the Ghanaian farmer, abuse of the child as in the case of house helps or maid servants (as they are called in Ghana and domestic work in other places) and public opinion that downplays the risk of early work for children.
The current situation in poor countries is that poor families often rely on the labour of their children for survival, and sometimes it is their only source of income. This type of work is often hidden away because it is not in the industrial sector.
By all standards, the kind of labour supplied by most Ghanaian children on cocoa farms cannot be classified as child labour as per the standards of the ILO and other bodies. Probably, a look at what pertains in some homes and on the streets regarding kayayei, shoe shine boys and the lot paints a gloomy picture for the youth of this country.
Beyond compassion, we should consider who today’s children will become in the future. Between today and the year 2020, the clear indication is that the vast majority of new workers, citizens and new consumers whose skills and needs will build the world’s economy and society will come from developing countries. Over that 12-year period or so, it is estimated that more than 730 million people will join the world’s workforce more than all the other people employed in today's most developed nations.
According to research by Population Action International, more than 90 per cent of these new workers will be from developing nations. Governments of the developing economies should devised programmes to emancipate the people.
Programmes to prop up increased family incomes, education that helps children learn skills which will help them earn a living, social services which help children and families survive such crises as diseases, or loss of home and shelter. Above all, families should control fertility so that they are not burdened by children. Poverty alleviation programmes should be the target, because so far as poverty pertains, child labour will continue to be with us.
There is no doubt that there are cases of child labour in the country, however, the picture painted about the kind of assistance or work done by children on cocoa farms was misplaced, because child labour is employed rather in subsistence agriculture.
In the urban (informal sector), other forms of the phenomenon equally exist.
As someone who grew up on a cocoa farm and from a typical cocoa growing community in Ghana, I am in this article attempting to lay bare the myth or as it were, the truth about the use of children on cocoa farms. And whether what pertains qualifies or fits the tag ‘child labour’ vis-à-vis other sectors, in contrast with what generally pertains in the rest of the world.
We should not allow such self-seeking people to throw dust into the eyes of the world to paint a gloomy picture about the future of the youth in this country, because what pertains is a complete misunderstanding of child labour.
As a child, it was always fun to accompany parents or relatives to the cocoa farm, especially when it was time to crack the pods to extract the beans.
My late uncle, under whose tutelage I grew up, had many wives as well as many children who assisted him on his vast cocoa farms. That work, for us children, was seasonal, because weeding or general work was done at a time that school was on long vacation. We would all leave the town for the village to assist, and what was interesting was the rats and other animals that we trapped during our activities. I reminisce being a poor shooter of the catapult, and I was always envious of my cousins who were good at shooting at birds and butchering the rats when it came to smoking them out.
While on vacation at the village, it was all work and no play and my uncle ensured none of us fell sick or got injured. He cautioned us to be careful and he bought some basic first aid drugs such as paracetamol, APC, codeine and the others which I cannot readily recollect.
He made sure that we worked, but that did not compromise our education in any way . All of us were in school with the elders among us in higher levels of the educational ladder at that time. Once you have not attained a certain standard of self-actualisation, going on vacation to the village was a must and something we relished so much. As soon as school re-opened, work on the cocoa farms ceased and off we left for the town to continue with our schooling.
In those days, that was the general practice in the villages of the Sefwi area where the bulk of Ghana’s cocoa is still produced. Even tenants who worked on such farms allowed their children to go to school, except a few who did not heed all advice.
The work of children involved general weeding, collection of cocoa pods to a cracking centre or point and helping in the drying of cocoa beans. I remember that when my uncle wanted us to have some money of our own, he would pay us extra for conveying the dry beans to the shed, and this we cherished, because we got extra income to buy other things for ourselves. After the cocoa beans had been fermented, we assisted in carting them to the dry beds.
At some point in time, I remember that as children, we engaged in what is called ‘nnoboa’ (akan), literally translated as “help one another”. By this system, a group of youngsters, usually siblings or friends would arrange for weeding and charge fees for very small cocoa farms which were not too overgrown with weeds.
This is not to say that what I have said here was the general trend in what is called child labour on cocoa farms if that is so, because some children obviously did not have the chance to go to school and so spent their entire lives on the farms.
It is, therefore, necessary to look at what actually constitutes child labour in the eyes of comity of nations and do some analyses on whether Ghana is being treated fairly.
From my point of view, working on cocoa farms was generally done by children or relatives of farmers on a subsistence basis and neither compromised nor harmed the education of those involved. The picture has been painted as if the practice exists only in poor countries or communities such as Ghana.
This is not to say that I am in support of the practice, especially since the 1990s when every country in the world, except Somalia and the United States have become signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
The CRC provides the strongest, most consistent international legal language prohibiting illegal child labour, although it does not make child labour illegal. The UNICEF State of the World’s Children’s Report (1997) lists four "myths" about child labour. That the practice is only a problem in developing countries. But in fact, children routinely work in all industrialised countries, and are engaged in hazardous forms of child labour. They are in many countries, including the US, for example, where it is said that children are employed in agriculture, a high proportion of them from immigrant or ethnic-minority families.
A 1990 survey of Mexican-American children working on the farms of New York State showed that almost half had worked in fields still wet with pesticides and over a third had themselves been sprayed.
Child labour is the employment of a child under an age determined by law or custom. This practice is considered exploitative by many countries and international organisations, hence the vain attack on Ghana.
Child labour was utilised to varying extents through most of history, but entered public dispute with the beginning of universal education, universal schooling, with changes in working conditions during industrialisation, and with the emergence of the concepts of labour rights and workers as well as children's rights.
Ghana’s constitution is in accordance with international conventions which define a child as those persons aged 18 years and under.
However, a child and childhood are defined differently by different cultures. A child is not necessarily delineated by a fixed age, that is why social scientists point out that children’s abilities and levels of maturity vary so much that defining a child’s maturity by calendar age can be misleading.
It is in the light of this that we should try to avoid confusion, when writing or speaking about child labour.
Generally speaking, child labour is about a work for children which, in turn, harms them or exploits them in some way, either physically, mentally, morally, or by blocking their access to education.
Not all work is bad for children though. That is why some social scientists point out that some kinds of work may be completely unobjectionable except for one thing about the work that makes it exploitative.
As UNICEF’s 1997 State of the World’s Children Report puts it, "Children’s work needs to be seen as happening along a continuum, with destructive or exploitative work at one end and beneficial work - promoting or enhancing children’s development without interfering with their schooling, recreation and rest — at the other.
In 2000, the ILO estimated that 246 million child workers, aged five and 17 were involved in child labour, of which 171 million were involved in work that, by its nature, is hazardous to their safety, physical or mental health, and moral development. Moreover, some 8.4 million children were engaged in so-called 'unconditional' worst forms of child labour, which include forced and bonded labour, the use of children in armed conflict, trafficking in children and commercial sexual exploitation.
According to a 1998 study by the ILO, there were 61 per cent child labourers in Asia, 32 per cent in Africa, and seven per cent in Latin America, one per cent in the US, Canada, Europe and other wealthy nations. In Asia, 22 per cent of the workforce is reported to be children. In Latin America, 17 per cent of the workforce is also children. The proportion of child labourers has been found to vary a lot among countries, and even regions inside those countries.
The UNICEF 1997 State of the World’s Children Report said in Africa, one child in three is at work, and in Latin America, one child in five works. In these continents, only a tiny proportion of child workers are involved in the formal sector, and the vast majority of work is for their families, in homes, in the fields or on the streets.
Child labour is very common, and that can be factory work, mining or quarrying, agriculture, helping in the parents' business, having one's own small business (for example selling food or apparel), or doing odd jobs. Some children work as guides for tourists, sometimes combined with bringing in business for shops and restaurants, where they may also work as waiters. Other children are forced to do tedious and repetitive jobs such as polishing shoes, pounding fufu in chop bars and cleaning. However, rather than in factories and sweatshops, most child labour occurs in the informal sector, selling on the street, or child domestic work hidden away in houses far from the reach of official labour inspectors and from media scrutiny.
E. P. Thompson in “The Making of the English Working Class”, (Penguin, 1968), said in the Industrial Revolution, children as young as four years were employed in production factories with dangerous, and often fatal, working conditions.
Poverty is widely considered the top reason why children work at inappropriate jobs for their ages. But there are other reasons such as family expectations and traditions as I have indicated in the case of the Ghanaian farmer, abuse of the child as in the case of house helps or maid servants (as they are called in Ghana and domestic work in other places) and public opinion that downplays the risk of early work for children.
The current situation in poor countries is that poor families often rely on the labour of their children for survival, and sometimes it is their only source of income. This type of work is often hidden away because it is not in the industrial sector.
By all standards, the kind of labour supplied by most Ghanaian children on cocoa farms cannot be classified as child labour as per the standards of the ILO and other bodies. Probably, a look at what pertains in some homes and on the streets regarding kayayei, shoe shine boys and the lot paints a gloomy picture for the youth of this country.
Beyond compassion, we should consider who today’s children will become in the future. Between today and the year 2020, the clear indication is that the vast majority of new workers, citizens and new consumers whose skills and needs will build the world’s economy and society will come from developing countries. Over that 12-year period or so, it is estimated that more than 730 million people will join the world’s workforce more than all the other people employed in today's most developed nations.
According to research by Population Action International, more than 90 per cent of these new workers will be from developing nations. Governments of the developing economies should devised programmes to emancipate the people.
Programmes to prop up increased family incomes, education that helps children learn skills which will help them earn a living, social services which help children and families survive such crises as diseases, or loss of home and shelter. Above all, families should control fertility so that they are not burdened by children. Poverty alleviation programmes should be the target, because so far as poverty pertains, child labour will continue to be with us.
POWER OUTAGE AFFECTS COURTS IN ACCRA
A power outage at the Fast Track High Court today led to the adjournment of the trial of Thomas Osei, the man who rammed his car into the President's car last year.
Today’s power failure was one of the many occurrences at the court and did not affect only that case but many other cases which were slated for hearing in the fast track division of the High Court.
There seem to be no solution to the problem because the headquarters of the Judicial Service, which houses the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, did not have a standby generator.
The issue of power seems to be a major problem for the courts in Accra, including the Supreme Court, and on one occasion a generator had to be procured to ensure the hearing of a high-profile case.
Investigations conducted by the Daily Graphic indicated that the majority of the courts at the Cocoa Affairs courts complex had been without electricity since October last year.
As a result, justice delivery is affected as the judges are in most cases compelled to adjourn some cases because of the excessive heat coupled with appalling conditions in the courtrooms.
The electricity issue is just one of the many problems of the judiciary.
In the case of Thomas Osei, he was brought to court but the case had to be adjourned to February 22, 2008.
Osei’s counsel, Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Gertrude Aikins, were also in court.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
Today’s power failure was one of the many occurrences at the court and did not affect only that case but many other cases which were slated for hearing in the fast track division of the High Court.
There seem to be no solution to the problem because the headquarters of the Judicial Service, which houses the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, did not have a standby generator.
The issue of power seems to be a major problem for the courts in Accra, including the Supreme Court, and on one occasion a generator had to be procured to ensure the hearing of a high-profile case.
Investigations conducted by the Daily Graphic indicated that the majority of the courts at the Cocoa Affairs courts complex had been without electricity since October last year.
As a result, justice delivery is affected as the judges are in most cases compelled to adjourn some cases because of the excessive heat coupled with appalling conditions in the courtrooms.
The electricity issue is just one of the many problems of the judiciary.
In the case of Thomas Osei, he was brought to court but the case had to be adjourned to February 22, 2008.
Osei’s counsel, Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Gertrude Aikins, were also in court.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court on six counts.
Osei now faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei, who was driving a Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, drove into the rear side of the President’s vehicle, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The driver of the President’s car and the driver of a VW saloon car were treated and discharged, while Osei was admitted for treatment.
The President escaped unhurt.
SIXTY KILOGRAMMES OF COCAINE BURNT
SIXTY kilogrammes of cocaine which were concealed in 60 cans and labelled as GhanaFresh Palmnut Cream concentrate were today burnt on the orders of an Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Acquaye.
The destruction was done in the full glare of representatives from the media, the Attorney-General’s Office, the Chief Registrar of the Judicial Service, the Ghana Standards Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The substance, with a street value of $4 million, was meant for export to the United Kingdom but was intercepted in October, last year by security operatives at the Kotoka International Airport.
Two suspects, Emmanuel Kwaku Darkey, the exporter, and Kirk Patrick Akoto Bekoe, a freight forwarder, were arrested in connection with the substance but Bekoe was later released and used as a prosecution witness in the trial of Darkey.
Darkey is facing one count of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs but he has pleaded not guilty to the charge and is on remand.
The court’s order for the destruction of the substance was after a police investigator, Detective Sergeant Joseph Acquaye, had tendered it in evidence during his evidence-in-chief.
Sgt Acquaye said he was (and still is) an investigator at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) Headquarters and on October 13, last year, he was at home when his superior officer asked him to report to the office.
On reaching the office, he said, the accused person and the exhibits were handed over to him for investigations by his superior and that at a certain stage he forwarded the exhibits to the Ghana Standards Board for forensic examination.
According to the facts of the case, the accused and Bekoe were arrested at the Aviance Cargo Village at the Kotoka International Airport where each of the cans contained a kilogramme of pure cocaine when it was weighed and tested in the presence of the suspects.
Without tampering with the lids of the cans, the perpetrators had filled the cans with the cocaine in white polythene and resealed them.
Darkey, who is based in London, claimed he came to Ghana to purchase vegetables for export to London and that the consignment was given to him by another exporter, Michael Osei, to add to his.
When asked whether he knew the contents before accepting them, he was said to have answered in the negative and as to why he accepted the goods, particularly when there were security alerts for travellers and exporters not to accept any parcels or goods from anyone without knowing their contents, Darkey admitted he acted stupidly.
Mr William Kpobi is the prosecutor while the accused person is being represented by Mr Atta Akyea.
Further hearing has been adjourned to February 22, 2008.
The destruction was done in the full glare of representatives from the media, the Attorney-General’s Office, the Chief Registrar of the Judicial Service, the Ghana Standards Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The substance, with a street value of $4 million, was meant for export to the United Kingdom but was intercepted in October, last year by security operatives at the Kotoka International Airport.
Two suspects, Emmanuel Kwaku Darkey, the exporter, and Kirk Patrick Akoto Bekoe, a freight forwarder, were arrested in connection with the substance but Bekoe was later released and used as a prosecution witness in the trial of Darkey.
Darkey is facing one count of attempted exportation of narcotic drugs but he has pleaded not guilty to the charge and is on remand.
The court’s order for the destruction of the substance was after a police investigator, Detective Sergeant Joseph Acquaye, had tendered it in evidence during his evidence-in-chief.
Sgt Acquaye said he was (and still is) an investigator at the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) Headquarters and on October 13, last year, he was at home when his superior officer asked him to report to the office.
On reaching the office, he said, the accused person and the exhibits were handed over to him for investigations by his superior and that at a certain stage he forwarded the exhibits to the Ghana Standards Board for forensic examination.
According to the facts of the case, the accused and Bekoe were arrested at the Aviance Cargo Village at the Kotoka International Airport where each of the cans contained a kilogramme of pure cocaine when it was weighed and tested in the presence of the suspects.
Without tampering with the lids of the cans, the perpetrators had filled the cans with the cocaine in white polythene and resealed them.
Darkey, who is based in London, claimed he came to Ghana to purchase vegetables for export to London and that the consignment was given to him by another exporter, Michael Osei, to add to his.
When asked whether he knew the contents before accepting them, he was said to have answered in the negative and as to why he accepted the goods, particularly when there were security alerts for travellers and exporters not to accept any parcels or goods from anyone without knowing their contents, Darkey admitted he acted stupidly.
Mr William Kpobi is the prosecutor while the accused person is being represented by Mr Atta Akyea.
Further hearing has been adjourned to February 22, 2008.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
GIMPA RECTOR OPENS DEFENCE
THE Rector of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Dr Stephen Adei, on Wednesday opened his defence at the Accra Fast Track High Court in the case in which Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr is seeking an order from the court to restrain him from holding himself out as such and as a professor of the institute.
The Rector said his first appointment letter, which he received on January 1, 2000, made him the chief executive officer (CEO) of GIMPA for a five-year tenure, subject to renewal for only another term of two years.
Dr Adei said after the expiration of his first term of office on December 31, 2005, the President did not remove him from office and he continued to act in that capacity until a new Governing Council was formed.
Therefore, he said, between December 2004 and June 2005 he was still the CEO of GIMPA.
Mr Faibille wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and he should, therefore, be restrained from holding himself out as such.
He further wants the court to order GIMPA to advertise the position of rector, since it is vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he has not been re-appointed as rector.
According to Dr Adei, since January 1, 2000 he had been a member of the GIMPA Governing Council in his capacity as the CEO and that he was present at a meeting of the council in June 2005, during which the members discussed the renewal of his appointment, since he had been acting for six months.
Hearing continues on February 19, 2008.
The Rector said his first appointment letter, which he received on January 1, 2000, made him the chief executive officer (CEO) of GIMPA for a five-year tenure, subject to renewal for only another term of two years.
Dr Adei said after the expiration of his first term of office on December 31, 2005, the President did not remove him from office and he continued to act in that capacity until a new Governing Council was formed.
Therefore, he said, between December 2004 and June 2005 he was still the CEO of GIMPA.
Mr Faibille wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and he should, therefore, be restrained from holding himself out as such.
He further wants the court to order GIMPA to advertise the position of rector, since it is vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he has not been re-appointed as rector.
According to Dr Adei, since January 1, 2000 he had been a member of the GIMPA Governing Council in his capacity as the CEO and that he was present at a meeting of the council in June 2005, during which the members discussed the renewal of his appointment, since he had been acting for six months.
Hearing continues on February 19, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)