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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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-Ã -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-Ã -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.
WULOMO, 2 OTHERS IN WEE CASE
THREE persons, including the Wulomo of the Atukpai Division of Accra, Numo Oku, have been put before the Accra circuit court for allegedly attempting to export 178 kilogrammes of dried leaves suspected to be Indian hemp to the United Kingdom through the Kotoka International Airport.
The substances were concealed in 10 plywood boards which were taken to the Aviance Cargo Village by Anthony Okine, a welder, and Numo Oku and given to Braima Salifu, a forwarding agent, for processing for export.
However, during the scanning of the consignment, they were found to contain the compressed dried leaves.
Okine and Salifu were remanded to appear again on February 27, while a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Numo Oku, who is said to be at large.
They are facing a charge of possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority but their pleas were not taken.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Superintendent J.K. Abraham, are that on February 6, this year, Okine and Numo Oku went to the cargo village to export 10 plywood boards to the UK.
They handed the consignment to Salifu to process the necessary documents to facilitate the export but during the scanning of the boards, they were found to contain some foreign materials.
Consequently, when one of the plywood was cut open by Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) operatives, it was found to contain six slabs of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis. That prompted the examination of the rest, which were also found to contain similar substances.
Supt Abraham said Okine and Salifu were arrested but Numo Oku managed to escape.
He said the exhibits had been taken to the Ghana Standards Board for examination and analysis.
The substances were concealed in 10 plywood boards which were taken to the Aviance Cargo Village by Anthony Okine, a welder, and Numo Oku and given to Braima Salifu, a forwarding agent, for processing for export.
However, during the scanning of the consignment, they were found to contain the compressed dried leaves.
Okine and Salifu were remanded to appear again on February 27, while a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Numo Oku, who is said to be at large.
They are facing a charge of possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority but their pleas were not taken.
The facts of the case, as narrated by Superintendent J.K. Abraham, are that on February 6, this year, Okine and Numo Oku went to the cargo village to export 10 plywood boards to the UK.
They handed the consignment to Salifu to process the necessary documents to facilitate the export but during the scanning of the boards, they were found to contain some foreign materials.
Consequently, when one of the plywood was cut open by Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) operatives, it was found to contain six slabs of dried leaves suspected to be cannabis. That prompted the examination of the rest, which were also found to contain similar substances.
Supt Abraham said Okine and Salifu were arrested but Numo Oku managed to escape.
He said the exhibits had been taken to the Ghana Standards Board for examination and analysis.
Friday, February 08, 2008
ACCUSED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN A COMA-POLICE WITNESS
A prosecution witness today told the court that the 0.41 per cent alcohol level found in the breath of Thomas Osei, the man who rammed his car into the President's car last year, could have put the accused person in a coma and not be able to drive.
The witness, Lance Corporal Eric Asare of the Airport MTTU further denied that the alcosensor, which he used to test the alcohol level of the accused person was defective since he regularly serviced it.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for the accused person, the witness indicated that the legal alcohol limit was 0.08 per cent but did not think that anybody with 0.41 per cent would be totally in a coma and not be able to do anything.
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.
Led in his evidence by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, Lance Corporal Asare told the court that he was not present when the accident occurred but was in the charge office as a standby investigator when his superior officer called to inform him that the President's car had been involved in a serious accident at the Opeibea intersection.
" I proceeded to the scene of the accident and saw a damaged VW Golf car, the President's car and a black Mercedes Benz saloon", he said and added that the President's car was taken to the Castle.
The witness noted that he went to the hospital where he learnt the accident victims had been taken to for treatment and while there, he saw the driver of the VW Golf who was introduced as Rev Joe King Osei Kuffuor, the President's driver and the accused person.
According to Lance Corporal Asare on speaking to the accused person, he realised that he smelled on alcohol and, therefore, he was instructed to test the accused person.
He said at the time the alcocensor was not around and so it was sent for but before he could test he accused person, he (Osei) in the presence of two medical doctors admitted that he had taken in some alcohol.
The witness said that he was unaware that the accused person had taken a meal during which time he took the alcohol.
Another witness, George Oduro, an escort driver of the Presidential convoy told the court that his car was behind that of the President's and that the distance between cars in the convoy was about 20 metres while the speed was between 80/90 KMP.
On reaching the Opeibea House intersection area, he said, he spotted a car moving at top speed from the Aviance section of the road, which made him to close in on the President's car.
Mr Oduro said the median on the road prevented him from taking full cover because he would have hit the car of the President.
He said the oncoming car hit the President's car at its rear tyre after which he stopped in front of the car of the accused person until he was asked to move.
Moments later, he said President J.A. Kufuor was put in his car and taken to the Castle, Osu.
During cross-examination, the witness noted that each time the Presidents convoy moved all the cars except that of the President, had sirens on.
He said he could not tell whether an earlier witness had told the court that the siren in the President's car was on at the time of the accident but what he saw was his evidence.
According to him, it was possible that the President's convoy could be involved in an accident if the policeman who was detailed to monitor traffic did not do his work well and it was to forestall any such thing that a policeman is always at post to ensure sanity.
He said the policeman who was on duty on the day of the accident gave sufficient notice to road users that the President's convoy was about to pass.
A vehicle examiner from the Driver and Vehicle licensing Authority (DVLA), Mr Joseph Addison gave a terse evidence and tendered a report on an examination he conducted on the cars which were involved in the accident.
He was, however, not allowed to read the report when counsel for the accused person raised an objection about its relevance to the charges against his client.
The witness, Lance Corporal Eric Asare of the Airport MTTU further denied that the alcosensor, which he used to test the alcohol level of the accused person was defective since he regularly serviced it.
Testifying under cross-examination by Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for the accused person, the witness indicated that the legal alcohol limit was 0.08 per cent but did not think that anybody with 0.41 per cent would be totally in a coma and not be able to do anything.
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.
Led in his evidence by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, Lance Corporal Asare told the court that he was not present when the accident occurred but was in the charge office as a standby investigator when his superior officer called to inform him that the President's car had been involved in a serious accident at the Opeibea intersection.
" I proceeded to the scene of the accident and saw a damaged VW Golf car, the President's car and a black Mercedes Benz saloon", he said and added that the President's car was taken to the Castle.
The witness noted that he went to the hospital where he learnt the accident victims had been taken to for treatment and while there, he saw the driver of the VW Golf who was introduced as Rev Joe King Osei Kuffuor, the President's driver and the accused person.
According to Lance Corporal Asare on speaking to the accused person, he realised that he smelled on alcohol and, therefore, he was instructed to test the accused person.
He said at the time the alcocensor was not around and so it was sent for but before he could test he accused person, he (Osei) in the presence of two medical doctors admitted that he had taken in some alcohol.
The witness said that he was unaware that the accused person had taken a meal during which time he took the alcohol.
Another witness, George Oduro, an escort driver of the Presidential convoy told the court that his car was behind that of the President's and that the distance between cars in the convoy was about 20 metres while the speed was between 80/90 KMP.
On reaching the Opeibea House intersection area, he said, he spotted a car moving at top speed from the Aviance section of the road, which made him to close in on the President's car.
Mr Oduro said the median on the road prevented him from taking full cover because he would have hit the car of the President.
He said the oncoming car hit the President's car at its rear tyre after which he stopped in front of the car of the accused person until he was asked to move.
Moments later, he said President J.A. Kufuor was put in his car and taken to the Castle, Osu.
During cross-examination, the witness noted that each time the Presidents convoy moved all the cars except that of the President, had sirens on.
He said he could not tell whether an earlier witness had told the court that the siren in the President's car was on at the time of the accident but what he saw was his evidence.
According to him, it was possible that the President's convoy could be involved in an accident if the policeman who was detailed to monitor traffic did not do his work well and it was to forestall any such thing that a policeman is always at post to ensure sanity.
He said the policeman who was on duty on the day of the accident gave sufficient notice to road users that the President's convoy was about to pass.
A vehicle examiner from the Driver and Vehicle licensing Authority (DVLA), Mr Joseph Addison gave a terse evidence and tendered a report on an examination he conducted on the cars which were involved in the accident.
He was, however, not allowed to read the report when counsel for the accused person raised an objection about its relevance to the charges against his client.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
CROSS-FIRE IN COURT OVER PRESIDENT'S ACCIDENT CASE
LAWYERS in the accident case involving President Kufuor today engaged in heated arguments laced with vituperations that sent tempers flaring in the Accra Fast Track High Court.
The trial judge, Mr Justice E.K. Ayebi, had to intervene to calm the cross-fire but that was not without some difficulty as he thought that the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins and Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for the defence, were enemies.
“Are you enemies. I don’t like what you people are doing”, the judge reminded the counsel and asked them to be mindful of the ethics of the Bar.
The tense atmosphere was, somehow, defused by the poor translation of the proceedings in Twi by a court interpreter whose ‘butchering’ of both the Twi and English langauages sent the packed court laughing uncontrollably.
Mr Justice Ayebi had on occasions reminded the interpreter to do the right translation of what had been said.
The stage was set when Mr Akuffo after announcing himself accused the DPP of lying to the court at the last sitting that she was unwell and, therefore, needed a two-week adjournment.
According to counsel, he would not have spoken but for the fact that his client was still in custody and that Ms Aikins after taking the adjournment was seen in the Court of Appeal three days later standing on her feet for more than two and a half hours in the case involving the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Abodakpi.
Quickly, the judge drew counsel’s attention that he could not make that kind of argument just because Ms Aikins was in court and he should be circumspect about how he made such statements.
Ms Aikins said she could not leave the matter to rest since it hinged on her integrity and sought leave from the court to order the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to furnish it with what transpired in the former MP’s case.
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.
When the dust settled, Rev King Joe Osei Kuffuor, the man whose car was affected by the accident continued his testimony under cross-examination from Mr Akuffo
The witness denied that he had been coached to testify in order to put the accused person in trouble since his evidence was not the accurate recollection of the event.
Another witness, ASP Emmanuel Raymond Asante Of the VIP Protection Unit also testified and said that on the day of the accident he was in the President’s house and that all the vehicles in the Presidential convoy, including that of the President, had their sirens on.
He said once the sirens were working they were uninterrupted until the convoy reached the Castle at Osu.
According to ASP Asante although he was in the President’s house when the convoy took off he was not in a position to say anything about what happened since he was not present at the scene of the accident.
The cross-fire was reignited when Mr Akuffo wanted to ask the witness a question relating to the movement of the President’s convoy after the accident but Ms Aikins objected and her objection was sustained.
Mr Emmanuel Osafo Addo, the President’s driver, in his evidence said he knew the accused person because for about four years he had been visiting the President’s house.
He said on the day of the accident, he was on his normal driving duty but on reaching the Opeibea intersection he saw the black Benz but he remained focused.
However, he said that in his effort to swerve the Benz car, the President’s car was hit by the Benz at the rear making it to somersault.
Mr Addo said he did not see the accused person immediately before and after the accident because before the accident he saw a black Benz car while the driver was brought to the hospital on a stretcher.
He described as false any information that he and Rev Kuffuor were taken in an ambulance to the hospital because he was taken to the hospital in a police patrol vehicle.
The trial judge, Mr Justice E.K. Ayebi, had to intervene to calm the cross-fire but that was not without some difficulty as he thought that the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins and Mr Kwame Boafo Akuffo, counsel for the defence, were enemies.
“Are you enemies. I don’t like what you people are doing”, the judge reminded the counsel and asked them to be mindful of the ethics of the Bar.
The tense atmosphere was, somehow, defused by the poor translation of the proceedings in Twi by a court interpreter whose ‘butchering’ of both the Twi and English langauages sent the packed court laughing uncontrollably.
Mr Justice Ayebi had on occasions reminded the interpreter to do the right translation of what had been said.
The stage was set when Mr Akuffo after announcing himself accused the DPP of lying to the court at the last sitting that she was unwell and, therefore, needed a two-week adjournment.
According to counsel, he would not have spoken but for the fact that his client was still in custody and that Ms Aikins after taking the adjournment was seen in the Court of Appeal three days later standing on her feet for more than two and a half hours in the case involving the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Abodakpi.
Quickly, the judge drew counsel’s attention that he could not make that kind of argument just because Ms Aikins was in court and he should be circumspect about how he made such statements.
Ms Aikins said she could not leave the matter to rest since it hinged on her integrity and sought leave from the court to order the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to furnish it with what transpired in the former MP’s case.
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.
When the dust settled, Rev King Joe Osei Kuffuor, the man whose car was affected by the accident continued his testimony under cross-examination from Mr Akuffo
The witness denied that he had been coached to testify in order to put the accused person in trouble since his evidence was not the accurate recollection of the event.
Another witness, ASP Emmanuel Raymond Asante Of the VIP Protection Unit also testified and said that on the day of the accident he was in the President’s house and that all the vehicles in the Presidential convoy, including that of the President, had their sirens on.
He said once the sirens were working they were uninterrupted until the convoy reached the Castle at Osu.
According to ASP Asante although he was in the President’s house when the convoy took off he was not in a position to say anything about what happened since he was not present at the scene of the accident.
The cross-fire was reignited when Mr Akuffo wanted to ask the witness a question relating to the movement of the President’s convoy after the accident but Ms Aikins objected and her objection was sustained.
Mr Emmanuel Osafo Addo, the President’s driver, in his evidence said he knew the accused person because for about four years he had been visiting the President’s house.
He said on the day of the accident, he was on his normal driving duty but on reaching the Opeibea intersection he saw the black Benz but he remained focused.
However, he said that in his effort to swerve the Benz car, the President’s car was hit by the Benz at the rear making it to somersault.
Mr Addo said he did not see the accused person immediately before and after the accident because before the accident he saw a black Benz car while the driver was brought to the hospital on a stretcher.
He described as false any information that he and Rev Kuffuor were taken in an ambulance to the hospital because he was taken to the hospital in a police patrol vehicle.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING IN GHANA, 50 YEARS ON
There is no doubt that the greatest asset of every country is its citizens because their general well-being determines the overall progress and development of a national economy. An enhanced quality of life means higher productivity since very little of the country’s budget would be spent on health facilities and the treatment of diseases in general. Any country which has unhealthy population is bound to suffer in many ways towards programmes aimed at development.
Health and poverty, according to the Global Forum for Health Research (1999), are intricately linked and that poverty is often associated with ill health. Therefore various governments embark on programmes to provide good health care services to the people.
In developing countries such as Ghana, the extension and improvement of primary health care, for example, disproportionately benefited low income groups by addressing their health needs in a cost-effective way.
Despite persistent efforts, both present and past by successive governments, basic health indicators show that the health status of Ghanaians remains relatively poor with low life expectancy, infectious diseases, high maternal and infant mortality cases, among other new emerging diseases like buruli ulcer, with the poor being severely hit. This is very serious especially when about 40 per cent of the people are considered poor and 27 per cent are extremely poor.
Before the advent of colonialism, the natives used medicine prepared from herbal concoctions which were prepared by herbalists and other people who were well vexed in the spirit world. However with colonisation the British introduced orthodox medical medicine and hospitals as a very improved curative method.
Therefore, health care delivery is now pluralistic: there are private medical practitioners, mission hospitals/clinics, herbalists, and fetish priests, among many others. The private practitioners are in business to make money and are concentrated in urban areas. The missions also initially exempted the poor from their fees.
This is to say that Ghana has had a chequered history of health care financing options and as the country marks her 50th anniversary it is necessary to take a look at its health financing options. There had been certain times that health services were provided free of charge and other times that user fees were charged. Since the 1980s user fees for government services have become an accepted financing option for the health and social sectors in Ghana and many other developing countries.
Thus Ghana which had a tradition of providing health services free of charge introduced fees.
In July 1985, the government of Ghana enacted the Hospital Fees Regulation as a cost-sharing measure for the use of Ministry of Health (MOH) facilities.
Proponents of user fees stress that equity and efficiency gains can be achieved through the implementation of a cost-recovery policy package. Within this package user fees are complemented by decentralisation and combined with two targeting mechanisms favouring low income groups: exemptions, and the use of fee revenue to improve the services offered to them.
Success in protecting the poor appears to be limited and there are considerable informational, administrative, resource and socio-political constraints undermining the development of effective targeting mechanisms.
Attempts to recover some government health care expenses through user charges have produced less revenue than hoped and national health insurance was seem as an attractive alternative, but needs to include features which check cost escalation. Community involvement and traditional medicine can also help to reduce costs.
Despite improvements in public health indicators, the population of Ghana still suffers because of a poor health status, especially in rural areas. The largest provider of health services is the Ministry of Health (MOH). Although the MOH budget grew 12 per cent from 1986 to 1990, this amounted to only a 2.3 per cent real per capita increase.
Prices are specified according to service level, treatment location, age, and service. This scheme resulted in an average of less than 10 per cent cost recovery for the MOH and a drop in attendance at health facilities, especially in rural areas.
The number of mutual health organisations (MHOs) in Ghana grew from 47 in 2001 to 168 in 2003. Yet there is limited evidence on factors that predict enrolment in such schemes, and whether enrolment increases health care utilisation and ultimately health outcomes. In recognition of the potential of MHOs to eliminate user fees and increase access to health care, Ghana enacted the National Health Insurance Act in 2003, mandating the establishment of district-wide MHOs.
A study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana involving six districts in Ghana: Nkoranza, Kwahu South, Ahanta West, Ajumako Enyan Essiam, Offinso, and Savelugu/Nanton. Results indicated that household head characteristics (older age, female gender, higher education, and employment) predicted insurance enrolment at the household level, whereas these factors plus household wealth increased the likelihood of enrolment of an individual. Referring to outpatient care seeking, insured respondents were more likely than uninsured to seek treatment and to do so promptly. Insurance enrolment was the most important predictor of being able to afford hospital care. Enrolment also protected respondents from being detained in hospital due to inability to pay the bill. Marginal insurance effects were found in relation to prenatal care, but insured women in Nkoranza were significantly more likely to deliver by caesarean. The combined effect of insurance enrolment and complicated delivery provided protection from high out-of-pocket payments. Comparing premiums for the MHOs in the study districts with those of the NHIS suggests that the government-established NHIS premium of 72,000 cedis per adult was within reach of most Ghanaian families, and offered a better value in that it covers primary health care in addition to inpatient care. Adverse selection is more likely to pose a problem in the near term, given the slow uptake of enrolment. Findings largely demonstrate that enrolment in insurance does offer household income protection for more serious health issues. Uninsured respondents paid 10-20 times more for inpatient care than did insured respondents. My old lady who saw the significance of the scheme remarked when I visited the village that because of n her enrolment status doctors now prescribed expensive drugs for her. Findings for maternity care payments were similar – insured women paid 3-5 times less for delivery care than did uninsured women. Future surveys will be useful to both monitor progress in the study districts and to evaluate the impact of implementing national health insurance in Ghana.
It is a fact that because the Hospital Fees Regulation legislation did not provide the necessary funds for Ghana's health care system to improve and expand, other mechanisms such as the National Health Insurance scheme (NHIS) which depend upon shared costs between insurer and insured has been introduced .
Self employed or unemployed contributors to the scheme paid annual premiums while their working counterparts who contributed to the Social Security National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) were bailed when their 2.5 per cent of their SSNIT contributions were deducted to support the scheme. But this could have settled the minds of many but has its problems such that some contributors faced problems in getting registered. I happen to be victim of this unfortunate phenomenon. There were other reported cases of frustration because insurance card holders were said to be neglected for those who paid real cash at the health delivery points. This has been so probably because of the inability of the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC) to reimburse the various delivery points. It was however, refreshing when the Council late last year was reported by the Ghana New Agency (GNA) to have paid 324 billion cedis for the settlement of all debts it owed to hospitals, clinics and pharmacy shops that provide services to scheme members.
The Executive Secretary of the NHIS, Mr Ras Boateng was said to have disclosed this in a speech read on his behalf at the second annual general meeting of the New Juaben Municipal Mutual Health Insurance Scheme in Koforidua.
He was reported as saying that Ghana had achieved the fastest rate of implementation of health insurance in the world, and that within a short time of three years of actual implementation, close to 50 per cent of the country's population was accessing free health care. Is this free health care anyway?
Various concepts such as the conflict theory with its base on economics, perceptions as a concept of human behaviour and social group influences, have been found to influence health care utilisation and especially in our part of the world where health care delivery is pluralistic requires tactfulness to ensure maximum utilisation. There should be continued public sensitisation to rake in more people to embrace the scheme . This is in spite of the flagrant refusal by some people not to patronise it on the fickle excuse that it is of no benefit to them. Those who think this way say that when they go to health centres they are not given the best of drugs. This kind of thinking has a somewhat sociological base in that patients who receive drugs of certain kinds such as tablets, injections and the colour of the drug play on the minds of the people so that when they receive the expected drug they think a certain way. Since health care users fees have become in vogue in contemporay health care administration efforts must be done to streamline them to improve on the health status of the people.
Health and poverty, according to the Global Forum for Health Research (1999), are intricately linked and that poverty is often associated with ill health. Therefore various governments embark on programmes to provide good health care services to the people.
In developing countries such as Ghana, the extension and improvement of primary health care, for example, disproportionately benefited low income groups by addressing their health needs in a cost-effective way.
Despite persistent efforts, both present and past by successive governments, basic health indicators show that the health status of Ghanaians remains relatively poor with low life expectancy, infectious diseases, high maternal and infant mortality cases, among other new emerging diseases like buruli ulcer, with the poor being severely hit. This is very serious especially when about 40 per cent of the people are considered poor and 27 per cent are extremely poor.
Before the advent of colonialism, the natives used medicine prepared from herbal concoctions which were prepared by herbalists and other people who were well vexed in the spirit world. However with colonisation the British introduced orthodox medical medicine and hospitals as a very improved curative method.
Therefore, health care delivery is now pluralistic: there are private medical practitioners, mission hospitals/clinics, herbalists, and fetish priests, among many others. The private practitioners are in business to make money and are concentrated in urban areas. The missions also initially exempted the poor from their fees.
This is to say that Ghana has had a chequered history of health care financing options and as the country marks her 50th anniversary it is necessary to take a look at its health financing options. There had been certain times that health services were provided free of charge and other times that user fees were charged. Since the 1980s user fees for government services have become an accepted financing option for the health and social sectors in Ghana and many other developing countries.
Thus Ghana which had a tradition of providing health services free of charge introduced fees.
In July 1985, the government of Ghana enacted the Hospital Fees Regulation as a cost-sharing measure for the use of Ministry of Health (MOH) facilities.
Proponents of user fees stress that equity and efficiency gains can be achieved through the implementation of a cost-recovery policy package. Within this package user fees are complemented by decentralisation and combined with two targeting mechanisms favouring low income groups: exemptions, and the use of fee revenue to improve the services offered to them.
Success in protecting the poor appears to be limited and there are considerable informational, administrative, resource and socio-political constraints undermining the development of effective targeting mechanisms.
Attempts to recover some government health care expenses through user charges have produced less revenue than hoped and national health insurance was seem as an attractive alternative, but needs to include features which check cost escalation. Community involvement and traditional medicine can also help to reduce costs.
Despite improvements in public health indicators, the population of Ghana still suffers because of a poor health status, especially in rural areas. The largest provider of health services is the Ministry of Health (MOH). Although the MOH budget grew 12 per cent from 1986 to 1990, this amounted to only a 2.3 per cent real per capita increase.
Prices are specified according to service level, treatment location, age, and service. This scheme resulted in an average of less than 10 per cent cost recovery for the MOH and a drop in attendance at health facilities, especially in rural areas.
The number of mutual health organisations (MHOs) in Ghana grew from 47 in 2001 to 168 in 2003. Yet there is limited evidence on factors that predict enrolment in such schemes, and whether enrolment increases health care utilisation and ultimately health outcomes. In recognition of the potential of MHOs to eliminate user fees and increase access to health care, Ghana enacted the National Health Insurance Act in 2003, mandating the establishment of district-wide MHOs.
A study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana involving six districts in Ghana: Nkoranza, Kwahu South, Ahanta West, Ajumako Enyan Essiam, Offinso, and Savelugu/Nanton. Results indicated that household head characteristics (older age, female gender, higher education, and employment) predicted insurance enrolment at the household level, whereas these factors plus household wealth increased the likelihood of enrolment of an individual. Referring to outpatient care seeking, insured respondents were more likely than uninsured to seek treatment and to do so promptly. Insurance enrolment was the most important predictor of being able to afford hospital care. Enrolment also protected respondents from being detained in hospital due to inability to pay the bill. Marginal insurance effects were found in relation to prenatal care, but insured women in Nkoranza were significantly more likely to deliver by caesarean. The combined effect of insurance enrolment and complicated delivery provided protection from high out-of-pocket payments. Comparing premiums for the MHOs in the study districts with those of the NHIS suggests that the government-established NHIS premium of 72,000 cedis per adult was within reach of most Ghanaian families, and offered a better value in that it covers primary health care in addition to inpatient care. Adverse selection is more likely to pose a problem in the near term, given the slow uptake of enrolment. Findings largely demonstrate that enrolment in insurance does offer household income protection for more serious health issues. Uninsured respondents paid 10-20 times more for inpatient care than did insured respondents. My old lady who saw the significance of the scheme remarked when I visited the village that because of n her enrolment status doctors now prescribed expensive drugs for her. Findings for maternity care payments were similar – insured women paid 3-5 times less for delivery care than did uninsured women. Future surveys will be useful to both monitor progress in the study districts and to evaluate the impact of implementing national health insurance in Ghana.
It is a fact that because the Hospital Fees Regulation legislation did not provide the necessary funds for Ghana's health care system to improve and expand, other mechanisms such as the National Health Insurance scheme (NHIS) which depend upon shared costs between insurer and insured has been introduced .
Self employed or unemployed contributors to the scheme paid annual premiums while their working counterparts who contributed to the Social Security National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) were bailed when their 2.5 per cent of their SSNIT contributions were deducted to support the scheme. But this could have settled the minds of many but has its problems such that some contributors faced problems in getting registered. I happen to be victim of this unfortunate phenomenon. There were other reported cases of frustration because insurance card holders were said to be neglected for those who paid real cash at the health delivery points. This has been so probably because of the inability of the National Health Insurance Council (NHIC) to reimburse the various delivery points. It was however, refreshing when the Council late last year was reported by the Ghana New Agency (GNA) to have paid 324 billion cedis for the settlement of all debts it owed to hospitals, clinics and pharmacy shops that provide services to scheme members.
The Executive Secretary of the NHIS, Mr Ras Boateng was said to have disclosed this in a speech read on his behalf at the second annual general meeting of the New Juaben Municipal Mutual Health Insurance Scheme in Koforidua.
He was reported as saying that Ghana had achieved the fastest rate of implementation of health insurance in the world, and that within a short time of three years of actual implementation, close to 50 per cent of the country's population was accessing free health care. Is this free health care anyway?
Various concepts such as the conflict theory with its base on economics, perceptions as a concept of human behaviour and social group influences, have been found to influence health care utilisation and especially in our part of the world where health care delivery is pluralistic requires tactfulness to ensure maximum utilisation. There should be continued public sensitisation to rake in more people to embrace the scheme . This is in spite of the flagrant refusal by some people not to patronise it on the fickle excuse that it is of no benefit to them. Those who think this way say that when they go to health centres they are not given the best of drugs. This kind of thinking has a somewhat sociological base in that patients who receive drugs of certain kinds such as tablets, injections and the colour of the drug play on the minds of the people so that when they receive the expected drug they think a certain way. Since health care users fees have become in vogue in contemporay health care administration efforts must be done to streamline them to improve on the health status of the people.
I REFUSED TO CHANGE MY STATEMENT- SAILOR
A SAILOR who is being tried alongside four others in connection with MV Benjamin, the vessel alleged to have carted 77 parcels of cocaine in the country, on Wednesday said that a police investigator asked him to change his statement and write a new one to incriminate the two foreigners involved but he refused.
The sailor, Isaac Arhin, told the Accra Fast Track High Court that he refused and informed Inspector Charles Adabah, the investigator, that he had already given his statement to the police but asked James Inkoom, an accomplice who later became a prosecution witness whether he (Inkoom) had changed his statement to the police, to which Inkoom replied no.
Isaac was concluding his evidence in-chief in the case in which he, his brother, Philip Bruce Arhin, Joseph Kojo Dawson, the owner of the vessel, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, have been accused of playing various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
The accused persons have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by his counsel, Mr Osei Wusu, Isaac told the court that they were on remand at the James Fort prison and four days after coming to court, they were taken to the Police CID Headquarters where the investigator called him to come and change his statement to the police to incriminate the whitemen.
He said after that Inkoom was dropped as an accomplice and never taken to court again.
When Mrs Stella Badu, a state attorney crossed-examined Isaac, he said that he had been a sailor for 20 years but had worked with MV Benjamin for only three years from 2002 to 2005.
According to him, he did not know Yin Xing, one of the Chinese but knew all the other accused persons and that Yin Xing came to the vessel a day before it took off to the high seas to ask for food from Xian Li who was his friend.
He described as false the assertion that Inkoom was not working on the vessel at the time it was arrested and according to him, after Inkoom had gone for the funeral of his late wife he came back two months later.
Isaac said that he filled the vessel’s movement card but denied that he knew the destination of the vessel because he was made to understand that it was going for a trial on the high seas.
He further denied that Commander Yakubu of the Ghana Navy spoke to their vessel before it w as arrested because the instrument on which the Commander allegedly spoke to them did not exist on the vessel, therefore, it was impossible to have communicated with them
The sailor, Isaac Arhin, told the Accra Fast Track High Court that he refused and informed Inspector Charles Adabah, the investigator, that he had already given his statement to the police but asked James Inkoom, an accomplice who later became a prosecution witness whether he (Inkoom) had changed his statement to the police, to which Inkoom replied no.
Isaac was concluding his evidence in-chief in the case in which he, his brother, Philip Bruce Arhin, Joseph Kojo Dawson, the owner of the vessel, and Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, have been accused of playing various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
The accused persons have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by his counsel, Mr Osei Wusu, Isaac told the court that they were on remand at the James Fort prison and four days after coming to court, they were taken to the Police CID Headquarters where the investigator called him to come and change his statement to the police to incriminate the whitemen.
He said after that Inkoom was dropped as an accomplice and never taken to court again.
When Mrs Stella Badu, a state attorney crossed-examined Isaac, he said that he had been a sailor for 20 years but had worked with MV Benjamin for only three years from 2002 to 2005.
According to him, he did not know Yin Xing, one of the Chinese but knew all the other accused persons and that Yin Xing came to the vessel a day before it took off to the high seas to ask for food from Xian Li who was his friend.
He described as false the assertion that Inkoom was not working on the vessel at the time it was arrested and according to him, after Inkoom had gone for the funeral of his late wife he came back two months later.
Isaac said that he filled the vessel’s movement card but denied that he knew the destination of the vessel because he was made to understand that it was going for a trial on the high seas.
He further denied that Commander Yakubu of the Ghana Navy spoke to their vessel before it w as arrested because the instrument on which the Commander allegedly spoke to them did not exist on the vessel, therefore, it was impossible to have communicated with them
FORMER AMA ACCOUNTANT IN COURT FOR MURDERING GIRLFRIEND
A former accountant at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Kingsley Awanga Cromwell, who allegedly murdered his girlfriend at North Kaneshie in Accra and attempted to end his life has been arraigned at the Accra Fast Track High Court on a charge of murder.
Cromwell was said to have suspected his girlfriend, Beatrice Mensah, then a secretary with the AMA, of having a relationship with a military officer and strangled her to death on November 6, 2004.
Cromwell pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is on bail granted by an Accra High Court.
Three prosecution witnesses testified last Tuesday and the case was adjourned to February 15, 2008.
The facts as narrated to the court by Ms Cynthia Lamptey, a state attorney, are that Cromwell and Beatrice were in a relationship for about four years until the incident.
She said that Cromwell, who had two wives, suspected Beatrice of having an affair with a military officer and on that fateful day informed one of his wives that he was going to kill Beatrice and then kill himself.
Ms Lamptey told the court that when Cromwell went to Beatrice’s house, he asked her to accompany him to the bedroom where he strangled her.
According to her, the landlady, Madam Susana Yemokai Owoo, became suspicious after Beatrice’s niece come to ask her (landlady) about Beatrice. The landlady used a spare key to open the door only to find Beatrice dead.
The prosecutor said the landlady then found Cromwell hiding behind a refrigerator in the kitchen and stabbed himself.
Counsel for Cromwell denied that his client was responsible for the strangulation, which a post-mortem report indicated was the cause of the death of Beatrice.
In her evidence, the landlady said he knew both Cromwell and Beatrice and that on November 6, 2004, she was at home at dawn when Beatrice spoke with her through the window and asked of her (landlady’s) health.
Madam Owoo said that Beatrice informed her that Cromwell was coming to the house so she opened the gate for him and the two went into their room.
Not quite long, she said, Beatrice’s niece came to ask her about the whereabouts of the deceased, since a knock on his door did not yield any response.
“I told the girl that Beatrice was in her room with Cromwell but she came back to tell me that several knocks did not elicit any response but I became worried because Cromwell just came around,” she said.
According to Madam Owoo, she followed up and knocked the door and yet there was no response and , therefore, went for a spare key to open the door and because Cromwell was tall she saw his head and asked him where Beatrice had been.
She said Cromwell told her that Beatrice was asleep but she wondered that could be true when they both entered not too long ago.
The witness said that while talking the deceased’s niece said they should call Beatrice and when they did she did not respond and the girl spotted traces of blood making her (landlady) to exclaim “Oh my Lord”.
She said that having found the traces of blood herself, she shouted and then her driver came into the room and hit the door to the bedroom with his leg and when it was opened they saw Beatrice lying dead on the bed covered with a pillow.
“We noticed that Beatrice’s tongue had stuck out,” she said, and added that many people were attracted to the room and started wailing and she sent for the police.
She said that when the police arrived and opened the kitchen they found Cromwell hiding behind the fridge in a pool of blood.
Madam Owoo said later on a lady carrying a baby and claimed to be the wife of Cromwell came to the house to say that the accused person had threatened to kill the deceased and also kill himself but when she asked the lady why she delayed in coming to report the lady replied that she did not know the house.
A brother of the deceased, Mr Ebenezer Hughes, also testified and said that on that day he was at work and he received a call from his niece that Beatrice was dead.
He said that upon receiving the information, he went to Beatrice’s house and met a crowd including the police but he was asked to wait for sometime and after that the police called him to assist to take the body to the morgue.
Another witness, Madam Beatrice Miller, Beatrice’s aunt, said on the day of the incident she was at home at about 5.30 a.m. when a lady carrying a baby came to inform her that Cromwell had said he was going to kill Beatrice and then kill himself.
Therefore, she said, she sent her granddaughter, Genevive Addo, to the house of Beatrice to inform her about the story but when Genevive went she called to say that a lot of people were wailing in the house and that Beatrice might have been dead.
Cromwell was said to have suspected his girlfriend, Beatrice Mensah, then a secretary with the AMA, of having a relationship with a military officer and strangled her to death on November 6, 2004.
Cromwell pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is on bail granted by an Accra High Court.
Three prosecution witnesses testified last Tuesday and the case was adjourned to February 15, 2008.
The facts as narrated to the court by Ms Cynthia Lamptey, a state attorney, are that Cromwell and Beatrice were in a relationship for about four years until the incident.
She said that Cromwell, who had two wives, suspected Beatrice of having an affair with a military officer and on that fateful day informed one of his wives that he was going to kill Beatrice and then kill himself.
Ms Lamptey told the court that when Cromwell went to Beatrice’s house, he asked her to accompany him to the bedroom where he strangled her.
According to her, the landlady, Madam Susana Yemokai Owoo, became suspicious after Beatrice’s niece come to ask her (landlady) about Beatrice. The landlady used a spare key to open the door only to find Beatrice dead.
The prosecutor said the landlady then found Cromwell hiding behind a refrigerator in the kitchen and stabbed himself.
Counsel for Cromwell denied that his client was responsible for the strangulation, which a post-mortem report indicated was the cause of the death of Beatrice.
In her evidence, the landlady said he knew both Cromwell and Beatrice and that on November 6, 2004, she was at home at dawn when Beatrice spoke with her through the window and asked of her (landlady’s) health.
Madam Owoo said that Beatrice informed her that Cromwell was coming to the house so she opened the gate for him and the two went into their room.
Not quite long, she said, Beatrice’s niece came to ask her about the whereabouts of the deceased, since a knock on his door did not yield any response.
“I told the girl that Beatrice was in her room with Cromwell but she came back to tell me that several knocks did not elicit any response but I became worried because Cromwell just came around,” she said.
According to Madam Owoo, she followed up and knocked the door and yet there was no response and , therefore, went for a spare key to open the door and because Cromwell was tall she saw his head and asked him where Beatrice had been.
She said Cromwell told her that Beatrice was asleep but she wondered that could be true when they both entered not too long ago.
The witness said that while talking the deceased’s niece said they should call Beatrice and when they did she did not respond and the girl spotted traces of blood making her (landlady) to exclaim “Oh my Lord”.
She said that having found the traces of blood herself, she shouted and then her driver came into the room and hit the door to the bedroom with his leg and when it was opened they saw Beatrice lying dead on the bed covered with a pillow.
“We noticed that Beatrice’s tongue had stuck out,” she said, and added that many people were attracted to the room and started wailing and she sent for the police.
She said that when the police arrived and opened the kitchen they found Cromwell hiding behind the fridge in a pool of blood.
Madam Owoo said later on a lady carrying a baby and claimed to be the wife of Cromwell came to the house to say that the accused person had threatened to kill the deceased and also kill himself but when she asked the lady why she delayed in coming to report the lady replied that she did not know the house.
A brother of the deceased, Mr Ebenezer Hughes, also testified and said that on that day he was at work and he received a call from his niece that Beatrice was dead.
He said that upon receiving the information, he went to Beatrice’s house and met a crowd including the police but he was asked to wait for sometime and after that the police called him to assist to take the body to the morgue.
Another witness, Madam Beatrice Miller, Beatrice’s aunt, said on the day of the incident she was at home at about 5.30 a.m. when a lady carrying a baby came to inform her that Cromwell had said he was going to kill Beatrice and then kill himself.
Therefore, she said, she sent her granddaughter, Genevive Addo, to the house of Beatrice to inform her about the story but when Genevive went she called to say that a lot of people were wailing in the house and that Beatrice might have been dead.
GIMPA COUNCIL CHAIRMAN CONTINUES EVIDENCE
THE Chairman of the Governing Council of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Dr Edward Henaku Boohene, told an Accra Fast Track High Court on Monday that the council appointed the GIMPA Rector, Dr Stephen Adei, for a second term until his retirement in December this year.
He said the council, at its meeting on July 14, 2005, accepted the recommendations and gave approval for the appointment after a committee appointed to search for a rector had submitted its report to it.
He was testifying under cross-examination by Mr Daniel Amarteifio, counsel for Dr Adei, in the case in which Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr is seeking an order from the court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille also 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
Dr Boohene said Dr Adei was appointed under the original terms of his first contract until the new terms of contract were reviewed by the Finance and Accounts Board.
Asked why he did not write to Dr Adei to confirm the council’s decision, Dr Boohene stated that he refused to write the letter because to him the appointment was invalid because he had not received the new terms of the contract.
The witness agreed with counsel that before Dr Adei was re-appointed, he had occupied and performed the functions of Rector without any protest from him (Dr Boohene) nor the council.
When counsel suggested to the witness that he refused to write the confirmation letter to Dr Adei because of a bad relationship between them, Dr Boohene replied that although the relationship was not the best, that was not the reason but that he had insisted that the right thing be done according to the laws of GIMPA.
He said it was true that some council members had expressed concern about the bad blood between them and because of that a committee was appointed to see President Kufuor about it.
“The Rector accused me of wanting his job so when we went to the President, this matter was discussed,” Dr Boohene said.
When he was asked whether he would have dismissed Dr Adei if he had the power to do so, he replied, “This is a difficult question, but any reasonable person who is the head of an institution has the moral right to do what is correct and that is what I would do,” adding that he had not had the time to assess Dr Adei’s performance as Rector of GIMPA.
Dr Boohene described as partly true the fact that he had refused to sign some minutes of GIMPA Council meetings because to his mind they were not correct.
Regarding Dr Adei’s professorial title, Dr Boohene said some members of the GIMPA Academic Board had come to him on the issue, and when counsel put it to him that those members could not be council members, the witness replied that some could be.
Dr Boohene said the council did not require Dr Adei to bring his professorial title for revaluation and added that he was unaware that Dr Adei had said his title was conferred on him by GIMPA.
Asked what he thought about the suit against them, Dr Boohene said he was puzzled by it and that he did not know Mr Faibille until the suit, although he had been reading the Ghanaian Observer, which he found interesting.
When counsel further asked him whether what the newspaper had been writing about Dr Adei was accurate, Dr Boohene replied in the negative, but when pressed further that he had been feeding the newspaper with that information, he said, “If I were not in court I would have said that this is absolutely nonsense.”
According to him, it was wrong for the Ghanaian Observer to say that Dr Adei had not been appointed, saying that any such information was misleading and he had not seen one.
“I am tired of the place,” he said about GIMPA, saying that even though GIMPA was not a big place, there were always problems.
Dr Boohene said as chairman of the council, his power overrode that of the council, but when asked to indicate the source of that information, he could not provide it.
Dr Adei will open his defence at the next sitting.
He said the council, at its meeting on July 14, 2005, accepted the recommendations and gave approval for the appointment after a committee appointed to search for a rector had submitted its report to it.
He was testifying under cross-examination by Mr Daniel Amarteifio, counsel for Dr Adei, in the case in which Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr is seeking an order from the court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille also 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
Dr Boohene said Dr Adei was appointed under the original terms of his first contract until the new terms of contract were reviewed by the Finance and Accounts Board.
Asked why he did not write to Dr Adei to confirm the council’s decision, Dr Boohene stated that he refused to write the letter because to him the appointment was invalid because he had not received the new terms of the contract.
The witness agreed with counsel that before Dr Adei was re-appointed, he had occupied and performed the functions of Rector without any protest from him (Dr Boohene) nor the council.
When counsel suggested to the witness that he refused to write the confirmation letter to Dr Adei because of a bad relationship between them, Dr Boohene replied that although the relationship was not the best, that was not the reason but that he had insisted that the right thing be done according to the laws of GIMPA.
He said it was true that some council members had expressed concern about the bad blood between them and because of that a committee was appointed to see President Kufuor about it.
“The Rector accused me of wanting his job so when we went to the President, this matter was discussed,” Dr Boohene said.
When he was asked whether he would have dismissed Dr Adei if he had the power to do so, he replied, “This is a difficult question, but any reasonable person who is the head of an institution has the moral right to do what is correct and that is what I would do,” adding that he had not had the time to assess Dr Adei’s performance as Rector of GIMPA.
Dr Boohene described as partly true the fact that he had refused to sign some minutes of GIMPA Council meetings because to his mind they were not correct.
Regarding Dr Adei’s professorial title, Dr Boohene said some members of the GIMPA Academic Board had come to him on the issue, and when counsel put it to him that those members could not be council members, the witness replied that some could be.
Dr Boohene said the council did not require Dr Adei to bring his professorial title for revaluation and added that he was unaware that Dr Adei had said his title was conferred on him by GIMPA.
Asked what he thought about the suit against them, Dr Boohene said he was puzzled by it and that he did not know Mr Faibille until the suit, although he had been reading the Ghanaian Observer, which he found interesting.
When counsel further asked him whether what the newspaper had been writing about Dr Adei was accurate, Dr Boohene replied in the negative, but when pressed further that he had been feeding the newspaper with that information, he said, “If I were not in court I would have said that this is absolutely nonsense.”
According to him, it was wrong for the Ghanaian Observer to say that Dr Adei had not been appointed, saying that any such information was misleading and he had not seen one.
“I am tired of the place,” he said about GIMPA, saying that even though GIMPA was not a big place, there were always problems.
Dr Boohene said as chairman of the council, his power overrode that of the council, but when asked to indicate the source of that information, he could not provide it.
Dr Adei will open his defence at the next sitting.
GIMPA COUNCIL CHAIRMAN TESTIFIES IN COURT
THE Chairman of the Governing Council of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Dr Edward Henaku Boohene, has said that he communicated the council’s decision to the GIMPA Rector, Dr Stephen Adei, that he should not use the title professor.
He also said that he did not write any letter to Dr Adei to re-appoint him as a rector after the expiration of his first term of office because by the terms of his previous appointment Dr Adei was to be offered additional two years’ extension.
Dr Boohene was testifying yesterday to close the case for Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr in a case in which he is seeking an order from the Fast Track High Court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille also wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
Dr Boohene said at an emergency meeting held by the Council on September 21, 2007, the council’s earlier decision that Dr Adei should not use the title professor came up because it was not recognised by GIMPA.
He said that after he communicated the decision to Dr Adei, the GIMPA Rector wrote back admitting the decision.
Regarding the re-appointment of Dr Adei, the witness said although he was directed at a meeting to make a re-appointment, that was to be done according to the law and Dr Adei was summoned to a meeting, which he complied.
The witness said he was enjoined by law to appoint a person as rector, according to the terms that the council would provide, while a decision was taken that someone should be appointed to take charge of academic and managerial matters as required by law.
Dr Boohene said during cross-examination that he was not personally the appointing authority of the Rector of GIMPA.
He also said that he did not write any letter to Dr Adei to re-appoint him as a rector after the expiration of his first term of office because by the terms of his previous appointment Dr Adei was to be offered additional two years’ extension.
Dr Boohene was testifying yesterday to close the case for Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr in a case in which he is seeking an order from the Fast Track High Court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille also wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
Dr Boohene said at an emergency meeting held by the Council on September 21, 2007, the council’s earlier decision that Dr Adei should not use the title professor came up because it was not recognised by GIMPA.
He said that after he communicated the decision to Dr Adei, the GIMPA Rector wrote back admitting the decision.
Regarding the re-appointment of Dr Adei, the witness said although he was directed at a meeting to make a re-appointment, that was to be done according to the law and Dr Adei was summoned to a meeting, which he complied.
The witness said he was enjoined by law to appoint a person as rector, according to the terms that the council would provide, while a decision was taken that someone should be appointed to take charge of academic and managerial matters as required by law.
Dr Boohene said during cross-examination that he was not personally the appointing authority of the Rector of GIMPA.
GIMPA COUNCIL MEMBER TESTIFIES IN COURT
THE Executive Chairman of the State Enterprises Commission (SEC), Mr Francis Kofi Ocran, has told an Accra Fast Track High Court that the Governing Council of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) asked the Rector, Dr Stephen Adei, not to use the title professor because it was not recognised by the institute.
“At GIMPA, you do not bring any title like professor and start using it. Any such title will have to be presented to the council to examine its authenticity in order to accept it or not,” he said, and pointed out that in the case of Dr Adei, the GIMPA Council examined it and took a decision that he should not use it.
Mr Ocran, who is also a member of the GIMPA Governing Council, said this when he testified in the case in which Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr is seeking an order from the Fast Track High Court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
The witness said he was aware that Dr Adei had a professorial title and recalled that at one of the council’s meetings, the issue came up after Dr Adei had informed the meeting of his title, which was conferred on him by the African Leadership and Management Academy based in Zimbabwe.
Mr Ocran said Dr Adei was initially appointed as the Director-General of GIMPA for four years, adding that after the expiration of his tenure, his appointment was extended until Dr Adei reached his retiring age.
He said the issue of extending Dr Adei’s tenure was discussed by the council, during which the chairman and the secretary were given the responsibility to see to it that a letter was written, but that was not done.
During cross-examination by counsel for Dr Adei, the witness admitted that Dr Adei was not appointed to an academic position at GIMPA but as the chief executive officer.
According to him, since GIMPA was an academic institution, all positions were related to academic qualifications which were reviewed during appointments, saying that by convention and the minutes of the Governing Council, the staff of the institute had to apply for the re-evaluation of those titles, taking into account their qualifications.
However, in an answer to a question that a council member, Prof Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, and others had their “professor” titles conferred on them and yet they were not vetted before they became GIMPA Council members, the witness replied that that situation was different from Dr Adei’s case.
Mr Ocran said it was the right of the shareholder to appoint those it considered qualified to be board members, saying that position was different from somebody in functional management and in the case of Dr Adei he indicated that apart from being the Rector, he also lectured at GIMPA.
He said in all the council meetings that he attended, Dr Adei was addressed as “professor”.
Meanwhile, the Editor of the Daily Graphic, Mr Ransford Tetteh, has appeared before the court to testify in the case. He referred to a publication in the July 5, 2002 edition of the paper in which it was reported that Dr Adei had been appointed professor.
Mr Tetteh said he did not know the source of the story and was of the view that documents like what was used to publish the story could emanate from authentic sources.
He said the Daily Graphic was a responsible paper and would not publish any falsehood or misleading information.
“At GIMPA, you do not bring any title like professor and start using it. Any such title will have to be presented to the council to examine its authenticity in order to accept it or not,” he said, and pointed out that in the case of Dr Adei, the GIMPA Council examined it and took a decision that he should not use it.
Mr Ocran, who is also a member of the GIMPA Governing Council, said this when he testified in the case in which Mr Egbert Isaac Faibille Jnr is seeking an order from the Fast Track High Court to restrain the GIMPA Rector from holding himself out as a professor of the institute.
Mr Faibille wants the court to order that Dr Adei is not a professor, either at GIMPA or any other institution, and 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 was vacant because, according to him, since the tenure of office of Dr Adei expired on October 1, 2004, he had not been re-appointed as rector.
The witness said he was aware that Dr Adei had a professorial title and recalled that at one of the council’s meetings, the issue came up after Dr Adei had informed the meeting of his title, which was conferred on him by the African Leadership and Management Academy based in Zimbabwe.
Mr Ocran said Dr Adei was initially appointed as the Director-General of GIMPA for four years, adding that after the expiration of his tenure, his appointment was extended until Dr Adei reached his retiring age.
He said the issue of extending Dr Adei’s tenure was discussed by the council, during which the chairman and the secretary were given the responsibility to see to it that a letter was written, but that was not done.
During cross-examination by counsel for Dr Adei, the witness admitted that Dr Adei was not appointed to an academic position at GIMPA but as the chief executive officer.
According to him, since GIMPA was an academic institution, all positions were related to academic qualifications which were reviewed during appointments, saying that by convention and the minutes of the Governing Council, the staff of the institute had to apply for the re-evaluation of those titles, taking into account their qualifications.
However, in an answer to a question that a council member, Prof Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, and others had their “professor” titles conferred on them and yet they were not vetted before they became GIMPA Council members, the witness replied that that situation was different from Dr Adei’s case.
Mr Ocran said it was the right of the shareholder to appoint those it considered qualified to be board members, saying that position was different from somebody in functional management and in the case of Dr Adei he indicated that apart from being the Rector, he also lectured at GIMPA.
He said in all the council meetings that he attended, Dr Adei was addressed as “professor”.
Meanwhile, the Editor of the Daily Graphic, Mr Ransford Tetteh, has appeared before the court to testify in the case. He referred to a publication in the July 5, 2002 edition of the paper in which it was reported that Dr Adei had been appointed professor.
Mr Tetteh said he did not know the source of the story and was of the view that documents like what was used to publish the story could emanate from authentic sources.
He said the Daily Graphic was a responsible paper and would not publish any falsehood or misleading information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)