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.