VRA CEO battles in court

THE former chief executive of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, is wrestling the energy company in court over ¢2 billion in outstanding entitlements.
He is also claiming interest on the entitlement from April 2004 to the date of final payment at the prevailing bank rate, as well as the transfer of ownership of an official car assigned to him, a Volvo saloon, with registration number GW 2505 T.
The Accra Fast Track Court 1 will today begin hearing the case, which was filed in November last year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
He said it took the VRA considerable time, after his separation from the authority and only consequent upon several demands from him, to eventually write to him formally about his separation entitlements.
The VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, he said, notified him that he was entitled to the cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of resignation in the sum of ¢61,193,560.60, six months’ salary in lieu of notice in the sum of ¢187,949,999.98, as well as ¢1,878,500,000 in gratuity for five years.
The rest include the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from January to March 31, 2004 in the sum of ¢2,665,065.56 and a transfer to him of the ownership of his officially assigned vehicle, although he has the vehicle in his possession.
According to his statement of claim, the VRA, per its April 1, 2004 letter, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlement by mid-April 2004 and the remaining 30 per cent when he vacated the institutional premises of the authority.
However, he said, the VRA reneged on its arrangement without paying the 70 per cent as a condition for him to vacate the VRA premises and thus he was unable to vacate the premises as agreed upon.
Dr Wereko-Brobby stated that the delay on the part of the VRA in paying his entitlement persisted into 2005 when he, on January 1, 2005, decided to vacate the premises, although he had not been paid.
He said notwithstanding extended correspondence on the matter with the VRA, to date the authority had, contrary to its own undertaking, failed and or refused to pay him his entitlement.
To him, it was clear that unless compelled by a court of competent jurisdiction to so do, the VRA would not and did not intend to pay him what was due him.