A class action has been taken against Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of the nation’s biggest mobile phone network, Areeba, for violating relevant provisions of the National Communications Authority (NCA) Act and regulations for high quality service.
The action comes in the wake of two legal suits initiated by two shareholders over their interests in the company following its merger with South African giants MTN.
Also joined to the latest suit is the NCA, for failing or neglecting to carry out its regulatory responsibility that Areeba provides high quality telephone services for its customers.
The action was filed by the Centre for Public Interest Law, a non-profit public interest and human rights organisation, and its Executive Director, Dr Dominic Ayine, on February 13, 2007 on behalf of similarly situated customers.
The plaintiffs have accused Areeba of breach of contract and are seeking general and punitive damages against it, as well as an order for restitution of all money found to have been unjustly collected and received by the company as a consequence of its acts and omissions.
According to them, the deliberate refusal of Areeba to open its system up for easy inter-connectivity with other networks in Ghana amounts to unfair competition, contrary to the NCA Act and the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act.
They are also seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Scancom Ltd, its agent or assigns from engaging in the conduct which was the subject matter of the suit.
Similarly, the plaintiffs are seeking an order of mandatory injunction to compel the NCA to enforce Scancom’s obligation under its licence to expand its network capacity and coverage and improve its service quality, as well as its inter-connectivity agreements with other cellular networks.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs stated that Scancom Ltd was registered and licensed by the NCA to provide mobile phone services, saying figures in the public domain indicated that Areeba was the market leader in the provision of mobile or cellular phone services, with more than 2.5 million subscribers quoted on the website of the NCA.
The NCA, they said, was the statutory agency responsible for the regulation of providers of communication services, including, but not limited to, the operations of companies, enterprises and individuals which provided fixed and mobile telecommunication services.
The NCA’s mandate is derived from the NCA Act, 1996 (Act 524) which established the authority.
According to the plaintiffs, their action was on behalf of similarly situated persons and all those who resided in Ghana and obtained telecommunication services from Areeba and who had been adversely affected and suffered material injury or financial loss and infringement of their rights as a result of the said acts and omissions.
They said Areeba’s services were of two plans to individuals and business customers, namely, the “Pay-As-You-Talk” (prepaid) service plan, which was used with GSM 900 compatible cellular phones, and the “Pay Monthly” (post-paid) service plan, both of which were offered directly to customers or through designated agents.
The plaintiffs stated that at all material times Scancom Ltd had failed or neglected to provide good quality cellular service to them in that they had almost always encountered network congestion, frequent call dropping, unusual background noise preventing clarity in telephone conversation, inter-connectivity problems with other networks, among other problems.
They stated that they were daily confronted with and frustrated by Areeba’s network congestion problems, such that they had to dial approximately between five and 10 times before achieving connectivity and very often every failed dial attempt was met with the automated response, “The Areeba number you have dialled cannot be reached at this moment. The mobile equipment is either switched off or out of coverage area.”
According to them, that automated response was materially false and misleading, since Areeba prided itself as having nation-wide coverage, and also portrayed the customers as being responsible for failed attempts to put through calls (for example switching off their mobile phones ), instead of placing the responsibility on Areeba.
They maintained that the representation that the mobile equipment was either switched off or out of coverage area was not only false but also wilful, since Areeba knew or ought to know that it was false at the material time it was made.
As a consequence of the material facts stated, the plaintiffs said Areeba’s prepaid customers in particular lost their telephone credit (or units), because of network congestion, on the expiry date, thereby unjustly enriching Areeba, since more units had to be bought after that.
According to the plaintiffs, they had suffered and continued to suffer financial loss as a consequence of the frequent call dropping resulting from network congestion and system downtimes.
“This is due to the fact that when calls drop in the middle of a conversation, the plaintiffs have to call again, and in doing so they have to pay higher call rates per minute than would have been the case without the call dropping,” they said.
The plaintiffs said Areeba had deliberately and purposefully engaged in acts, methods and practices which had frequently frustrated them in putting through calls to other cellular networks or being called by users of the services of those networks.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
court orders return of seized property in coke case
AN Accra Fast Track High Court on Tuesday ordered the immediate release of a number of movable and immovable property which were wrongfully confiscated by the state in 1997 on the assumption that they belonged to George Adu Bonsu, alias Benjilo.
The property include the stock of goods in the shop of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited which got destroyed because the shop was locked, leasehold interests in House Number C618/2, Salaga Market, House Number 521/1, Selwyn Street, House Number C850/4, Abele Road, Kokomlemle, House Number J85, Nungua, an unnumbered warehouse/hospital premises opposite ABC Junction, Alogboshie (now Fourth Street or C297/30 Achimota), Accra.
The rest are an unnumbered property at Number 1 Tantra Hill, TH 59, Tantra Hill in Accra, a GCM Typhoon vehicle with registration number GR 4833 J, a Mercedes Benz 300 with registration number GR 7474 J and a Nissan Pathfinder with registration number GR 4835 J.
The court further ordered the payment of ¢1.111 billion with interest, since 1997, at the prevailing commercial rate for the stock of goods destroyed as a result of the unlawful closure of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited.
In addition, the state is to pay ¢450 million per year as loss of use of three vehicles which were also seized.
An award of ¢90 million is also to be paid for the rehabilitation of the three vehicles which have been left to the vagaries of the weather since May 2001.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, awarded ¢80 million in damages and costs of ¢50 million against the state.
The judgement is to be executed by the state through the Inspector General of Police, Narcotics Control Board and the Attorney-General who were the defendants.
The plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabrics Limited, Mrs Grace Adu Bonsu, Prof Azumah Nelson, Dennis Adu Bonsu, Raymond Kofi Adu Amankwah and Madam Yaa Konadu, sued for the release of the properties after the conviction and sentence of Benjilo to 10 years for drug related offences in April 1997.
According to the plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabric was a limited liability company with four directors, who did not include Benjilo, who was only a worker with the company.
The company claimed $650,000 or its cedi equivalent as stock of goods destroyed in shops locked because when its accountant together with the police took stock of the goods on June 5, 1997, the value of the goods was ¢1,111,840,500.
Consequently, the court ordered that interest be paid on the amount from December 1997 at the commercial rate to date because six months from the date was a reasonable period the defendants could have decided to dispose off those materials instead of leaving them to rot in the shops.
It held that the defendants should have known that the goods were perishable and should have been stored in suitable temperature or sold.
The company claimed a leasehold interest in the houses at the Salaga Market and Selwyn Street, as well as the Nissan Pathfinder.
It said that the leasehold interest for 20 years was acquired from Mr and Mrs Nanka Bruce in April 1994.
The court held that evidence was led to show that indeed Benjilo did not own those houses and that the company was the lessee of the property.
In respect of the Kokomlemle house, the court held that it was satisfied with the evidence of Mrs Adu Bonsu that it belonged to the sixth plaintiff, Madam Yaa Konadu, who herself testified as to how she came by that property.
The evidence on the property at Nungua, the court held, was that it was owned by the fifth plaintiff, Raymond Kofi Amankwah, who is presently domiciled in the USA.
The court said that the unnumbered warehouse at ABC Junction, Alogboshie belonged to Azumah Nelson, who led evidence as to how he got the property.
It stated that the former world featherweight boxing champion bought it from Nii Kuma for the construction of a hospital and Azumah testified that he was assisted by Benjilo each time he travelled outside the country but he refunded whatever amount was spent by Benjilo.
Regarding the ownership of the property opposite ABC Junction, Achimota, being claimed by the fourth plaintiff, Dennis Adu Bonsu, the court accepted the evidence by Mrs Adu Bonsu that she bought it for her child while the Tantra Hill property, it said belonged to Mr Ernest Boamah Ansong and not Benjilo.
The GCM Typhoon vehicle, the court held, was a gift from Azumah Nelson to Mrs Adu Bonsu because there was evidence to show the transfer of the original name to her and there being no contrary evidence, she was the owner.
The Nissan Pathfinder, the court held, was owned by Benjilo Fabrics because exhibits from the then Vehicle Examination and Licensing Division indicated that the company owned the vehicle and there was no contrary evidence that it belonged to Benjilo.
Furthermore, the court held that the Mercedes Benz car belonged to Mike Misho who left it in the care of Mrs Bonsu and documents covering it were in his name.
In the light of the sketch of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Law on seizure and forfeiture, the court held that, it found no provision that justified the action and inaction of the defendants in respect of properties being claimed by the plaintiffs.
According to the court, the continued seizure and detention of the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiffs was unlawful, arbitrary, unjustified and a violation of their fundamental right to property.
It said that the Narcotic Drugs Law was a specialised law intended to fight vigorously persons within the narcotic trade and empowered the police and the Attorney-General with wide powers of arrest, investigation, search and seizure.
However, it held that, it would be wrong to interpret the provisions of the law as giving unfettered powers to the police to go on rampage interfering with property of other citizens without recourse to the law.
"Any act that falls outside the powers of the police or the state conferred on it by the law will be unlawful and damages, where appropriate, may be visited on the state coffers", the court held and stated that it might be true that the capacity of the state might not be fine tuned yet in tracking down those sophisticated drug dealers and their properties.
It said that might be an unfortunate situation which the law courts might not be of any assistance to the state, saying that "there may be suspicion that the properties, the subject matter of the suit, belonged to George Adu Bonsu, but the suspicion is not sufficient to support a filing against the claimants of these properties who have led evidence in claim of their properties.
The trial judge stated that his judgement was based on the evidence of the plaintiffs alone after their cross-examination since the defendants offered no evidence to challenge their claims.
He described as unfortunate the fact that the court did not have the benefit of evidence from the defence, particularly considering the impact of the drug trade on an economy.
Mr Justice Ofoe said the case had given him anxious moments because he was convinced that inertia in the state bodies that had legal authority in handling drug case appeared to be compounding.
The judge’s worry stemmed from the fact that the state should have filed forfeiture proceedings in respect of the properties seized since there was nothing like that before the court.
In 1998 when the plaintiffs filed for the release of their properties, the defendants then filed for forfeiture but that was thrown out on the grounds that an appeal by the then convict was pending.
When the case was finally disposed off at the Supreme Court on May 9, 2001, the state did not go ahead to proceed with the forfeiture proceedings since the Regional Tribunal indicated on May 3,2006 that there was no such motion.
Against the above background, the judge questioned why five years after that the state had not filed the forfeiture proceedings.
The property include the stock of goods in the shop of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited which got destroyed because the shop was locked, leasehold interests in House Number C618/2, Salaga Market, House Number 521/1, Selwyn Street, House Number C850/4, Abele Road, Kokomlemle, House Number J85, Nungua, an unnumbered warehouse/hospital premises opposite ABC Junction, Alogboshie (now Fourth Street or C297/30 Achimota), Accra.
The rest are an unnumbered property at Number 1 Tantra Hill, TH 59, Tantra Hill in Accra, a GCM Typhoon vehicle with registration number GR 4833 J, a Mercedes Benz 300 with registration number GR 7474 J and a Nissan Pathfinder with registration number GR 4835 J.
The court further ordered the payment of ¢1.111 billion with interest, since 1997, at the prevailing commercial rate for the stock of goods destroyed as a result of the unlawful closure of Benjilo Fabrics Company Limited.
In addition, the state is to pay ¢450 million per year as loss of use of three vehicles which were also seized.
An award of ¢90 million is also to be paid for the rehabilitation of the three vehicles which have been left to the vagaries of the weather since May 2001.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, awarded ¢80 million in damages and costs of ¢50 million against the state.
The judgement is to be executed by the state through the Inspector General of Police, Narcotics Control Board and the Attorney-General who were the defendants.
The plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabrics Limited, Mrs Grace Adu Bonsu, Prof Azumah Nelson, Dennis Adu Bonsu, Raymond Kofi Adu Amankwah and Madam Yaa Konadu, sued for the release of the properties after the conviction and sentence of Benjilo to 10 years for drug related offences in April 1997.
According to the plaintiffs, Benjilo Fabric was a limited liability company with four directors, who did not include Benjilo, who was only a worker with the company.
The company claimed $650,000 or its cedi equivalent as stock of goods destroyed in shops locked because when its accountant together with the police took stock of the goods on June 5, 1997, the value of the goods was ¢1,111,840,500.
Consequently, the court ordered that interest be paid on the amount from December 1997 at the commercial rate to date because six months from the date was a reasonable period the defendants could have decided to dispose off those materials instead of leaving them to rot in the shops.
It held that the defendants should have known that the goods were perishable and should have been stored in suitable temperature or sold.
The company claimed a leasehold interest in the houses at the Salaga Market and Selwyn Street, as well as the Nissan Pathfinder.
It said that the leasehold interest for 20 years was acquired from Mr and Mrs Nanka Bruce in April 1994.
The court held that evidence was led to show that indeed Benjilo did not own those houses and that the company was the lessee of the property.
In respect of the Kokomlemle house, the court held that it was satisfied with the evidence of Mrs Adu Bonsu that it belonged to the sixth plaintiff, Madam Yaa Konadu, who herself testified as to how she came by that property.
The evidence on the property at Nungua, the court held, was that it was owned by the fifth plaintiff, Raymond Kofi Amankwah, who is presently domiciled in the USA.
The court said that the unnumbered warehouse at ABC Junction, Alogboshie belonged to Azumah Nelson, who led evidence as to how he got the property.
It stated that the former world featherweight boxing champion bought it from Nii Kuma for the construction of a hospital and Azumah testified that he was assisted by Benjilo each time he travelled outside the country but he refunded whatever amount was spent by Benjilo.
Regarding the ownership of the property opposite ABC Junction, Achimota, being claimed by the fourth plaintiff, Dennis Adu Bonsu, the court accepted the evidence by Mrs Adu Bonsu that she bought it for her child while the Tantra Hill property, it said belonged to Mr Ernest Boamah Ansong and not Benjilo.
The GCM Typhoon vehicle, the court held, was a gift from Azumah Nelson to Mrs Adu Bonsu because there was evidence to show the transfer of the original name to her and there being no contrary evidence, she was the owner.
The Nissan Pathfinder, the court held, was owned by Benjilo Fabrics because exhibits from the then Vehicle Examination and Licensing Division indicated that the company owned the vehicle and there was no contrary evidence that it belonged to Benjilo.
Furthermore, the court held that the Mercedes Benz car belonged to Mike Misho who left it in the care of Mrs Bonsu and documents covering it were in his name.
In the light of the sketch of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Law on seizure and forfeiture, the court held that, it found no provision that justified the action and inaction of the defendants in respect of properties being claimed by the plaintiffs.
According to the court, the continued seizure and detention of the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiffs was unlawful, arbitrary, unjustified and a violation of their fundamental right to property.
It said that the Narcotic Drugs Law was a specialised law intended to fight vigorously persons within the narcotic trade and empowered the police and the Attorney-General with wide powers of arrest, investigation, search and seizure.
However, it held that, it would be wrong to interpret the provisions of the law as giving unfettered powers to the police to go on rampage interfering with property of other citizens without recourse to the law.
"Any act that falls outside the powers of the police or the state conferred on it by the law will be unlawful and damages, where appropriate, may be visited on the state coffers", the court held and stated that it might be true that the capacity of the state might not be fine tuned yet in tracking down those sophisticated drug dealers and their properties.
It said that might be an unfortunate situation which the law courts might not be of any assistance to the state, saying that "there may be suspicion that the properties, the subject matter of the suit, belonged to George Adu Bonsu, but the suspicion is not sufficient to support a filing against the claimants of these properties who have led evidence in claim of their properties.
The trial judge stated that his judgement was based on the evidence of the plaintiffs alone after their cross-examination since the defendants offered no evidence to challenge their claims.
He described as unfortunate the fact that the court did not have the benefit of evidence from the defence, particularly considering the impact of the drug trade on an economy.
Mr Justice Ofoe said the case had given him anxious moments because he was convinced that inertia in the state bodies that had legal authority in handling drug case appeared to be compounding.
The judge’s worry stemmed from the fact that the state should have filed forfeiture proceedings in respect of the properties seized since there was nothing like that before the court.
In 1998 when the plaintiffs filed for the release of their properties, the defendants then filed for forfeiture but that was thrown out on the grounds that an appeal by the then convict was pending.
When the case was finally disposed off at the Supreme Court on May 9, 2001, the state did not go ahead to proceed with the forfeiture proceedings since the Regional Tribunal indicated on May 3,2006 that there was no such motion.
Against the above background, the judge questioned why five years after that the state had not filed the forfeiture proceedings.
FOUR REMANDED OVER CABLE THEFT
THREE private security men and a mason were on Monday remanded by the Accra circuit court for allegedly stealing a quantity of underground telephone wires belonging to Ghana Telecom.
The accused persons, namely, Cephas Kpewu, the mason, Francis Boateng, Dickson Ahiadeke and Godfred Nyarko, alias Opoman, all security men, pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, causing unlawful damage and stealing.
They will reappear on February 19, 2007.
According to the facts of the case as narrated by Chief Inspector Johnson K. Anim, the security men were in charge of the Ghana Telecom cable yard at Otanor, East Legon.
On December 28, 2006, the East Legon Police had information that some people were carrying some telephone cables away from the yard and when the police moved to the scene, they saw the mason offering a quantity of the cables, which had been cut into pieces, to a dealer as scrap.
Kpewu admitted the offence when he was interrogated and in his caution statement he mentioned the rest of the accused persons as accomplices.
However, on hearing that the mason had been arrested, the three men deserted their post and went into hiding until January 19, this year when Boateng was apprehended.
According to the prosecutor, Boateng denied the offence but stated having received ¢150,000 from Nyarko, their leader, as his share from a previous operation.
Ahiadeke and Nyarko, he said, were arrested on January 30 and February 10, 2007, respectively.
The accused persons, namely, Cephas Kpewu, the mason, Francis Boateng, Dickson Ahiadeke and Godfred Nyarko, alias Opoman, all security men, pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy, causing unlawful damage and stealing.
They will reappear on February 19, 2007.
According to the facts of the case as narrated by Chief Inspector Johnson K. Anim, the security men were in charge of the Ghana Telecom cable yard at Otanor, East Legon.
On December 28, 2006, the East Legon Police had information that some people were carrying some telephone cables away from the yard and when the police moved to the scene, they saw the mason offering a quantity of the cables, which had been cut into pieces, to a dealer as scrap.
Kpewu admitted the offence when he was interrogated and in his caution statement he mentioned the rest of the accused persons as accomplices.
However, on hearing that the mason had been arrested, the three men deserted their post and went into hiding until January 19, this year when Boateng was apprehended.
According to the prosecutor, Boateng denied the offence but stated having received ¢150,000 from Nyarko, their leader, as his share from a previous operation.
Ahiadeke and Nyarko, he said, were arrested on January 30 and February 10, 2007, respectively.
COP TESTIFIES IN COKE CASE
ONE of the three policemen who are standing trial at the Accra Fast Track High Court for allegedly aiding a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine has said the police met the fugitive cocaine owner, Sheriff Asem Dakeh, at the Kpone beach on the morning of April 26, 2006 when they went there to effect the arrest of drug dealers.
According to General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, he already knew the fugitive, Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and just as the police were about to arrive at the beach, they spotted a green Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glass coming from the direction of the beach.
In his further caution statement, which was read to the court on Friday by a prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, the accused person said as the car in which they were travelling got near the oncoming vehicle, Dakeh rolled down his glass and, on seeing him, mentioned his name.
He said when he asked Dakeh about his mission at the place that early morning, he replied that he was there to meet some business partners who had not arrived yet, so he decided to buy some fish from the beach.
“We searched his car and nothing was found in it. Therefore, Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah and I got into his car and he drove to Tema Community One”, he said and added that when they got to Tema, they went to the house of Dakeh.
He said when they got to the gate of the house, Sgt Amoah went inside, while he stayed behind and in less than five minutes Sgt Amoah came back.
The witness was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh and allowing him (Dakeh) to abscond with the narcotic drug.
The three have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Inspector Oppong said the accused person wrote the statement himself on September 11, 2006.
In a background to the story, the accused, who was stationed at the Community One police station but lived at the Tema New Town barracks, said he knew Sgt Amoah because they were on the same block but he did not know Nyarko.
He said he had been to the Kpone police station before during one of the festivals of the people, while he got to know Dakeh at Community One because he used to come to a deceased policeman called Sgt Martey to bail some people.
He said on that day, about 4 am, he got up to urinate when a fisherman came to tell him that some people carrying stolen goods on the high seas were about to offload them at the Tema New Town beach.
“From the way the man was panting, I thought of assisting and asked what goods were being carried,” he said and added that the fisherman told him that the occupants of the vessel carrying the goods were wielding AK 47 rifles.
The accused person said he went to the office and informed Sgt Amoah, who went for another officer from the New Town police station and then went to the beach, but on reaching there, they learnt that the goods had been sent to the Kpone beach.
He said at Kpone, he went to the charge office for reinforcement and two officers were detailed to join them and together they picked another taxi and headed for the beach, where they met Dakeh.
According to Cpl Yabson’s caution statement, one day he was on his way to the office when a Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) official told him that the Regional BNI Director was looking for him and when he obliged, he was asked whether he had arrested some cocaine suspects at the Sakumono beach, to which he replied in the negative.
The accused person said the BNI Director also asked him whether he knew Dakeh, to which he replied in the affirmative.
He said he did not inform his boss about the interrogation because he thought it was true.
In his caution statement, Sgt Nyarko denied joining any group to make any arrest.
However, he said on April 26, 2006, he had just returned from guard duty when Amoah asked him to join the operation during which Yabson took a taxi to Kpone, while he (Nyarko) and Amoah walked along the beach.
Another accused person, Bondori, whose statement was tendered, said he was at the Kpone police station on April 26, 2006 when the station officer informed him that some policemen from Tema NewTown were in town and needed assistance to arrest some people.
He said on their way to the beach one of the Tema New Town policemen asked him and another officer to take position at a place and wait but they did not return, so he went back to the office.
Meanwhile, Inspector Oppong gave an account of how the security agencies had information about the operation of the MV Benjamin and how it was intercepted at the Tema port.
According to him, it was some fishermen who alerted the security agencies, because when they attempted going near the vessel some guns were fired and so they suspected foul play.
He said it was the fishermen who first reported the incident to Sgt Amoah, who in turn informed Yabson and Nyarko and together they went to the Paradise beach.
At the beach, he said, they heard that the cargo had been sent to Kpone beach, where they met three cars, a Daewoo saloon car, a green Toyota Land Cruiser and a van in which the alleged cocaine had been packed.
He said Dakeh was in charge of the green car, while “Killer” drove the van and the two vehicles were later retrieved.
Inspector Oppong said Nyarko, Yabson and the three fishermen joined Dakeh and Killer to Community 5 and it was on their way that Bondori crossed them to arrest them, but Sgt Amoah was said to have convinced him to abandon the idea.
He said while in Tema, Dakeh’s car went straight to his house while the van went elsewhere and Dakeh gave the police an unspecified amount after settling the fishermen with $10,000.
According to General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, he already knew the fugitive, Dakeh, alias The Limping Man, and just as the police were about to arrive at the beach, they spotted a green Toyota Land Cruiser with tinted glass coming from the direction of the beach.
In his further caution statement, which was read to the court on Friday by a prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, the accused person said as the car in which they were travelling got near the oncoming vehicle, Dakeh rolled down his glass and, on seeing him, mentioned his name.
He said when he asked Dakeh about his mission at the place that early morning, he replied that he was there to meet some business partners who had not arrived yet, so he decided to buy some fish from the beach.
“We searched his car and nothing was found in it. Therefore, Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah and I got into his car and he drove to Tema Community One”, he said and added that when they got to Tema, they went to the house of Dakeh.
He said when they got to the gate of the house, Sgt Amoah went inside, while he stayed behind and in less than five minutes Sgt Amoah came back.
The witness was testifying in the case in which General Lance Corporal Dwamena Yabson, General Sergeant Daniel Nyarko, General Lance Corporal Peter Bondori and Detective Sergeant Amoah, who is on the run, are accused of collecting money from the owner of the cocaine, Dakeh and allowing him (Dakeh) to abscond with the narcotic drug.
The three have been charged with two counts of engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotic drugs and corruption by a public officer.
They have pleaded not guilty to both counts.
Inspector Oppong said the accused person wrote the statement himself on September 11, 2006.
In a background to the story, the accused, who was stationed at the Community One police station but lived at the Tema New Town barracks, said he knew Sgt Amoah because they were on the same block but he did not know Nyarko.
He said he had been to the Kpone police station before during one of the festivals of the people, while he got to know Dakeh at Community One because he used to come to a deceased policeman called Sgt Martey to bail some people.
He said on that day, about 4 am, he got up to urinate when a fisherman came to tell him that some people carrying stolen goods on the high seas were about to offload them at the Tema New Town beach.
“From the way the man was panting, I thought of assisting and asked what goods were being carried,” he said and added that the fisherman told him that the occupants of the vessel carrying the goods were wielding AK 47 rifles.
The accused person said he went to the office and informed Sgt Amoah, who went for another officer from the New Town police station and then went to the beach, but on reaching there, they learnt that the goods had been sent to the Kpone beach.
He said at Kpone, he went to the charge office for reinforcement and two officers were detailed to join them and together they picked another taxi and headed for the beach, where they met Dakeh.
According to Cpl Yabson’s caution statement, one day he was on his way to the office when a Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) official told him that the Regional BNI Director was looking for him and when he obliged, he was asked whether he had arrested some cocaine suspects at the Sakumono beach, to which he replied in the negative.
The accused person said the BNI Director also asked him whether he knew Dakeh, to which he replied in the affirmative.
He said he did not inform his boss about the interrogation because he thought it was true.
In his caution statement, Sgt Nyarko denied joining any group to make any arrest.
However, he said on April 26, 2006, he had just returned from guard duty when Amoah asked him to join the operation during which Yabson took a taxi to Kpone, while he (Nyarko) and Amoah walked along the beach.
Another accused person, Bondori, whose statement was tendered, said he was at the Kpone police station on April 26, 2006 when the station officer informed him that some policemen from Tema NewTown were in town and needed assistance to arrest some people.
He said on their way to the beach one of the Tema New Town policemen asked him and another officer to take position at a place and wait but they did not return, so he went back to the office.
Meanwhile, Inspector Oppong gave an account of how the security agencies had information about the operation of the MV Benjamin and how it was intercepted at the Tema port.
According to him, it was some fishermen who alerted the security agencies, because when they attempted going near the vessel some guns were fired and so they suspected foul play.
He said it was the fishermen who first reported the incident to Sgt Amoah, who in turn informed Yabson and Nyarko and together they went to the Paradise beach.
At the beach, he said, they heard that the cargo had been sent to Kpone beach, where they met three cars, a Daewoo saloon car, a green Toyota Land Cruiser and a van in which the alleged cocaine had been packed.
He said Dakeh was in charge of the green car, while “Killer” drove the van and the two vehicles were later retrieved.
Inspector Oppong said Nyarko, Yabson and the three fishermen joined Dakeh and Killer to Community 5 and it was on their way that Bondori crossed them to arrest them, but Sgt Amoah was said to have convinced him to abandon the idea.
He said while in Tema, Dakeh’s car went straight to his house while the van went elsewhere and Dakeh gave the police an unspecified amount after settling the fishermen with $10,000.
INSIGHT NEWSPAPER TO PAY COMPENSATION TO MINISTER
THE Accra Fast Track High Court on Friday, February9,2007, found The Insight newspaper liable for libelling the Minister of Water Resources, Works and Housing, Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyeman.
The court, therefore, ordered the newspaper to pay a ¢100 million compensation to the minister and ¢20 million as costs.
The newspaper was also directed to retract the libellous story in two successive issues with the same prominence given to the story.
The court further restrained the newspaper from writing any further libellous stories about Mr Owusu-Agyeman, who sued in his capacity as the then Minister of the Interior.
According to the court, the restraining order did not preclude the newspaper from writing anything about the minister but it should ensure that what was published was not defamatory.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Yaw Apau, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that although the attitude of the newspaper, its acting editor and publishers amounted to intransigence, the court did not want to do anything to burden the newspaper, since the plaintiff never asked for aggravated damages.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman found a story carried by The Insight newspaper in its October 6-7, 2004 issue, to the effect that he had threatened PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contract for refusing to sign a dubious contract.
The contract would have enabled the company to supply to the government 150 Tata pick-ups, valued at $5 million dollars, intended for the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO).
The import of the story, according to the court, was that because of the dubious nature of the contract, the executing agency, PHC Motors, pulled out, as a result of which the plaintiff allegedly issued his threat.
Not satisfied with the story, since no such contract had been signed between the Interior Ministry and the company, the plaintiff sued the writer, Apisawu Peter Kojo, then acting editor of The Insight, the newspaper as an entity and Militant Publications, the publishers.
He claimed ¢2 billion in damages and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any libellous material about him.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman claimed that the defendants knew that the publication about him was false and did so to impute that he was of a questionable character, dishonest and corrupt.
He said they unethically reported that he exploited his position as a public officer for personal gain, among others, and also issued an ultimatum to PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contracts.
According to him, the false story had tarnished his image and hard-won reputation, making him to spend lots of resources to clear his name, both in Ghana and outside, since the newspaper had a wide circulation and was also on the Internet.
The defendants denied that the publication was intended to libel the plaintiff and that the words published were fair comment on issues of public interest.
They said the plaintiff was a public office holder and, being social commentators, they were obliged to comment on his actions because he did not adhere to specific procurement procedures.
In its judgement, the court held that the freedom and independence of the press was regulated by the 1992 Constitution, which also provided that the power of the media should not be used to the detriment of others in society.
It held that the defendants, through the acting editor, who testified in the case, did not provide any document to support the story and that plaintiff never engaged in any contract with PHC.
It said the plaintiff did indicate that PHC Motors had brought an invoice but there was no final contract which would have warranted the supply of the said vehicles and, therefore, the issue of fraud did not come in at all.
Furthermore, it held that the claim by the defence that the contract was not transparent and that it was a matter of public interest was not relevant.
The court said that the fight for accountability in the system was not peculiar to the press and that when it came to commenting on issues of public interest, the press was not superior to the ordinary Ghanaian on the street.
It said the comment would have been fair if, indeed, the contract was found to be dubious. What the defendants did, it said, amounted to a libellous statement of fact.
According to the court, the conditions for fair comment, namely, that the facts should be truly stated and they should not contain any imputation of fraud and honest expression of opinion, did not arise in the instant case because the defendants never led evidence to show that there was a contract.
It said what was published were allegations of fact which were not true and for that matter the defence could not avail itself of the defence of fair comment.
Instead of the defendants apologising to the plaintiff for the wrong done him, the court said, they rather sought leave from it and amended their statement of defence to aggravate the issue.
The court, therefore, ordered the newspaper to pay a ¢100 million compensation to the minister and ¢20 million as costs.
The newspaper was also directed to retract the libellous story in two successive issues with the same prominence given to the story.
The court further restrained the newspaper from writing any further libellous stories about Mr Owusu-Agyeman, who sued in his capacity as the then Minister of the Interior.
According to the court, the restraining order did not preclude the newspaper from writing anything about the minister but it should ensure that what was published was not defamatory.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Yaw Apau, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that although the attitude of the newspaper, its acting editor and publishers amounted to intransigence, the court did not want to do anything to burden the newspaper, since the plaintiff never asked for aggravated damages.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman found a story carried by The Insight newspaper in its October 6-7, 2004 issue, to the effect that he had threatened PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contract for refusing to sign a dubious contract.
The contract would have enabled the company to supply to the government 150 Tata pick-ups, valued at $5 million dollars, intended for the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO).
The import of the story, according to the court, was that because of the dubious nature of the contract, the executing agency, PHC Motors, pulled out, as a result of which the plaintiff allegedly issued his threat.
Not satisfied with the story, since no such contract had been signed between the Interior Ministry and the company, the plaintiff sued the writer, Apisawu Peter Kojo, then acting editor of The Insight, the newspaper as an entity and Militant Publications, the publishers.
He claimed ¢2 billion in damages and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any libellous material about him.
Mr Owusu-Agyeman claimed that the defendants knew that the publication about him was false and did so to impute that he was of a questionable character, dishonest and corrupt.
He said they unethically reported that he exploited his position as a public officer for personal gain, among others, and also issued an ultimatum to PHC Motors that it would not benefit from any future government contracts.
According to him, the false story had tarnished his image and hard-won reputation, making him to spend lots of resources to clear his name, both in Ghana and outside, since the newspaper had a wide circulation and was also on the Internet.
The defendants denied that the publication was intended to libel the plaintiff and that the words published were fair comment on issues of public interest.
They said the plaintiff was a public office holder and, being social commentators, they were obliged to comment on his actions because he did not adhere to specific procurement procedures.
In its judgement, the court held that the freedom and independence of the press was regulated by the 1992 Constitution, which also provided that the power of the media should not be used to the detriment of others in society.
It held that the defendants, through the acting editor, who testified in the case, did not provide any document to support the story and that plaintiff never engaged in any contract with PHC.
It said the plaintiff did indicate that PHC Motors had brought an invoice but there was no final contract which would have warranted the supply of the said vehicles and, therefore, the issue of fraud did not come in at all.
Furthermore, it held that the claim by the defence that the contract was not transparent and that it was a matter of public interest was not relevant.
The court said that the fight for accountability in the system was not peculiar to the press and that when it came to commenting on issues of public interest, the press was not superior to the ordinary Ghanaian on the street.
It said the comment would have been fair if, indeed, the contract was found to be dubious. What the defendants did, it said, amounted to a libellous statement of fact.
According to the court, the conditions for fair comment, namely, that the facts should be truly stated and they should not contain any imputation of fraud and honest expression of opinion, did not arise in the instant case because the defendants never led evidence to show that there was a contract.
It said what was published were allegations of fact which were not true and for that matter the defence could not avail itself of the defence of fair comment.
Instead of the defendants apologising to the plaintiff for the wrong done him, the court said, they rather sought leave from it and amended their statement of defence to aggravate the issue.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
TWO BRITONS FREED OF COCAINE OFFENCES
The Supreme Court of Ghana has freed two Britons who were convicted for narcotic drug offences in October 2004.
The two were sentenced to 20 years’ hard labour by the Accra High Court for shipping 588.33 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country but walked out of the Supreme Court as free men today.
The Supreme Court by a unanimous decision upheld the appeal of David J. Logan and Frank David Laverick, both 45.
It thus quashed and set aside the High Court conviction which had kept them in prison for more than two years.
The court was constituted by a five-member panel presided over by Ms Sophia Akuffo with the members being Mr Justice Stephen Allan Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice R.T. Aninakwa and Ms Sophia Adinyira.
The two men were among six persons, who were each sentenced to 20 years by the Accra High Court on October 27, 2006 for conspiracy, dealing in narcotic substances and possession of narcotic substance.
The rest of the convicts who are serving their sentences are Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, a 61-year-old American, Mohammed Ibrahim Kamil, 38, a Ghanaian car dealer, Alan Hodgson, 47, also a British and Sven Herb, 47, a German.
They were arrested by the security agencies in a house at Tema Community 10 where the substances were found concealed behind a mirror on January 7, 2004.
All six of them pleaded not guilty to two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
Gorman, Kamil and Herb pleaded not guilty to additional charge of importating narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without licence from the Ministry of Health. Gorman further faced a count of using his property for keeping narcotic drugs, to which he pleaed not guilty.
A seventh accomplice, Craig Alexander Pinnick, a British, who absconded was later arrested and arraigned.
After their sentence by the High Court, Logan and Laverick went on appeal at the Court of Appeal which by a 2-1 majority decision upheld the High Court decision.
In December 2006, they further went to the highest court on the grounds that their convictions were not supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court was wrong in ruling that a prima facie case had been established against them.
It said that in the light of the evidence at the time of the trial the two men should not have been called at all to even open their defence.
According to the court when they eventually opened their defence, the appellants provided credible evidence to establish their innocence.
Similarly, the court held that the Court of Appeal was also wrong in affirming the lower court decision because there was no evidence at the trial.
The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden of proof on the appellants.
An elated Mr Addo Atuah, counsel for the appellants, who could not hide his feelings described the decision as a victory for the rule of law and good governance.
He said that had become necessary because the right atmosphere had been created to embolden judges of the courts to dispense justice.
The two were sentenced to 20 years’ hard labour by the Accra High Court for shipping 588.33 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country but walked out of the Supreme Court as free men today.
The Supreme Court by a unanimous decision upheld the appeal of David J. Logan and Frank David Laverick, both 45.
It thus quashed and set aside the High Court conviction which had kept them in prison for more than two years.
The court was constituted by a five-member panel presided over by Ms Sophia Akuffo with the members being Mr Justice Stephen Allan Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice R.T. Aninakwa and Ms Sophia Adinyira.
The two men were among six persons, who were each sentenced to 20 years by the Accra High Court on October 27, 2006 for conspiracy, dealing in narcotic substances and possession of narcotic substance.
The rest of the convicts who are serving their sentences are Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, a 61-year-old American, Mohammed Ibrahim Kamil, 38, a Ghanaian car dealer, Alan Hodgson, 47, also a British and Sven Herb, 47, a German.
They were arrested by the security agencies in a house at Tema Community 10 where the substances were found concealed behind a mirror on January 7, 2004.
All six of them pleaded not guilty to two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
Gorman, Kamil and Herb pleaded not guilty to additional charge of importating narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without licence from the Ministry of Health. Gorman further faced a count of using his property for keeping narcotic drugs, to which he pleaed not guilty.
A seventh accomplice, Craig Alexander Pinnick, a British, who absconded was later arrested and arraigned.
After their sentence by the High Court, Logan and Laverick went on appeal at the Court of Appeal which by a 2-1 majority decision upheld the High Court decision.
In December 2006, they further went to the highest court on the grounds that their convictions were not supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court was wrong in ruling that a prima facie case had been established against them.
It said that in the light of the evidence at the time of the trial the two men should not have been called at all to even open their defence.
According to the court when they eventually opened their defence, the appellants provided credible evidence to establish their innocence.
Similarly, the court held that the Court of Appeal was also wrong in affirming the lower court decision because there was no evidence at the trial.
The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal erred in shifting the burden of proof on the appellants.
An elated Mr Addo Atuah, counsel for the appellants, who could not hide his feelings described the decision as a victory for the rule of law and good governance.
He said that had become necessary because the right atmosphere had been created to embolden judges of the courts to dispense justice.
SCIENTIST TESTIFIES IN COKE TRIAL
A PRINCIPAL Scientific Officer of the Ghana Standards Board (GSB), Mr James Koliju Atakri, today told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that 25 slabs of the alleged substance had a Toyota crown logo embossed on them.
Testifying in the case, he said the powdery substance, which was contained in a parcel wrapped in a polythene material, was brought to the GSB for analysis by Police Corporal Edward Asante of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 26, 2006.
He said when the contents of the rectangular box was analysed, it proved positive for cocaine, with a 98 per cent purity.
According to Mr Atakri, the parcel was labelled the Republic Vs Philip Bruce Arhin and five others and bore the seal of NACOB, as well as the signatures of five of the accused persons.
The accused persons, namely, the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness tendered in court the analytical report which was dated November 8, 2006.
He said his work involved the analysis of seized narcotic items, body fluids and post-mortem tissues for chemical poison.
Asked by counsel for the Arhins as to whether it was the practice of the board to tender the exhibits of their report, witness replied in the negative.
In response to another question posed by another defence counsel, Mr Atakri said prior to receiving the exhibits for analysis, he had not heard about the cocaine issue in the media.
Before the case was adjourned, the prosecutor asked the court to remand the accused persons who had been in police custody to prison custody.
When the judge asked the rationale behind the move, the investigator explained that the cell at the Police Headquarters was congested, saying instead of taking 30 remand prisoners, it currently had 85 of them.
The investigator said the police had embarked on a decongesting exercise and it had become necessary to transfer all remand prisoners to prison custody where the conditions were better.
However, a defence counsel, Mr E. K. Ameley, drew the court’s attention to the fact that his client had said there were only 11 prisoners in the cell where he was being kept.
The court upheld the prosecution’s application but indicated that should it become necessary for the accused persons to be moved, the defence could apply for a variation order.
Hearing was adjourned to February 16, 2007.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which two Venezuelans are facing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country adjourned to February 15, 2007.
That was after the prosecution had informed the court that a witness who was supposed to testify could not be reached.
Joel Meija Duarte Moises, alias Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman, and a third accomplice, David Duarte Vasquez, who is on the run.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005 while allegedly preparing the substance.
Testifying in the case, he said the powdery substance, which was contained in a parcel wrapped in a polythene material, was brought to the GSB for analysis by Police Corporal Edward Asante of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on July 26, 2006.
He said when the contents of the rectangular box was analysed, it proved positive for cocaine, with a 98 per cent purity.
According to Mr Atakri, the parcel was labelled the Republic Vs Philip Bruce Arhin and five others and bore the seal of NACOB, as well as the signatures of five of the accused persons.
The accused persons, namely, the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, Pak Bok Sil, a Korean, Isaac Arhin and Philip Bruce Arhin, both Ghanaians, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and have been remanded into prison custody.
Led in evidence by Mr William Kpobie, a Principal State Attorney, the witness tendered in court the analytical report which was dated November 8, 2006.
He said his work involved the analysis of seized narcotic items, body fluids and post-mortem tissues for chemical poison.
Asked by counsel for the Arhins as to whether it was the practice of the board to tender the exhibits of their report, witness replied in the negative.
In response to another question posed by another defence counsel, Mr Atakri said prior to receiving the exhibits for analysis, he had not heard about the cocaine issue in the media.
Before the case was adjourned, the prosecutor asked the court to remand the accused persons who had been in police custody to prison custody.
When the judge asked the rationale behind the move, the investigator explained that the cell at the Police Headquarters was congested, saying instead of taking 30 remand prisoners, it currently had 85 of them.
The investigator said the police had embarked on a decongesting exercise and it had become necessary to transfer all remand prisoners to prison custody where the conditions were better.
However, a defence counsel, Mr E. K. Ameley, drew the court’s attention to the fact that his client had said there were only 11 prisoners in the cell where he was being kept.
The court upheld the prosecution’s application but indicated that should it become necessary for the accused persons to be moved, the defence could apply for a variation order.
Hearing was adjourned to February 16, 2007.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case in which two Venezuelans are facing trial for allegedly importing 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country adjourned to February 15, 2007.
That was after the prosecution had informed the court that a witness who was supposed to testify could not be reached.
Joel Meija Duarte Moises, alias Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman, and a third accomplice, David Duarte Vasquez, who is on the run.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005 while allegedly preparing the substance.
MEMBER OF PARLIMANET JAILED 10 YEARS
THE 52-month-long trial of former Trade and Industry Minister, Dan Abodakpi, ended at the Accra Fast Track High Court on Monday with a 10-year jail term with hard labour for the man who is also the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta.
He was convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
During the 50-minute judgement, Abodakpi, in a white linen long-sleeved shirt remained calm, tapping his left foot until the first bombshell when he was pronounced guilty on the first three counts of conspiracy. There was a visible change in his countenance from then on.
But the judgement was not delivered without some incidents. First, it was the judge, Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, who took a brief exit to his chambers just two minutes into delivering the judgement and came back to continue.
After the sentence had been pronounced, counsel for Abodakpi, Mr Charles Hayibor, challenged the judge for not hearing him before pronouncing the sentence.
According to counsel, he would have pleaded for the mitigation of the sentence but the judge asked him whether that was part of the rules.
Counsel replied angrily that his client would serve the sentence.
After the court had risen, some Abodakpi sympathisers, including about 20 MPs, none of whom ever appeared in the course of the trial except yesterday, rather hailed him as a hero.
They cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Others too could not control their anguish and broke down in tears.
An inefficient aspect of our law enforcement also manifested in the courtroom. Several minutes after the court had risen, there was no policemen to take custody of the convict.
Two policemen present could not be of any assistance and a special offer was made to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to dispatch some personnel to the court premises. They were later joined by other uniformed men.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
They were charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers were accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
According to the prosecution, the $400,000 was part of a grant provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the government of Ghana to develop and promote the export of non-traditional exports
The prosecution said Abodakpi and Selormey took advantage of their positions and transferred into the account of Dr Boadu of Leebda Corporation in the US the cedi equivalent of $400,000 for a feasibility study into the project but no such study was conducted.
On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that Abodakpi entered into a contract with Dr Boadu but it was evident that it was Selormey who wrote to ECOBANK to pay Dr Boadu the $400,000 from the accrued interest of the TIP account.
According to the court, upon the instructions of Abodakpi that he was satisfied with the final report of the study conducted by Dr Boadu, Selormey wrote two letters to ECOBANK authorising the payment.
“Notably, Selormey authorised the payments and interestingly copies of the letters were sent to Abodakpi, who said in his evidence-in-chief that he did not receive those letters,” the court held.
The court said a letter written by Dr Boadu to Abodakpi asking for the payments was entered in the ministry’s log book but those sent by Selormey were not entered.
It held that the prosecution was able to establish that Abodakpi intentionally falsified documents to facilitate the act of fraud and consequently convicted him for that.
The state, the court said, incurred loss as a result of the activities of Abodakpi and Selormey and because Abodakpi wrote to Selormey to authorise the final payments, it was accepted by the court that he received Selormey’s letters.
Selormey, the court said, falsely represented to ECOBANK that a feasibility study had been conducted by Dr Boadu, for which an amount of $400,000 was paid to him.
It said the prosecution led evidence to show that Dr Boadu did not conduct any feasibility study into the Science and Technology Project and that the payment of $400,000 to him constituted a financial loss to the state, since the money was part of the Consolidated Fund.
Some people who were in court described the sentence as a precedent because the judge never said anything about the case put up by the defence.
According to them, the judge, in a characteristic display, did not say anything about the defence but saw the prosecution’s word as the gospel truth.
Some declined to be named but Dr Benjamin Kumbour, the MP for Lawra-Nandom and Ranking Member of the NDC, described as puzzling the judge’s statement that he was not compelled by any law to allow the defence counsel to raise issues about mitigation.
He noted that normally pleas of mitigation were allowed, explaining that for the judge to have behaved that way was unfortunate.
“Those of us who are committed to the rule of law are surprised because today has been the darkest day in the history of our country and Africa because the courts will no more be the bastion where the weak can seek justice,” he said.
He was convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
During the 50-minute judgement, Abodakpi, in a white linen long-sleeved shirt remained calm, tapping his left foot until the first bombshell when he was pronounced guilty on the first three counts of conspiracy. There was a visible change in his countenance from then on.
But the judgement was not delivered without some incidents. First, it was the judge, Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, who took a brief exit to his chambers just two minutes into delivering the judgement and came back to continue.
After the sentence had been pronounced, counsel for Abodakpi, Mr Charles Hayibor, challenged the judge for not hearing him before pronouncing the sentence.
According to counsel, he would have pleaded for the mitigation of the sentence but the judge asked him whether that was part of the rules.
Counsel replied angrily that his client would serve the sentence.
After the court had risen, some Abodakpi sympathisers, including about 20 MPs, none of whom ever appeared in the course of the trial except yesterday, rather hailed him as a hero.
They cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Others too could not control their anguish and broke down in tears.
An inefficient aspect of our law enforcement also manifested in the courtroom. Several minutes after the court had risen, there was no policemen to take custody of the convict.
Two policemen present could not be of any assistance and a special offer was made to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to dispatch some personnel to the court premises. They were later joined by other uniformed men.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
They were charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers were accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
According to the prosecution, the $400,000 was part of a grant provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the government of Ghana to develop and promote the export of non-traditional exports
The prosecution said Abodakpi and Selormey took advantage of their positions and transferred into the account of Dr Boadu of Leebda Corporation in the US the cedi equivalent of $400,000 for a feasibility study into the project but no such study was conducted.
On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that Abodakpi entered into a contract with Dr Boadu but it was evident that it was Selormey who wrote to ECOBANK to pay Dr Boadu the $400,000 from the accrued interest of the TIP account.
According to the court, upon the instructions of Abodakpi that he was satisfied with the final report of the study conducted by Dr Boadu, Selormey wrote two letters to ECOBANK authorising the payment.
“Notably, Selormey authorised the payments and interestingly copies of the letters were sent to Abodakpi, who said in his evidence-in-chief that he did not receive those letters,” the court held.
The court said a letter written by Dr Boadu to Abodakpi asking for the payments was entered in the ministry’s log book but those sent by Selormey were not entered.
It held that the prosecution was able to establish that Abodakpi intentionally falsified documents to facilitate the act of fraud and consequently convicted him for that.
The state, the court said, incurred loss as a result of the activities of Abodakpi and Selormey and because Abodakpi wrote to Selormey to authorise the final payments, it was accepted by the court that he received Selormey’s letters.
Selormey, the court said, falsely represented to ECOBANK that a feasibility study had been conducted by Dr Boadu, for which an amount of $400,000 was paid to him.
It said the prosecution led evidence to show that Dr Boadu did not conduct any feasibility study into the Science and Technology Project and that the payment of $400,000 to him constituted a financial loss to the state, since the money was part of the Consolidated Fund.
Some people who were in court described the sentence as a precedent because the judge never said anything about the case put up by the defence.
According to them, the judge, in a characteristic display, did not say anything about the defence but saw the prosecution’s word as the gospel truth.
Some declined to be named but Dr Benjamin Kumbour, the MP for Lawra-Nandom and Ranking Member of the NDC, described as puzzling the judge’s statement that he was not compelled by any law to allow the defence counsel to raise issues about mitigation.
He noted that normally pleas of mitigation were allowed, explaining that for the judge to have behaved that way was unfortunate.
“Those of us who are committed to the rule of law are surprised because today has been the darkest day in the history of our country and Africa because the courts will no more be the bastion where the weak can seek justice,” he said.
MEMBER OF PARLIMANET JAILED 10 YEARS
THE 52-month-long trial of former Trade and Industry Minister, Dan Abodakpi, ended at the Accra Fast Track High Court on Monday with a 10-year jail term with hard labour for the man who is also the sitting Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta.
He was convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
During the 50-minute judgement, Abodakpi, in a white linen long-sleeved shirt remained calm, tapping his left foot until the first bombshell when he was pronounced guilty on the first three counts of conspiracy. There was a visible change in his countenance from then on.
But the judgement was not delivered without some incidents. First, it was the judge, Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, who took a brief exit to his chambers just two minutes into delivering the judgement and came back to continue.
After the sentence had been pronounced, counsel for Abodakpi, Mr Charles Hayibor, challenged the judge for not hearing him before pronouncing the sentence.
According to counsel, he would have pleaded for the mitigation of the sentence but the judge asked him whether that was part of the rules.
Counsel replied angrily that his client would serve the sentence.
After the court had risen, some Abodakpi sympathisers, including about 20 MPs, none of whom ever appeared in the course of the trial except yesterday, rather hailed him as a hero.
They cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Others too could not control their anguish and broke down in tears.
An inefficient aspect of our law enforcement also manifested in the courtroom. Several minutes after the court had risen, there was no policemen to take custody of the convict.
Two policemen present could not be of any assistance and a special offer was made to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to dispatch some personnel to the court premises. They were later joined by other uniformed men.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
They were charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers were accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
According to the prosecution, the $400,000 was part of a grant provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the government of Ghana to develop and promote the export of non-traditional exports
The prosecution said Abodakpi and Selormey took advantage of their positions and transferred into the account of Dr Boadu of Leebda Corporation in the US the cedi equivalent of $400,000 for a feasibility study into the project but no such study was conducted.
On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that Abodakpi entered into a contract with Dr Boadu but it was evident that it was Selormey who wrote to ECOBANK to pay Dr Boadu the $400,000 from the accrued interest of the TIP account.
According to the court, upon the instructions of Abodakpi that he was satisfied with the final report of the study conducted by Dr Boadu, Selormey wrote two letters to ECOBANK authorising the payment.
“Notably, Selormey authorised the payments and interestingly copies of the letters were sent to Abodakpi, who said in his evidence-in-chief that he did not receive those letters,” the court held.
The court said a letter written by Dr Boadu to Abodakpi asking for the payments was entered in the ministry’s log book but those sent by Selormey were not entered.
It held that the prosecution was able to establish that Abodakpi intentionally falsified documents to facilitate the act of fraud and consequently convicted him for that.
The state, the court said, incurred loss as a result of the activities of Abodakpi and Selormey and because Abodakpi wrote to Selormey to authorise the final payments, it was accepted by the court that he received Selormey’s letters.
Selormey, the court said, falsely represented to ECOBANK that a feasibility study had been conducted by Dr Boadu, for which an amount of $400,000 was paid to him.
It said the prosecution led evidence to show that Dr Boadu did not conduct any feasibility study into the Science and Technology Project and that the payment of $400,000 to him constituted a financial loss to the state, since the money was part of the Consolidated Fund.
Some people who were in court described the sentence as a precedent because the judge never said anything about the case put up by the defence.
According to them, the judge, in a characteristic display, did not say anything about the defence but saw the prosecution’s word as the gospel truth.
Some declined to be named but Dr Benjamin Kumbour, the MP for Lawra-Nandom and Ranking Member of the NDC, described as puzzling the judge’s statement that he was not compelled by any law to allow the defence counsel to raise issues about mitigation.
He noted that normally pleas of mitigation were allowed, explaining that for the judge to have behaved that way was unfortunate.
“Those of us who are committed to the rule of law are surprised because today has been the darkest day in the history of our country and Africa because the courts will no more be the bastion where the weak can seek justice,” he said.
He was convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
During the 50-minute judgement, Abodakpi, in a white linen long-sleeved shirt remained calm, tapping his left foot until the first bombshell when he was pronounced guilty on the first three counts of conspiracy. There was a visible change in his countenance from then on.
But the judgement was not delivered without some incidents. First, it was the judge, Mr Justice S. T. Farkye, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, who took a brief exit to his chambers just two minutes into delivering the judgement and came back to continue.
After the sentence had been pronounced, counsel for Abodakpi, Mr Charles Hayibor, challenged the judge for not hearing him before pronouncing the sentence.
According to counsel, he would have pleaded for the mitigation of the sentence but the judge asked him whether that was part of the rules.
Counsel replied angrily that his client would serve the sentence.
After the court had risen, some Abodakpi sympathisers, including about 20 MPs, none of whom ever appeared in the course of the trial except yesterday, rather hailed him as a hero.
They cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
Others too could not control their anguish and broke down in tears.
An inefficient aspect of our law enforcement also manifested in the courtroom. Several minutes after the court had risen, there was no policemen to take custody of the convict.
Two policemen present could not be of any assistance and a special offer was made to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to dispatch some personnel to the court premises. They were later joined by other uniformed men.
Abodakpi was said to have, between May and December 2000, acted, together with the late Victor Selormey, who was also a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Dr Frederick Boadu, a consultant, and other persons with a common purpose, to wilfully cause financial loss of $400,000 to the state through the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP).
The amount was in respect of a feasibility study for the establishment of a Science and Technology Community Park/Valley Project which was meant to enhance the export of non-traditional products.
They were charged with causing the transfer of the cedi equivalent of $400,000 during their tenure of office in the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration when they co-chaired the TIP.
The former ministers were accused of causing the transfer from the TIP interest account lodged with ECOBANK Ghana Limited into the personal account of the project consultant, Dr Frederick Boadu.
They were arraigned on October 14, 2002 on three counts of conspiracy, two counts of defrauding and two counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state but both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted a self-recognisance bail.
Selormey, however, died in the course of the trial.
According to the prosecution, the $400,000 was part of a grant provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to the government of Ghana to develop and promote the export of non-traditional exports
The prosecution said Abodakpi and Selormey took advantage of their positions and transferred into the account of Dr Boadu of Leebda Corporation in the US the cedi equivalent of $400,000 for a feasibility study into the project but no such study was conducted.
On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that Abodakpi entered into a contract with Dr Boadu but it was evident that it was Selormey who wrote to ECOBANK to pay Dr Boadu the $400,000 from the accrued interest of the TIP account.
According to the court, upon the instructions of Abodakpi that he was satisfied with the final report of the study conducted by Dr Boadu, Selormey wrote two letters to ECOBANK authorising the payment.
“Notably, Selormey authorised the payments and interestingly copies of the letters were sent to Abodakpi, who said in his evidence-in-chief that he did not receive those letters,” the court held.
The court said a letter written by Dr Boadu to Abodakpi asking for the payments was entered in the ministry’s log book but those sent by Selormey were not entered.
It held that the prosecution was able to establish that Abodakpi intentionally falsified documents to facilitate the act of fraud and consequently convicted him for that.
The state, the court said, incurred loss as a result of the activities of Abodakpi and Selormey and because Abodakpi wrote to Selormey to authorise the final payments, it was accepted by the court that he received Selormey’s letters.
Selormey, the court said, falsely represented to ECOBANK that a feasibility study had been conducted by Dr Boadu, for which an amount of $400,000 was paid to him.
It said the prosecution led evidence to show that Dr Boadu did not conduct any feasibility study into the Science and Technology Project and that the payment of $400,000 to him constituted a financial loss to the state, since the money was part of the Consolidated Fund.
Some people who were in court described the sentence as a precedent because the judge never said anything about the case put up by the defence.
According to them, the judge, in a characteristic display, did not say anything about the defence but saw the prosecution’s word as the gospel truth.
Some declined to be named but Dr Benjamin Kumbour, the MP for Lawra-Nandom and Ranking Member of the NDC, described as puzzling the judge’s statement that he was not compelled by any law to allow the defence counsel to raise issues about mitigation.
He noted that normally pleas of mitigation were allowed, explaining that for the judge to have behaved that way was unfortunate.
“Those of us who are committed to the rule of law are surprised because today has been the darkest day in the history of our country and Africa because the courts will no more be the bastion where the weak can seek justice,” he said.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Areeba goes on Appeal
Published in December 2006
SCANCOM Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, have gone to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Accra Commercial Court not to stay proceedings in a suit brought against it and two others by a Ghanaian businessman.
Consequently, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Henry A. Kwofie, yesterday adjourned the case to February 7, 2007.
The court refused the application to stay proceedings on December 8, 2006 because it did not have the inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings in the matter.
At the court’s sitting yesterday, the judge said he was adjourning the case not because of any order from the superior court but out of caution because he had sighted a notice for stay of proceedings.
Scancom Ghana Limited are challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out a suit filed against it by a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey.
Mr Aggrey, who is claiming 20 per cent interest in Scancom Ghana Limited, also joined Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, Beirut, and Grandview Management, Texas, to the suit as the first and third respondents.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonny Kulendi, drew the court’s attention to two applications, namely an injunction notice and an application for judgement in default of defence, which had been filed by the plaintiff.
He urged the court to go ahead with the matter and said by the nature of the case the second application ought to take precedence over the injunction.
The plaintiff sued Investment Consortium Holdings, the majority shareholder in Scancom Limited, and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with MTN Incorporated of South Africa.
The deal has, however, been concluded following the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 restraining Scancom Ghana Limited and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN Company of South Africa without taking into account and/or providing for the plaintiff's 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited".
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
Mr Aggrey's contention is that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
He said the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom Limited obtained from the Registrar-General's Department, dated June 2, 2006 and signed by Mr K. A. Ohene-Obeng, a Chief State Attorney, for the Registrar of Companies, indicated that his name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
The plaintiff said the onus was on the company to explain how he ceased to be a shareholder.
SCANCOM Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba mobile phone network, have gone to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Accra Commercial Court not to stay proceedings in a suit brought against it and two others by a Ghanaian businessman.
Consequently, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Henry A. Kwofie, yesterday adjourned the case to February 7, 2007.
The court refused the application to stay proceedings on December 8, 2006 because it did not have the inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings in the matter.
At the court’s sitting yesterday, the judge said he was adjourning the case not because of any order from the superior court but out of caution because he had sighted a notice for stay of proceedings.
Scancom Ghana Limited are challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out a suit filed against it by a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey.
Mr Aggrey, who is claiming 20 per cent interest in Scancom Ghana Limited, also joined Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, Beirut, and Grandview Management, Texas, to the suit as the first and third respondents.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Yonny Kulendi, drew the court’s attention to two applications, namely an injunction notice and an application for judgement in default of defence, which had been filed by the plaintiff.
He urged the court to go ahead with the matter and said by the nature of the case the second application ought to take precedence over the injunction.
The plaintiff sued Investment Consortium Holdings, the majority shareholder in Scancom Limited, and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with MTN Incorporated of South Africa.
The deal has, however, been concluded following the transfer of all shares in Scancom to the South African company.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 restraining Scancom Ghana Limited and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN Company of South Africa without taking into account and/or providing for the plaintiff's 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited".
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
Mr Aggrey's contention is that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom Limited without any explanation.
He said the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom Limited obtained from the Registrar-General's Department, dated June 2, 2006 and signed by Mr K. A. Ohene-Obeng, a Chief State Attorney, for the Registrar of Companies, indicated that his name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
The plaintiff said the onus was on the company to explain how he ceased to be a shareholder.
High Court to decide fate of Ga Mantse
THE Accra High Court will on February 14, 2007 determine whether or not the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs has jurisdiction to entertain four petitions brought before it against the enstoolment of Dr Jo Blankson as the Ga Mantse.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date yesterday after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson, in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a chief.
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated, and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong, was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested parties, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a curriculum vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions," he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date yesterday after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson, in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a chief.
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated, and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong, was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested parties, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a curriculum vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions," he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
Trader remanded for bank fraud
THE Accra Circuit Court has remanded in prison custody a trader who attempted to steal $5,000 from the Makola Branch of Prudential Bank through the Western Union Money Transfer system.
Sule Hamidu, also known as Alibaba Bello, was arrested when he went to the bank to withdraw the money, allegedly sent to his accomplice, Idi Amadu Lawe, who is on the run, by Barry Melrose from Detroit, the United States of America.
In order to facilitate the deal, Hamidu prepared a fake identity card to bear his second name, with his designation as a marketing officer of Allied Signal Ventures, a non-existent company in Accra.
He pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy to steal, attempting to steal and possessing a forged document and was remanded to reappear on February 8, 2007.
A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Lawe who jumped police enquiry bail.
Prosecuting, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Eric Amoako told the court that the complainant was a worker of the Makola Branch of Prudential Bank.
He said on July 8, 2006, the two accused persons, who had conspired to steal from the bank, agreed on a plan, after which Lawe sent Hamidu to the bank to withdraw the $5,000.
Hamidu, at the time, had on him a fake identity card bearing his picture and the name Alibaba Bello.
DSP Amoako said Hamidu, after filling the requisite form, presented it to the cashier at the counter and waited to be called for the cash. But the cashier found the documents to be fake.
The police were subsequently alerted and Hamidu was arrested. During interrogation, he was said to have mentioned Lawe as the person who had sent him with the documents to withdraw the cash for him.
The prosecutor said Hamidu later led the police to Maamobi in Accra to arrest Lawe, who also claimed that he had sent Hamidu to withdraw the cash for him since he could not do that personally.
Sule Hamidu, also known as Alibaba Bello, was arrested when he went to the bank to withdraw the money, allegedly sent to his accomplice, Idi Amadu Lawe, who is on the run, by Barry Melrose from Detroit, the United States of America.
In order to facilitate the deal, Hamidu prepared a fake identity card to bear his second name, with his designation as a marketing officer of Allied Signal Ventures, a non-existent company in Accra.
He pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy to steal, attempting to steal and possessing a forged document and was remanded to reappear on February 8, 2007.
A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Lawe who jumped police enquiry bail.
Prosecuting, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Eric Amoako told the court that the complainant was a worker of the Makola Branch of Prudential Bank.
He said on July 8, 2006, the two accused persons, who had conspired to steal from the bank, agreed on a plan, after which Lawe sent Hamidu to the bank to withdraw the $5,000.
Hamidu, at the time, had on him a fake identity card bearing his picture and the name Alibaba Bello.
DSP Amoako said Hamidu, after filling the requisite form, presented it to the cashier at the counter and waited to be called for the cash. But the cashier found the documents to be fake.
The police were subsequently alerted and Hamidu was arrested. During interrogation, he was said to have mentioned Lawe as the person who had sent him with the documents to withdraw the cash for him.
The prosecutor said Hamidu later led the police to Maamobi in Accra to arrest Lawe, who also claimed that he had sent Hamidu to withdraw the cash for him since he could not do that personally.
Areeba loses first round of suit
TWO separate applications filed by Investcom Consortium and Scancom Limited, operators of the Areeba mobile phone network, to stay proceedings in a suit by David Andreas Hesse, a shareholder in the company, pending arbitration, have been dismissed by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
According to the court, the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, awarded ¢3 million costs against either of the defendants and adjourned the substantive case to February 8, 2007.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Scancom Ltd, acting by itself or its shareholders and officers, from removing him as a director of Scancom Ltd in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law.
In addition, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
It was in those proceedings that the defendants, by separate applications, both filed asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.
In its ruling, the court held that Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it was not a party to the Shareholders Agreement, nor had it shown that it was a beneficiary, and, therefore, had no ground to file the application.
The court concluded that Scancom Ltd, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and if not whether an application which proposes London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitral award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
The court held that there would be a double proceeding if the case between the plaintiff and Scancom Ltd was referred for arbitration in London, while the case against Investcom, who was not a party to the agreement, would have to continue in Ghana.
In that way, it held, there would be inconvenience, as well as a financial strain on witnesses who might have to testify in the case.
According to the court, the disadvantage to the plaintiff, who was an individual fighting arbitration proceedings in London and a separate action against Scancom Ltd in another forum far outweighed the advantages to the defendants if stay was granted.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, awarded ¢3 million costs against either of the defendants and adjourned the substantive case to February 8, 2007.
In the substantive case, Mr Hesse has sued the defendants seeking an order to reverse the alleged capital increase, the alleged dilution of his shares from six per cent to two per cent and the alleged transfer of his shares to Investcom Consortium.
He is also seeking an order to restore his six per cent shares in Scancom Ltd or in the alternative an order directed at the company to purchase his shares in Scancom Ltd after a valuation of Scancom Ltd by independent auditors.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain Scancom Ltd, acting by itself or its shareholders and officers, from removing him as a director of Scancom Ltd in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law.
In addition, Mr Hesse is seeking an order to restore 3.4 per cent shares of Scan Construction Ltd in Scancom Ltd or an alternative order that 914,600 of the ordinary shares of Scancom Ltd, representing his 25 per cent interest in Scan Construction Ltd, be restored to him.
He is also seeking an order that the parties go into account to determine the amount of dividends due him on his shares and an order directed at the defendants to pay such amount to him.
It was in those proceedings that the defendants, by separate applications, both filed asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.
In its ruling, the court held that Investcom’s application was premised on Ghana’s Arbitration Act 1961, Act 38, especially Section 40, and the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards adopted in New York on June 10, 1958.
It stated that counsel for Investcom submitted that so long as the agreement had not been shown to be void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, then the court was obliged to stay proceedings so that respect was given to the mode agreed by the parties.
In respect of Scancom Ltd, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it was not a party to the Shareholders Agreement, nor had it shown that it was a beneficiary, and, therefore, had no ground to file the application.
The court concluded that Scancom Ltd, not being a party to the Shareholders Agreement, had no locus in filing an application for stay.
The plaintiff raised the issue whether the UK was a country recognised or declared by the President of Ghana to be a reciprocating party to the UN Convention and if not whether an application which proposes London as the forum for the arbitration could be granted when the law applicable was Ghanaian law.
The court held that the countries recognised by the President of Ghana to be parties to the UN Convention did not include the UK, as the law stood currently, and in effect an arbitral award obtained in the UK could not be enforced in Ghana.
It said the particulars of the matters pleaded satisfied the requirements of the law and were sufficient to justify a refusal of stay in order that it would try those serious issues.
It was of the view that the plaintiff had more than discharged the burden on him to show cause why effect should not be given to the agreement to submit to arbitration in London.
The court held that there would be a double proceeding if the case between the plaintiff and Scancom Ltd was referred for arbitration in London, while the case against Investcom, who was not a party to the agreement, would have to continue in Ghana.
In that way, it held, there would be inconvenience, as well as a financial strain on witnesses who might have to testify in the case.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Ga Mantse contempt case
KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
In the interest of peace and order, the court did not award costs against Dr E.A. Tackie and the other applicants.
The applicants brought an action to the court to cite Dr Blankson, who was installed last year by one of the ruling houses as Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III, and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa.
But the respondents filed a motion to set aside the motion for contempt, which the court upheld and held that the respondents did not flout any order of the Regional House of Chiefs because they were unaware of any application.
According to the court, the bailiff of the house, in his testimony, said that he did not serve any of the respondents with the contempt documents and that the papers which were meant for Dr Blankson were rather served on Madam Esther Mankattah.
It said Numo Tettey and Nii Ababio were not served at all and, therefore, they were unaware of any case against them.
The court, in its decision not to award costs, took into consideration the fact that the parties were from the same family. The decision was also meant to promote peace and order.
THE Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
In the interest of peace and order, the court did not award costs against Dr E.A. Tackie and the other applicants.
The applicants brought an action to the court to cite Dr Blankson, who was installed last year by one of the ruling houses as Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III, and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa.
But the respondents filed a motion to set aside the motion for contempt, which the court upheld and held that the respondents did not flout any order of the Regional House of Chiefs because they were unaware of any application.
According to the court, the bailiff of the house, in his testimony, said that he did not serve any of the respondents with the contempt documents and that the papers which were meant for Dr Blankson were rather served on Madam Esther Mankattah.
It said Numo Tettey and Nii Ababio were not served at all and, therefore, they were unaware of any case against them.
The court, in its decision not to award costs, took into consideration the fact that the parties were from the same family. The decision was also meant to promote peace and order.
Court to rule on Dr Anane's suit against Commission on Human Rights
KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed March 15, 2007 for its ruling in the case in which the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane, is seeking an order to quash the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against him.
That was after the court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, heard arguments put up by counsel for Dr Anane and CHRAJ.
On September 15, 2006, CHRAJ, in its ruling after investigating allegations of corruption, perjury and conflict of interest against the former minister, recommended, among other things, Dr Anane’s removal from office for committing perjury.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty of lying under oath after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the CHRAJ report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
Dr Anane, however, on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision and the respondent accordingly filed an affidavit in opposition.
The lead counsel for Dr Anane, Mr J.K. Agyemang, urged the court to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
According to counsel, the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body was clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and went outside to arrogate to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI 7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456 and that gave the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
“Even people who cannot read and write have their oral complaints reduced into writing by the CHRAJ officer who receives it”, he noted, and stated that anything short of that meant the commission acted as a complainant, an investigator and a prosecutor at the same time which should not be the case.
He said the commission infringed on the Constitution in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, adding that on the issue of perjury, it did not have jurisdiction because Dr Anane was not even invited to deal with any such complaint at the commission’s hearing but in its decision it concluded that he had lied on oath.
The lead counsel for the commission, Dr P. E . Bondzi-Simpson, in his response, described Dr Anane’s application as unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed.
He dismissed the assertion by counsel for the applicant that a complaint was always required before the commission could embark on any investigation, saying it did not act out of place because it could either initiate its own investigations or investigate complaints lodged before it.
“An identifiable complainant is not required to lodge a formal complaint,” he stated, and added that that would lead to frustration of the commission’s mandate.
Dr Bondzi-Simpson, however, conceded that in the Dr Anane case, there had been no formal complaint but said that did not mean there were no issues out there which the commission could not investigate.
He argued that the commission could investigate all the allegations against Dr Anane, despite the lack of a formal complaint.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday fixed March 15, 2007 for its ruling in the case in which the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane, is seeking an order to quash the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against him.
That was after the court, presided over by Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, heard arguments put up by counsel for Dr Anane and CHRAJ.
On September 15, 2006, CHRAJ, in its ruling after investigating allegations of corruption, perjury and conflict of interest against the former minister, recommended, among other things, Dr Anane’s removal from office for committing perjury.
The commission, however, dismissed charges of corruption against him but found him guilty of lying under oath after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, the former minister told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
Following the CHRAJ report and public agitation, Dr Anane honourably resigned his post before he could be sacked by the President.
Dr Anane, however, on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision and the respondent accordingly filed an affidavit in opposition.
The lead counsel for Dr Anane, Mr J.K. Agyemang, urged the court to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
According to counsel, the jurisdiction and mandate of CHRAJ as an inferior investigative body was clearly set but the commission failed to observe both constitutional and statutory provisions which specified its functions and went outside to arrogate to itself what had not been prescribed.
He said Article 230 of the Constitution, Act 456 and CI 7, for example, directed what had to be done by way of procedure on receiving complaints and the investigation of any such complaint.
Counsel said by those provisions, a complaint was vital to the commission’s work and ought to be made, either in writing or orally, to the national office of CHRAJ or its representative at the district level.
“It expects somebody to make a complaint to the commission or its representative in any of the regional or district offices and where a complaint is made in writing, it shall be signed by the complainant or his agent,” he stated.
Mr Agyemang further stated that where a complaint was made orally, the person to whom it was made should reduce it into writing before the complainant and a CHRAJ official appended their signatures to it.
In the instant case, counsel said there had been no complaint or complainant and said if the commission could make its complaint and investigate it, Parliament would not have elaborated on its functions.
He said for CHRAJ to state that it did not require any complaint to undertake its investigation offended the clear provisions in CI 7 and Act 456 and that gave the commission room to rely on newspaper reports and anonymous complaints or people who hid behind the scenes to lodge spurious complaints.
“Even people who cannot read and write have their oral complaints reduced into writing by the CHRAJ officer who receives it”, he noted, and stated that anything short of that meant the commission acted as a complainant, an investigator and a prosecutor at the same time which should not be the case.
He said the commission infringed on the Constitution in purporting to deal with Dr Anane, adding that on the issue of perjury, it did not have jurisdiction because Dr Anane was not even invited to deal with any such complaint at the commission’s hearing but in its decision it concluded that he had lied on oath.
The lead counsel for the commission, Dr P. E . Bondzi-Simpson, in his response, described Dr Anane’s application as unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed.
He dismissed the assertion by counsel for the applicant that a complaint was always required before the commission could embark on any investigation, saying it did not act out of place because it could either initiate its own investigations or investigate complaints lodged before it.
“An identifiable complainant is not required to lodge a formal complaint,” he stated, and added that that would lead to frustration of the commission’s mandate.
Dr Bondzi-Simpson, however, conceded that in the Dr Anane case, there had been no formal complaint but said that did not mean there were no issues out there which the commission could not investigate.
He argued that the commission could investigate all the allegations against Dr Anane, despite the lack of a formal complaint.
Ga Mantse case hottens up
KOJO's DIARY
THE Accra High Court will on February 14, 2007 determine whether or not the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs has jurisdiction to entertain four petitions brought before it against the enstoolment of Dr Jo Blankson as the Ga Mantse.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date today after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to Chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a .
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested party, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a Curriculum Vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to Chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions", he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
THE Accra High Court will on February 14, 2007 determine whether or not the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs has jurisdiction to entertain four petitions brought before it against the enstoolment of Dr Jo Blankson as the Ga Mantse.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice K.A. Abada, fixed the date today after the completion of arguments in an application on notice for an order of certiorari and prohibition brought by Dr Blankson and his head of family, Nii Akropong III.
The action was against the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs and four interested parties, namely, Dr E.A. Tackie and three others, Winston Nii Teiko Tackie and two others, Nii Agyemankese IV and three others and Nii Owula Kpakpa Blofonyo, a sole petitioner.
That application is one of the issues before the courts in connection with the enstoolment of Dr Blankson last year by one of the ruling houses as the Ga Mantse, with the stool name King Tackie Tawiah III.
Earlier on Tuesday, another Accra High Court dismissed a motion for an order of contempt filed against Dr Jo Blankson and four others by some elders of the Teiko Tsuru We, one of the ruling houses of the Ga Stool.
The applicants brought the action to cite Dr Blankson and the head of his family, Nii Akropong, Numo Tettey and the James Town Mantse, Nii Kojo Ababio, for flouting an injunction against them by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa to enstool Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse.
Nii Willie Amafio, counsel for Dr Blankson in his argument said while the petitions before the Regional House of Chiefs lacked merit, the House also did not have jurisdiction to entertain or deal with a patently incompetent matter such as the petition.
He said the House of Chiefs dealt with issues related to Chieftaincy and since the petitioners sued Dr Blankson in his personal capacity and not as King Tackie Tawiah III or the Ga Mantse, the petition against him was flawed and at the wrong place.
Similarly, he argued that in the case of Nii Akropong, he was a mere head of family and not a .
"If they had sued Dr Blankson as Ga Mantse then it would have made the House of Chiefs the appropriate forum for the petition, counsel stated and added that the co-respondent, Nii Akropong was also not a chief.
Nii Amafio said the petitioners also lacked the capacity of kingmakers of the Ga state to sue for destoolment and with regard to Dr Tackie and George Nii Tackie, two of the interested party, they contested in the nomination of the Ga Mantse and lost.
Therefore, he said, that stopped them from taking part in any such action.
In the course of the argument tempers flared when Nii Amafio linked Dr Tackie to the contest and said Dr Tackie prepared a Curriculum Vitae for his son to enable him to take part in the contest for the Ga Mantse.
That drew a sharp shout of "liar" from Dr Tackie who was seated in the crowd. The judge, however, calmed down tempers and threatened that the court was not a palace, therefore, anybody found in contempt of it would be sentenced to two days' imprisonment.
Reacting to the submissions, Mr A.G. Buadu, counsel for Nii Blofonyo prayed the court to dismiss the application because it was incompetent while the issue of capacity, referred to by counsel for the respondents, should be left with the appropriate adjudicating body to handle.
Mr Ben Akuette, counsel for Dr Tackie and others and Nii Tackie and others, said the petitions before the House of Chiefs were proper and within the jurisdiction of the House.
According to him, although Dr Blankson and Nii Akropong were not paramount chiefs they purported to have enstooled a Ga Mantse, and, therefore, the issue related to Chieftaincy.
"They attempted to elect a Ga Mantse and so the Regional House of Chiefs is the proper forum for the petitions", he told the court.
The Nii Agyemankese party was not represented in court.
Ex GNPC boss accuses African Human Rights Commission
KOJO's DIARY
THE former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has taken a swipe at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights for being bias in its ruling on his complaint of unfair trial for causing financial loss to the state.
According to him, after he sent his complaint to the commission in April 2006, he never received any acknowledgement whatsoever but only read the decision of the commission on the matter from the Daily Graphic, apparently after the Republic had raised a preliminary objection.
“I have never received an acknowledgement of receipt nor have I been notified of any further steps in respect of the matter,” he said in a reaction he sent to the commission on January 26, 2007.
He expressed surprise at reading the commission’s decision in respect of his complaint.
However, according to the commission, in its decision, Mr Tsikata’s complaint was acknowledged by a letter ACHPR/LP/COM/322/2006/RE of May 2, 2006, providing the references of the complaint and in which he was informed of the scheduled consideration of the matter at the commission’s 38th Ordinary Session to be held in May that year in Banjul.
Furthermore, on June 1, 2006, the commission said it informed the parties of that decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
It also requested the parties to send their written observations to the secretariat within three months after notification of the decision and on August 31, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the secretariat received the submissions of the Republic of Ghana by fax and by mail respectively.
Mr Tsikata said he had never been aware that the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had raised a preliminary objection, nor that there would be consideration of his complaint at a meeting at which the Attorney-General and his team would be present.
The story in the Daily Graphic actually said the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint, which suggested that they were not present when the decision was taken at the commission’s 40th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia.
Mr Tsikata said it had been his intention to send a supplement to his complaint of April 23, 2006 which would certainly have addressed what appeared to have been a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General and made it clear that the objection was without merit.
The former GNPC boss asked the commission to furnish him with a copy of the decision, as well as a copy of the preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
The commission, on April 27, 2006, received Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
THE former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, has taken a swipe at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights for being bias in its ruling on his complaint of unfair trial for causing financial loss to the state.
According to him, after he sent his complaint to the commission in April 2006, he never received any acknowledgement whatsoever but only read the decision of the commission on the matter from the Daily Graphic, apparently after the Republic had raised a preliminary objection.
“I have never received an acknowledgement of receipt nor have I been notified of any further steps in respect of the matter,” he said in a reaction he sent to the commission on January 26, 2007.
He expressed surprise at reading the commission’s decision in respect of his complaint.
However, according to the commission, in its decision, Mr Tsikata’s complaint was acknowledged by a letter ACHPR/LP/COM/322/2006/RE of May 2, 2006, providing the references of the complaint and in which he was informed of the scheduled consideration of the matter at the commission’s 38th Ordinary Session to be held in May that year in Banjul.
Furthermore, on June 1, 2006, the commission said it informed the parties of that decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
It also requested the parties to send their written observations to the secretariat within three months after notification of the decision and on August 31, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the secretariat received the submissions of the Republic of Ghana by fax and by mail respectively.
Mr Tsikata said he had never been aware that the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had raised a preliminary objection, nor that there would be consideration of his complaint at a meeting at which the Attorney-General and his team would be present.
The story in the Daily Graphic actually said the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint, which suggested that they were not present when the decision was taken at the commission’s 40th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia.
Mr Tsikata said it had been his intention to send a supplement to his complaint of April 23, 2006 which would certainly have addressed what appeared to have been a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General and made it clear that the objection was without merit.
The former GNPC boss asked the commission to furnish him with a copy of the decision, as well as a copy of the preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General.
The commission turned down Mr Tsikata’s complaint and described it as “inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies”.
It said although the complaint presented a prima facie case of a series of violations of the African Charter, a close look at the file and the submissions indicated that Tsikata was yet to exhaust all the local remedies available to him.
In the light of the submissions, the commission noted that Tsikata’s allegations were in respect of an ongoing/unconcluded trial and that information provided by him even stated that the case was still pending before the courts of Ghana.
“Should the ongoing trial end against the complainant’s favour, he has further rights of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ghana, in accordance with articles 137 and 131 of the Constitution of Ghana,” the commission noted.
The former GNPC boss had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
He complained to the commission that the charge on which he was being tried constituted a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7 (2) of the African Charter and several provisions of the Constitution of Ghana.
He argued that he was being tried for an act which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time that it was done.
The commission, on April 27, 2006, received Tsikata’s 10-page complaint of 36 paragraphs in which he chronicled when he was first arraigned before the circuit court in October 2001, his challenge of the constitutionality of the Fast Track Court and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge purposely to review his case, up to the current stage of the case.
He stated that the manifest determination of the government to ensure, without any reference to the facts and legal issues, that incarceration was the only possible outcome of the criminal proceedings against him unjustly endangered his liberty.
Consequently, he sought the intervention of the commission and urged it to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case had been heard by the commission.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ghartey, assisted by Marina Atuobi, Nana Serwah Acheampong, both State Attorneys, and Nicholas Fredua Kwarteng, an Assistant State Attorney, also made a submission in reply to the complaint.
He stated that the guidelines for the submission of such cases provided that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies had been exhausted and observed that Tsikata failed to provide any evidence of the domestic legal remedies pursued.
The Attorney-General further argued that Tsikata failed to meet the requirement of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter, since he could not show that the procedure in the High Court had been protracted or unduly delayed.
“If, indeed, any delay has been occasioned, it would be due to the complainant’s own repeated request for adjournments and interlocutory appeals,” he said.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Imposter jailed
KOJO's DIARY
A foreman who faked being one of the good friends of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and succeeded in duping an agronomist of ¢30 million on the pretext of getting him a police auction vehicle has been jailed two years by the Nsawam magistrate court.
The convict, Samuel Alex Bature, informed his victim that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles and as a best friend of the IGP, he could assist him to get one.
He, however, bolted after collecting the ¢30 million from his victim.
The facts of the case as presented by Police Inspector Alex Cosmos were that the convict worked with Boateng Stone Quarry at Ahodwo, near Nsawam, while the complainant was an agronomist.
He said in March last year, Bature informed the complainant that the IGP was his best friend and that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles.
The prosecutor said Bature collected ¢15 million from the complainant and in return gave him a fake mobile phone number as that of the IGP.
He said Bature told the complainant that the IGP would call him and succeeded in collecting additional ¢15 million.
Inspector Cosmos said later, Bature brought a letter to the complainant to sign, assuring the complainant that the vehicle was ready but Bature could not deliver the vehicle.
Efforts by the complainant to collect his money proved futile hence his decision to make a report to the police.
A foreman who faked being one of the good friends of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and succeeded in duping an agronomist of ¢30 million on the pretext of getting him a police auction vehicle has been jailed two years by the Nsawam magistrate court.
The convict, Samuel Alex Bature, informed his victim that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles and as a best friend of the IGP, he could assist him to get one.
He, however, bolted after collecting the ¢30 million from his victim.
The facts of the case as presented by Police Inspector Alex Cosmos were that the convict worked with Boateng Stone Quarry at Ahodwo, near Nsawam, while the complainant was an agronomist.
He said in March last year, Bature informed the complainant that the IGP was his best friend and that the Police Administration was auctioning some vehicles.
The prosecutor said Bature collected ¢15 million from the complainant and in return gave him a fake mobile phone number as that of the IGP.
He said Bature told the complainant that the IGP would call him and succeeded in collecting additional ¢15 million.
Inspector Cosmos said later, Bature brought a letter to the complainant to sign, assuring the complainant that the vehicle was ready but Bature could not deliver the vehicle.
Efforts by the complainant to collect his money proved futile hence his decision to make a report to the police.
VRA battle ready
KOJO's DIARY
THE Volta River Authority (VRA) has filed a counter statement at the Accra Fast Track Court to engage in a legal battle with its former Chief Executive, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, over his ¢2 billion claim in outstanding entitlements.
The trial judge, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, announced yesterday at the first hearing of the case that the VRA filed its counter statement on Wednesday afternoon and, therefore, he was adjourning the matter.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Akoto Ampaw, asked for costs, since, according to him, the suit was filed in December last year for the case to be called later that month.
He argued that the defendant had enough time at its disposal to have filed its defence but it did not do so.
Counsel for the VRA, Mr Kwame Yeboah, said a strict look at the time indicated that the defence was not out of time in the sense that there was a vacation during the period.
The judge intervened and stated that the defence had ample time within which it ought to have filed the statement.
In the end, the application for costs was waived and the case was adjourned to February 6, 2007.
Although the document was not made available to the Daily Graphic, indications were that the authority was not ready to meet the plaintiff’s demand, since he resigned his position without sufficient notice to the authority.
Mr Yeboah, who said he needed the consent of his client before giving out the document, however, stated that the plaintiff did not deserve his claim because he worked for less than two years with the VRA.
If anything at all, he said, it was the plaintiff who ought to have paid the authority some money in lieu of the inadequate notice before his resignation.
Asked why the VRA committed itself and entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff over the payment of his claims, counsel explained that that was subject to review by VRA auditors.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, the chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
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 plaintiff 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.
He said the VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, 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.
THE Volta River Authority (VRA) has filed a counter statement at the Accra Fast Track Court to engage in a legal battle with its former Chief Executive, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, over his ¢2 billion claim in outstanding entitlements.
The trial judge, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, announced yesterday at the first hearing of the case that the VRA filed its counter statement on Wednesday afternoon and, therefore, he was adjourning the matter.
However, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Akoto Ampaw, asked for costs, since, according to him, the suit was filed in December last year for the case to be called later that month.
He argued that the defendant had enough time at its disposal to have filed its defence but it did not do so.
Counsel for the VRA, Mr Kwame Yeboah, said a strict look at the time indicated that the defence was not out of time in the sense that there was a vacation during the period.
The judge intervened and stated that the defence had ample time within which it ought to have filed the statement.
In the end, the application for costs was waived and the case was adjourned to February 6, 2007.
Although the document was not made available to the Daily Graphic, indications were that the authority was not ready to meet the plaintiff’s demand, since he resigned his position without sufficient notice to the authority.
Mr Yeboah, who said he needed the consent of his client before giving out the document, however, stated that the plaintiff did not deserve his claim because he worked for less than two years with the VRA.
If anything at all, he said, it was the plaintiff who ought to have paid the authority some money in lieu of the inadequate notice before his resignation.
Asked why the VRA committed itself and entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff over the payment of his claims, counsel explained that that was subject to review by VRA auditors.
Dr Wereko-Brobby, an energy expert, was, until his separation from the VRA on September 17, 2003, the chief executive of the defendant company whose principal functions include the generation of electrical power in the country.
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 plaintiff 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.
He said the VRA letter, dated April 1, 2004, 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.
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.
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.
KOJO's DIARY
KOJO's DIARY
THE husband of Rosita Dosoo, the Cuban Secretary of the fugitive, David Duarte Vasquez, yesterday told the Fast Track Court that he was given a letter by Vasquez to be given to immigration officials at the airport to grant entry visa to Joel Meija Duarte Moises, his cousin.
Mr Noble Bright Dosoo said when he went to the airport he met Moises and after paying the required fee of $100, he was granted the visa which enabled him to stay in the country for 15 days.
He was testifying in the case in which Moises, also known as Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman. They are alleged to have imported 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
David Duarte Vasquez, a third accomplice, is on the run.
The accused persons do not speak English and their trial is being facilitated through a Spanish interpreter.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005, while allegedly preparing the substance.
Mr Dosoo stated that the last time he saw Moises was when he led him through the final exit point at the airport where he met Vasquez and handed Moises over to him.
Led in evidence by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the witness said he became associated with Compinchex, a company owned by Vasquez through his wife, who was Vasquez’s secretary.
According to him, he went to visit his wife in her office one day when he met Vasquez who told him that he had given an assignment to his wife but since he was around it would be better he did that for him.
Following that meeting, Mr Dosoo said Vasquez gave him a letter which he took to the airport to secure an entry visa for Moises who he knew as a cousin of Vasquez.
He said at the airport, he told immigration officials that he was expecting someone he did not know but whose name he had.
The witness said the officials directed him to a certain room where entry visa was supposed to be issued and while there he found Moises seated before an immigration officer.
He said after he had told the officer about his mission, the officer told him that the person he was talking about was the one seated in front of him.
He said Moises was asked to pay $100, which he did and he was granted the visa which indicated that Moises could stay in the country for 15 days.
“After that I then accompanied him to the final exit point together with his baggage and handed him over to his cousin and parted company”, he stated and added that at that time Moises had his passport in his breast pocket.
Mr Dosoo said that was the first time that anybody had been brought into the country under such a circumstance by Compinchex.
Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Kwabla Senanu, did not cross-examine the witness.
Earlier, a police detective, Corporal Emmanuel Commey, who was part of the police team which effected the arrest of the accused persons on November 24, 2005, testified.
The court adjourned the hearing to February 7, 2007 and directed the registrar to write to the Institute of Languages to engage the services of another Spanish interpreter.
THE husband of Rosita Dosoo, the Cuban Secretary of the fugitive, David Duarte Vasquez, yesterday told the Fast Track Court that he was given a letter by Vasquez to be given to immigration officials at the airport to grant entry visa to Joel Meija Duarte Moises, his cousin.
Mr Noble Bright Dosoo said when he went to the airport he met Moises and after paying the required fee of $100, he was granted the visa which enabled him to stay in the country for 15 days.
He was testifying in the case in which Moises, also known as Joel Melia, a machine operator, is standing trial with Italo Gervasio Rosero Castillo, alias Cabeza Castina, a businessman. They are alleged to have imported 588 kilogrammes of cocaine into the country.
David Duarte Vasquez, a third accomplice, is on the run.
The accused persons do not speak English and their trial is being facilitated through a Spanish interpreter.
They have pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy, illegal importation of narcotic drugs and possessing narcotic drugs without authority.
They were arrested in a house at East Legon, Accra, on November 24, 2005, while allegedly preparing the substance.
Mr Dosoo stated that the last time he saw Moises was when he led him through the final exit point at the airport where he met Vasquez and handed Moises over to him.
Led in evidence by Ms Gertrude Aikins, the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the witness said he became associated with Compinchex, a company owned by Vasquez through his wife, who was Vasquez’s secretary.
According to him, he went to visit his wife in her office one day when he met Vasquez who told him that he had given an assignment to his wife but since he was around it would be better he did that for him.
Following that meeting, Mr Dosoo said Vasquez gave him a letter which he took to the airport to secure an entry visa for Moises who he knew as a cousin of Vasquez.
He said at the airport, he told immigration officials that he was expecting someone he did not know but whose name he had.
The witness said the officials directed him to a certain room where entry visa was supposed to be issued and while there he found Moises seated before an immigration officer.
He said after he had told the officer about his mission, the officer told him that the person he was talking about was the one seated in front of him.
He said Moises was asked to pay $100, which he did and he was granted the visa which indicated that Moises could stay in the country for 15 days.
“After that I then accompanied him to the final exit point together with his baggage and handed him over to his cousin and parted company”, he stated and added that at that time Moises had his passport in his breast pocket.
Mr Dosoo said that was the first time that anybody had been brought into the country under such a circumstance by Compinchex.
Counsel for the accused persons, Mr Kwabla Senanu, did not cross-examine the witness.
Earlier, a police detective, Corporal Emmanuel Commey, who was part of the police team which effected the arrest of the accused persons on November 24, 2005, testified.
The court adjourned the hearing to February 7, 2007 and directed the registrar to write to the Institute of Languages to engage the services of another Spanish interpreter.
KOJO's DIARY
KOJO's DIARY
THE two Chinese facing trial alongside four others in the MV Benjamin cocaine case at the Accra Fast Track High Court now have a counsel to represent them.
The counsel, Mr Solomon Korli, announced his presence in court yesterday when it was the turn of Isaac Arhin and Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons, to cross-examine a prosecution witness, Mr Kingsley Inkum.
The plight of the two Chinese, namely, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, came to the fore during the court’s sitting on January 16, 2007 when the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
The rest of the accused persons are the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and Pak Bok Sil, a Korean.
All six accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
During cross-examination by Mr Korli, who stood in for Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for the Arhin brothers, Mr Inkum said Isaac had been his very good friend, having met him 15 years ago.
The hearing was adjourned to January 29, 2007.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe, adjourned the case to February 27, 2007.
The prosecution asked for the adjournment because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
According to the prosecution, investigations were still going on, while it was working on some leads it had received.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, has granted the accused person a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified.
It, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail and also report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
THE two Chinese facing trial alongside four others in the MV Benjamin cocaine case at the Accra Fast Track High Court now have a counsel to represent them.
The counsel, Mr Solomon Korli, announced his presence in court yesterday when it was the turn of Isaac Arhin and Bruce Arhin, two of the accused persons, to cross-examine a prosecution witness, Mr Kingsley Inkum.
The plight of the two Chinese, namely, Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, came to the fore during the court’s sitting on January 16, 2007 when the judge and defence counsel expressed reservations about how the inability of the two accused persons to engage the services of lawyers to represent them was impacting on the speedy disposal of the case.
The rest of the accused persons are the vessel owner, Joseph Kojo Dawson, and Pak Bok Sil, a Korean.
All six accused persons are alleged to have played various roles leading to the importation of 77 parcels of cocaine, each weighing 30 kilogrammes, into the country.
They have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
The facts of the case are that Dawson, who has been charged with one count of use of property for narcotic offences, was alleged to have allowed Asem Darkeh, alias Sheriff, who is on the run, to use his vessel to import the 77 parcels of cocaine on February 6, 2006, while Sil, an engineer, was alleged to have, from December 15, 2005 to February 2006, repaired the vessel in readiness for sail from Takoradi to the high seas to convey 77 parcels of cocaine.
Isaac, a sailor, Philip, a mechanic, Li, a vessel engineer, and Xing, a sailor, were alleged to have, between February 27, 2006 and April 27, 2006, worked on the vessel as members of its crew and sailed from Takoradi to the high seas to convey the 77 parcels of cocaine to Tema.
The four were also alleged to have had in their possession, without lawful authority, one parcel of cocaine containing 30 slabs, with each slab weighing one kilogramme.
During cross-examination by Mr Korli, who stood in for Mr Osei Owusu, counsel for the Arhin brothers, Mr Inkum said Isaac had been his very good friend, having met him 15 years ago.
The hearing was adjourned to January 29, 2007.
In a related development, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying Prince Tsibu Darko, the Tema-based businessman accused of exporting 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe, adjourned the case to February 27, 2007.
The prosecution asked for the adjournment because it was wrapping up its investigations into the matter.
According to the prosecution, investigations were still going on, while it was working on some leads it had received.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice J. Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, has granted the accused person a ¢1 billion bail with two sureties to be justified.
It, however, ordered the accused person to surrender his passport and any travel document to the registrar of the court before the execution of the bail and also report himself to the police investigator at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters of the Ghana Police Service every Wednesday until otherwise directed.
Darko is facing one count of engaging in business related to narcotic drugs and, according to the facts of the case, in the middle of 2005 he allegedly exported 3,700 kilogrammes of cocaine to Europe without lawful authority.
Darko was first remanded by the Fast Track Court on November 23, 2006, almost 72 hours after another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Anthony Abada, had granted him bail in the sum of ¢5 billion with two sureties.
The High Court, on November 20, 2006, granted the accused person bail after his counsel had made an application to that effect but the prosecution had earlier that day entered a nolle prosequi at the circuit court, resulting in the discharge of the accused person.
He was, however, not released on bail because the prosecution preferred fresh charges against him after entering the nolle prosequi at the circuit court.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tsikata appeals
KOJO's DIARY: Accra Beat
For the second time, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, had to adjourn judgement in the case.
The court clerk informed parties in the case that the court had fixed the judgemnt for February 22, 2007 because of a notice of appeal it had received from the accused.
On December 7, 2006, judgement in the case was similarily deferred by the trial court because the Court of Appeal had on the previous day fixed December 19, 2006 to give its ruling in the appeal filed by the former GNPC boss to compel the IFC to testify in the case.
Tsikata lost his appeal to compel the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
By the rules of the court the accused after the Supreme Court decision has another option of a review should the verdict not go his way. This is likely to extend the judgement.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a panel member, read the verdict but the court was presided over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke, with Mr Justice F. Kusi Appiah as the other member.
The court had earlier on, on November 29, 2006, dismissed an application filed by the appellant praying the court to make the IFC party to his appeal.
The case had suffered various fates following a resort to the law by the defence and Tuesday’s was no exception, since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the high-profile case which has been pending since 2002.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
Tsikata requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in her duty, since the position taken by the IFC was in support of Legislative Notification (L.N.) 9 which granted the IFC immunity, and said if the IFC and its directors were unwilling to waive that immunity, the court could not do otherwise.
According to the court, its refusal to grant the appeal would not endanger the case of the appellant to warrant the occasion of injustice and fair trial because the rights of the appellant were subject to those of others.
For the second time, the Accra Fast Track High Court trying the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata, had to adjourn judgement in the case.
The court clerk informed parties in the case that the court had fixed the judgemnt for February 22, 2007 because of a notice of appeal it had received from the accused.
On December 7, 2006, judgement in the case was similarily deferred by the trial court because the Court of Appeal had on the previous day fixed December 19, 2006 to give its ruling in the appeal filed by the former GNPC boss to compel the IFC to testify in the case.
Tsikata lost his appeal to compel the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to testify in the case in which he has been charged with causing financial loss to the state but immediately after the Court of Appeal’s unanimous verdict, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
By the rules of the court the accused after the Supreme Court decision has another option of a review should the verdict not go his way. This is likely to extend the judgement.
According to Tsikata, the statutory provisions in respect of the immunity of the IFC, among other reasons, were misrepresented by the Court of Appeal.
Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, a panel member, read the verdict but the court was presided over by Mr Justice S. E. Kanyoke, with Mr Justice F. Kusi Appiah as the other member.
The court had earlier on, on November 29, 2006, dismissed an application filed by the appellant praying the court to make the IFC party to his appeal.
The case had suffered various fates following a resort to the law by the defence and Tuesday’s was no exception, since the outcome of the Supreme Court decision could affect the judgement in the high-profile case which has been pending since 2002.
The Fast Track Court, on January 24, 2006, ruled that the IFC, its employees and assets were immune from judicial processes and, therefore, it could not be called to testify in the matter which Tsikata believed was crucial to his defence.
The court held that if the IFC was not prepared to waive its immunity, the court could not compel it to do so.
Tsikata requested the Court of Appeal to set aside decisions of the trial court and order the IFC to appear, testify and produce documents in its custody in respect of the funding of studies conducted on the Valley Farms project.
The former chief executive of the GNPC had a brush with the law when, in 2002, the state charged him with three counts of wilfully causing financial loss of about ¢2.3 billion to the state through a loan he, on behalf of the GNPC, guaranteed for Valley Farms and another count of misapplying ¢20 million in public property.
Valley Farms contracted the loan from Caisse Francaise de Developement in 1991 but defaulted in the payment and the GNPC, which acted as the guarantor, was compelled to pay it in 1996.
Tsikata has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is on self-recognisance bail.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in her duty, since the position taken by the IFC was in support of Legislative Notification (L.N.) 9 which granted the IFC immunity, and said if the IFC and its directors were unwilling to waive that immunity, the court could not do otherwise.
According to the court, its refusal to grant the appeal would not endanger the case of the appellant to warrant the occasion of injustice and fair trial because the rights of the appellant were subject to those of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)