A member of the Justice Georgina Wood Committee has denied that the name of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei-Tutu, was mentioned in the recorded conversation which took place in the house of ACP Kofi Boakye and made available to the committee.
Testifying under cross-examination at the Fast Track High Court trying the cocaine case involving Kwabena Amaning, alias Tagor, and Alhaji Issah Abbas, Mr Yaw Baah, who is also a Member of Parliament (MP) for Kumawu, said the title “chief” (Ohene, in Akan ) was mentioned without being specific to any name such as the Asantehene or the Manhyia Palace. He said the chief mentioned on the tape could mean a different person.
He was testifying under cross-examination by Mr Mohammed Atta, counsel for Alhaji Abbas.
Question: The name of the King of Manhyia was mentioned?
Answer: No. What was mentioned was ‘Ohene’ and it means a chief so it could be a different chief.
Question: Did you find any relationship between Alhaji Moro and Manhyia Palace?
Answer: No
Question: Did he appear before the committee?
Answer: Yes
Question: In his testimony he said he was connected with the Manhyia Palace.
Answer: It is never so. He was asked whether he had any linkage with the Otumfuo or whether he had gone to Manhyia Palace to solicit help for Tagor. And in his reply (which was made in Twi), he said the Otumfuo did not tolerate this kind of criminal activities and that if anyone made such an appeal to him, he would apprehend that person and give him out to the police.
Tagor is facing four counts of conspiracy, engaging in prohibited business related to narcotic drugs, buying of narcotic drugs and supplying narcotic drugs, while Alhaji Abbas faces two counts of conspiracy and supply of narcotic drugs.
They have pleaded not guilty to all the counts and have been refused bail by the court.
Kwabena Acheampong, Tagor, Alhaji Abbas, Victor Kisseh, alias Yaw Billah, and Alhaji Moro Mohammed were earlier arraigned at the circuit court for allegedly dealing in narcotic drugs but the prosecution, on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, entered a nolle prosequi, resulting in the discharge of the accused persons.
However, fresh charges were preferred against Tagor and Abbas, leading to their appearance at the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Baah had earlier in his evidence-in-chief identified the recorded conversation which was alleged to have taken place in ACP Boakye’s house.
That was after the tape was played for about five minutes.
There was, however, an objection by counsel for the defence that enough foundation had not been laid for it to be tendered and the court, presided over by Mr Justice Jones Dotse, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, overruled the objection.
According to the court, the prosecution did not intend to tender the compact disc and it was important that the tape was played and listened to in order to confirm whether it contained information irrelevant to the case.
Led in evidence by the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, the witness said the CD was dropped at the Committee by an anonymous person and after listening to it the committee became convinced that the information on it was vital to its work.
Consequently, he said, the committee formally wrote to those persons whose names were mentioned during the conversation to appear before it and testify.
Mr Baah said those who were involved in the conversation included ACP Boakye, Tagor, Alhaji Moro, Kwabena Acheampong and Alhaji Abbas and that the tape was played to their hearing and they admitted that the voice was theirs.
He said the committee recommended 14 people to be prosecuted for their role in the missing cocaine.
During cross-examination by Mr Ellis Owusu-Fordjour, counsel for Tagor, the witness agreed with him that the committee could not discover who sent the CD to the committee or when it was authored and by whom.
He also admitted that no date or time was indicated on the CD but stated that what was of importance to the committee was the relevance of the information it contained.
Mr Baah denied that Tagor did not accept his voice on the tape and said he did admit except that he denied certain aspects which were not audible.
He further denied a suggestion that ACP Boakye told the committee that the tape had been edited and explained that during its work the committee was told that various versions of the tape was in the public domain and being played on radio and when the committee had the chance to listen to what it received, it realised that its duration was between one hour and one-and-a-half hours and in accord with what transpired during the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house.
The witness admitted that although the committee was unable to discover where the 77 parcels of cocaine had been taken to, it was able to establish who its owners were and how it arrived in the country as well as efforts at tackling the narcotic business in the country.
Another prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Charles Adaba testified and said that the case was referred to him for investigation by his superior officers at the Criminal Investigations Department Headquarters.
He said that he took delivery of the CD containing the conversation of the meeting in ACP Boakye’s house but he did not succeed in getting the source of the tape because all those he contacted did not help him.
When the prosecution wanted to tender the CD through the investigator, the defence objected to that and the court after hearing the arguments adjourned to March 15, 2007, to give its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the tape.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Let's avoid ethnocentrism
The other day in trotro a visibly elderly passenger was not amused at all about the driver's mate speaking in the Twi (is it Akan) language to the passengers. The poor mate had demanded his fare through the Twi language expression and the old man whether genuinely or feigning not to understand that language asked the mate to redirect his plea in the Ga language because we are in Accra, which is the land of the Gas.
So to speak, he needlessly said that the Ga language was expedient as the medium of expression in Accra. This degenerated into an unending argument carrying tempers very high.
An obviously younger passenger with a premonition that the argument was likely to degenerate into unimportant ethnic issues cleverly intervened that after all the old man was joking and that the issue should not be dragged.
Insults were actually traded with the old man, who from his rattle of the Queens language, might have achieved some considerable level education, being at the receiving end from a gentleman and who sat beside me.
As the incident unfolded, I sat quietly and put on my sociological lenses to observe so that the deduction that I shall made from what transpired could assist me to do this write-up on an issue, which to me, hinges on ethnocentrism, an essentail sine qua non for our national dvelopment. This is an issue which if not tackled or checked could lead to bloodshed and this is what Ghanaians must do everything to avoid and live in harmony as before.
For Ghana is noted to be a peaceful country of one people with a common destiny.
And it does not matter whether one is an Ewe, an Akan, a Ga, a Dagaare or from any part of the country. Indeed, it is a fact that ethnocentrism like nationalism cannot be wished away. After all everybody is proud of themselves first and anything else comes second.
Even between children and their parents, in matters of individuality, the children feel superior in their thoughts and vice versa the parents. So you see that ethnocentrism cannot be easily wished away.
Some of us subtly or rather knowingly engage in taunts at others. It is common to hear people condemn others for practising certain customs , traditions and all that. For example, if I come from Sefwi where the monkey is a delicacy it in not uncommon to hear somebody from Accra or elsewhere feeling nauseating about that.
Similarly, in communities where the dog is a delicacy, such repugnant comments are easily to be passed and those who feel disgusted often feel that they are better of and nothing else. Many of such examples abound in Ghana to the effect that some tribes have been associated with industrious skill while others are seen as lazy and even thieves. I may not want to mention names here but your guess might be as good as mine.
Obviously there are some people who might have qualms to pick with people from specific tribes or ethnic backgrounds no matter anything good being done by them. This must be due to what people hear or read from elsewhere or just out of sheer dislike.
And as a Ghanaian adage goes that "Whatever that the chicken does is not appreciated by the hawk", such people will not be pleased by anything not even the slightest infractions or even jokes put up any member of the other group they consider as inferior, superior or whatever.
In the light of the above, I am looking at what ethnocentrism is, whether or not it can be avoided, what the problem is and what can be done about it.
Ethnocentrism, from the point of view of the argument above, is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern or come to play.
The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point, therefore, "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point of view.
But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained above, everyone is ethnocentric and there is no way that one cannot to be ethnocentric. It cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude. It can be managed by the way we go about it.
Similarly, ethnocentrism has been defined as making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric. This is where I said people who read or just heard about others base their assessment on that.
The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgements, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism.
More examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world.
Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other people's ways.
Why are we people ethnocentric? The definition given above emphasises that we make false assumptions based on our own limited experience. Our perceptions of tribes, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about life and the universe, and all our other ways help us organise life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities.
Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences. Since we have not experienced everything they have experienced, how can we not be ethnocentric?
Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. The preface to my article amply demonstrates this fact. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.
At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our society and even in international relations. I remember telling my German fried sometime what I had heard that German do not drink piped water because of the ripples from the world wars.
We may be well meaning in inter-ethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill-feelings, and even set up situations that harm others.
A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?
Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts.
An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.
There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing, which has not been experienced in our country.
Can ethnocentrism be avoided or eliminated? Addressing ethnocentrism is not a matter of trying not to be ethnocentric. This is an impossible task, since we will never experience every life situation of everyone around our community or the wider society -the world. We will always have our assumptions about life based on our existing limited experience.
So a much more productive approach is to catch ourselves when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as we seek to develop better understandings.
In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases, but rather the recognition and control of biases, is it the placebo effect or what? The scientific process helps us to have a clearer view of what we do understand in the context of what we do not understand.
Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life experience, but it is possible to recognise this bias and control it so that we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings.
This calls for us to develop our learning skills, by trying to learn from those we consider to different.
Many of us know people who have moved to other societies and have learned to become functional in their new social settings, evidence that it is possible to develop more grounded understandings.
Anthropologists and Sociologists, of course, have worked on systematically developing these skills for well over a century.
The first step in developing more balanced understandings is to recognise that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming something that is not the case and is out of context. How can we consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In this case, how can we know when we are being biased?
One of the most effective means for recognising that ethnocentrism is inhibiting our understandings is to watch for reactions. At best, the old man having recognised the reactions of the majority of passengers on board the trotro should have been enough to tell him that he was going to thread on dangerous grounds.
Reactions tell us that we are assuming something and that our assumptions are not working.
We can always observe our own reactions from our utterances and behaviour. Our negative reactions towards others are sufficient clues that our assumptions are not working in certain situations.
Generally, reactions tell us first about ourselves. Why do we think people should be friendly, appreciate us, feel warmth all over when we refer to them as primitive or superstitious, uncivilised and those uncouth statements.
An attitude for learning is required of us. In this process, it is important for us to remember that we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better understandings. The best method is to ask for their explanations about what they do or say.
As our media pluralisim has opened the vistas for free comments, we must as well try to play diplomacy and accept each others views as because all of us cannot have the same beliefs, customs, arts and any other capabilities, which according to renowned Sociologist E.B Tylor, are accepted by man as a mmber of socitey.
We should always try to put ourselves in the shoes of others because no condition is permanent. After all during the fight for indepenndence, people from diverse socia-cultural backrounds put aside their difference and together fight the common enemy- poverty and disease to make our country a better place for generations yet unborn.
So to speak, he needlessly said that the Ga language was expedient as the medium of expression in Accra. This degenerated into an unending argument carrying tempers very high.
An obviously younger passenger with a premonition that the argument was likely to degenerate into unimportant ethnic issues cleverly intervened that after all the old man was joking and that the issue should not be dragged.
Insults were actually traded with the old man, who from his rattle of the Queens language, might have achieved some considerable level education, being at the receiving end from a gentleman and who sat beside me.
As the incident unfolded, I sat quietly and put on my sociological lenses to observe so that the deduction that I shall made from what transpired could assist me to do this write-up on an issue, which to me, hinges on ethnocentrism, an essentail sine qua non for our national dvelopment. This is an issue which if not tackled or checked could lead to bloodshed and this is what Ghanaians must do everything to avoid and live in harmony as before.
For Ghana is noted to be a peaceful country of one people with a common destiny.
And it does not matter whether one is an Ewe, an Akan, a Ga, a Dagaare or from any part of the country. Indeed, it is a fact that ethnocentrism like nationalism cannot be wished away. After all everybody is proud of themselves first and anything else comes second.
Even between children and their parents, in matters of individuality, the children feel superior in their thoughts and vice versa the parents. So you see that ethnocentrism cannot be easily wished away.
Some of us subtly or rather knowingly engage in taunts at others. It is common to hear people condemn others for practising certain customs , traditions and all that. For example, if I come from Sefwi where the monkey is a delicacy it in not uncommon to hear somebody from Accra or elsewhere feeling nauseating about that.
Similarly, in communities where the dog is a delicacy, such repugnant comments are easily to be passed and those who feel disgusted often feel that they are better of and nothing else. Many of such examples abound in Ghana to the effect that some tribes have been associated with industrious skill while others are seen as lazy and even thieves. I may not want to mention names here but your guess might be as good as mine.
Obviously there are some people who might have qualms to pick with people from specific tribes or ethnic backgrounds no matter anything good being done by them. This must be due to what people hear or read from elsewhere or just out of sheer dislike.
And as a Ghanaian adage goes that "Whatever that the chicken does is not appreciated by the hawk", such people will not be pleased by anything not even the slightest infractions or even jokes put up any member of the other group they consider as inferior, superior or whatever.
In the light of the above, I am looking at what ethnocentrism is, whether or not it can be avoided, what the problem is and what can be done about it.
Ethnocentrism, from the point of view of the argument above, is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern or come to play.
The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point, therefore, "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point of view.
But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained above, everyone is ethnocentric and there is no way that one cannot to be ethnocentric. It cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude. It can be managed by the way we go about it.
Similarly, ethnocentrism has been defined as making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric. This is where I said people who read or just heard about others base their assessment on that.
The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgements, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism.
More examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world.
Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other people's ways.
Why are we people ethnocentric? The definition given above emphasises that we make false assumptions based on our own limited experience. Our perceptions of tribes, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about life and the universe, and all our other ways help us organise life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities.
Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences. Since we have not experienced everything they have experienced, how can we not be ethnocentric?
Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. The preface to my article amply demonstrates this fact. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us.
At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our society and even in international relations. I remember telling my German fried sometime what I had heard that German do not drink piped water because of the ripples from the world wars.
We may be well meaning in inter-ethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill-feelings, and even set up situations that harm others.
A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?
Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts.
An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.
There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing, which has not been experienced in our country.
Can ethnocentrism be avoided or eliminated? Addressing ethnocentrism is not a matter of trying not to be ethnocentric. This is an impossible task, since we will never experience every life situation of everyone around our community or the wider society -the world. We will always have our assumptions about life based on our existing limited experience.
So a much more productive approach is to catch ourselves when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as we seek to develop better understandings.
In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases, but rather the recognition and control of biases, is it the placebo effect or what? The scientific process helps us to have a clearer view of what we do understand in the context of what we do not understand.
Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life experience, but it is possible to recognise this bias and control it so that we can go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings.
This calls for us to develop our learning skills, by trying to learn from those we consider to different.
Many of us know people who have moved to other societies and have learned to become functional in their new social settings, evidence that it is possible to develop more grounded understandings.
Anthropologists and Sociologists, of course, have worked on systematically developing these skills for well over a century.
The first step in developing more balanced understandings is to recognise that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming something that is not the case and is out of context. How can we consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In this case, how can we know when we are being biased?
One of the most effective means for recognising that ethnocentrism is inhibiting our understandings is to watch for reactions. At best, the old man having recognised the reactions of the majority of passengers on board the trotro should have been enough to tell him that he was going to thread on dangerous grounds.
Reactions tell us that we are assuming something and that our assumptions are not working.
We can always observe our own reactions from our utterances and behaviour. Our negative reactions towards others are sufficient clues that our assumptions are not working in certain situations.
Generally, reactions tell us first about ourselves. Why do we think people should be friendly, appreciate us, feel warmth all over when we refer to them as primitive or superstitious, uncivilised and those uncouth statements.
An attitude for learning is required of us. In this process, it is important for us to remember that we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better understandings. The best method is to ask for their explanations about what they do or say.
As our media pluralisim has opened the vistas for free comments, we must as well try to play diplomacy and accept each others views as because all of us cannot have the same beliefs, customs, arts and any other capabilities, which according to renowned Sociologist E.B Tylor, are accepted by man as a mmber of socitey.
We should always try to put ourselves in the shoes of others because no condition is permanent. After all during the fight for indepenndence, people from diverse socia-cultural backrounds put aside their difference and together fight the common enemy- poverty and disease to make our country a better place for generations yet unborn.
State opposes bail application by jailed MP
THE state has opposed the application for bail pending appeal filed by the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Kwasi Abodakpi.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
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.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
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.
State opposes bail application by jailed MP
THE state has opposed the application for bail pending appeal filed by the jailed Member of Parliament (MP) for Keta, Dan Kwasi Abodakpi.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
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.
This was disclosed to the court press corps in Accra yesterday after the parties in the case had met in the judge’s chambers to take a date for the hearing.
Details of the affidavit in opposition were not made available to the press and efforts to get it, as well as that of the former minister were unsuccessful.
While the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Gertrude Aikins, said making the affidavit available to the press would be contemptuous of the court proceedings, counsel for Abodakpi also made it clear that he would not entertain the press on the matter.
The matter was adjourned to March 5, 2007, to enable counsel for the applicant, who was served at short notice, respond to it for the stage to be set for the hearing.
If the application is upheld, the MP can go back to represent the interests of his constituents and the minority opposition in Parliament.
The former trade and industry minister was on February 5, 2007, sentenced to a 10-year jail term with hard labour by an Accra Fast Track High Court after being convicted on all seven counts of conspiracy, defrauding by false pretences and wilfully causing financial loss of $400,000 to the state.
After the sentence some sympathisers, including some MPs hailed him as a hero and cast aspersions that the sentence was politically motivated.
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.
Police in coke trial
THE fugitive policeman who is standing trial with three other policemen at the Accra Fast Track High Court for allegedly aiding a suspect to abscond with 2,280 kilogrammes of cocaine admitted in his statement that they received an unspecified amount in dollars from the fugitive cocaine owner, Sheriff Asem Dakeh.
Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah was said to have indicated in the statement that his share was $3,000.
A prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, told the Fast Track High Court yesterday during cross-examination by Mr Ahmed Musah, counsel for two of the accused persons.
He 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 although the accused persons had denied accepting money from Dakeh, it was clear that they met him at the Kpone Beach and from there they even went to his Community One residence in Tema.
He, however, did not tender Sgt Amoah’s statement because he was at large.
The witness said on April 26, 2006, Corporal Bondori crossed Sgt Nyarko, Corporal Yabson and Sgt Amoah with a taxi when he saw them and the van carting the suspected cocaine.
He said on meeting Dakeh, he (Dakeh) told the accused persons, “If it is because of cocaine that you are here, it is gone.”
Inspector Oppong denied that Sgt Nyarko’s statement was taken under duress in order to drop a more serious offence against him and that he voluntarily wrote his statement after his arrest.
He further denied subjecting Sgt Nyarko to an identification parade, during which his name was mentioned, to enable some fishermen to identify him.
He agreed with counsel that nobody arrested Dakeh but his vehicle number was mentioned by Sgt Nyarko in his statement and that enabled the police to retrieve it from Kpone Katamanso where its tires had been removed and the vehicle jerked and covered to outwit the police.
In a related development, a shipping superintendent and registrar of ships yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that the vessel was registered with the Ghana Maritime Authority on April 20, 2000.
He, however, said that its crew at the time of arrest by the security agencies was not registered.
Mr Eugene Ofei-Boohen was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which 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 Kpobi, a Principal State Attorney, the witness said he knew the ship owner because he was one of the directors of Dashment Shipping Company Limited, the owners of MV Benjamin.
According to him, he registered the vessel and the first time it was put on the Ghanaian register was April 20, 2000 because it was of Korean origin, with the name MV Duk Won 63.
He said vessels could be chartered, saying chartered vessels were registered if they were from different countries coming to the Ghanaian register.
During cross-examination by Mr D.K Ameley, counsel for Dawson, the witness said when a vessel was registered in Ghana it had to be deregistered from the original country of destination, adding that the MV Benjamin satisfied all the requirements for it to be registered in Ghana.
He said it was also the responsibility of whoever chartered the vessel or the company which engaged it to register the crew, as well as those who would manage it, among other things.
Sergeant Samuel Yaw Amoah was said to have indicated in the statement that his share was $3,000.
A prosecution witness, Detective Inspector Justice Oppong, told the Fast Track High Court yesterday during cross-examination by Mr Ahmed Musah, counsel for two of the accused persons.
He 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 although the accused persons had denied accepting money from Dakeh, it was clear that they met him at the Kpone Beach and from there they even went to his Community One residence in Tema.
He, however, did not tender Sgt Amoah’s statement because he was at large.
The witness said on April 26, 2006, Corporal Bondori crossed Sgt Nyarko, Corporal Yabson and Sgt Amoah with a taxi when he saw them and the van carting the suspected cocaine.
He said on meeting Dakeh, he (Dakeh) told the accused persons, “If it is because of cocaine that you are here, it is gone.”
Inspector Oppong denied that Sgt Nyarko’s statement was taken under duress in order to drop a more serious offence against him and that he voluntarily wrote his statement after his arrest.
He further denied subjecting Sgt Nyarko to an identification parade, during which his name was mentioned, to enable some fishermen to identify him.
He agreed with counsel that nobody arrested Dakeh but his vehicle number was mentioned by Sgt Nyarko in his statement and that enabled the police to retrieve it from Kpone Katamanso where its tires had been removed and the vehicle jerked and covered to outwit the police.
In a related development, a shipping superintendent and registrar of ships yesterday told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that the vessel was registered with the Ghana Maritime Authority on April 20, 2000.
He, however, said that its crew at the time of arrest by the security agencies was not registered.
Mr Eugene Ofei-Boohen was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which 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 Kpobi, a Principal State Attorney, the witness said he knew the ship owner because he was one of the directors of Dashment Shipping Company Limited, the owners of MV Benjamin.
According to him, he registered the vessel and the first time it was put on the Ghanaian register was April 20, 2000 because it was of Korean origin, with the name MV Duk Won 63.
He said vessels could be chartered, saying chartered vessels were registered if they were from different countries coming to the Ghanaian register.
During cross-examination by Mr D.K Ameley, counsel for Dawson, the witness said when a vessel was registered in Ghana it had to be deregistered from the original country of destination, adding that the MV Benjamin satisfied all the requirements for it to be registered in Ghana.
He said it was also the responsibility of whoever chartered the vessel or the company which engaged it to register the crew, as well as those who would manage it, among other things.
Areeba ruling
AN Accra Commercial Court has dismissed an application filed by David Andreas Hesse, a director/shareholder of Scancom Ltd, seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the company from holding its shareholders’ meeting.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
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, 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.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because 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.
According to the court, 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, the court concluded that the company, 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 proposed 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 arbitrary 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.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
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, 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.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because 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.
According to the court, 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, the court concluded that the company, 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 proposed 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 arbitrary 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.
Areeba ruling
AN Accra Commercial Court has dismissed an application filed by David Andreas Hesse, a director/shareholder of Scancom Ltd, seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the company from holding its shareholders’ meeting.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
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, 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.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because 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.
According to the court, 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, the court concluded that the company, 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 proposed 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 arbitrary 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.
According to the plaintiff, the intended meeting was in breach of the Shareholders Agreement and the law because it was aimed at removing him as a director of the company.
The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff did not need to be on the board of Scancom Ltd for his interest to be established, arguing that a shareholder and a director were two distinct positions.
Following the court ruling, the shareholders’ meeting, which had been on hold since November 24, last year, can now conveniently take place.
No costs were awarded because Scancom Ltd and Investcom Consortium Holdings SA, the defendants, did not ask for costs and, therefore, the substantive case will have to take its normal course.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Cecilia H. Sowah, ruled that it would not disturb the shareholders, provided they gave a proper notice of removal to the plaintiff.
It said if the plaintiff was able to establish his claim in the substantive case, he would be adequately compensated at the end of the trial.
The plaintiff represented himself, while Mr Benson Nutsupi and Mr Larry Otoo represented Scancom Ltd and Investcom Holdings SA, respectively.
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, 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.
The defendants filed two separate applications asking for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration but they were dismissed by the court because 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.
According to the court, 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, the court concluded that the company, 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 proposed 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 arbitrary 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.
Navy Commander testifies in coke case
A NAVY Commander has told the Accra Fast Track High Court hearing the case involving the missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin that a security team which searched the vessel at the Tema Harbour found a piece of paper on which the original name of the vessel, MV Adede II, had been written.
Commander Issah Yakubu said that raised the team’s suspicion that the name of the vessel had been changed from MV Adede II to its present name because some fresh paint was seen where its name was written.
According to the witness, when the team spotted the vessel, it sent a radio message to find out whether it had a sister vessel by the name MV Adede II but the crew denied knowledge of any vessel with that name.
He was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which 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 gave an account of the operation, which he led as the captain of a Ghana Navy ship sent to look for a suspected vessel carrying narcotics into the country.
He was able to identify the accused persons, except the vessel owner and the Korean.
Commander Yakubu said the team sailed from the Sekondi Naval Base to look for the MV Adede II, having armed itself with a photograph of the vessel.
He said the team did not find anything until April 27 when it was about to replenish its stock when it saw the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port anchorage.
The witness said when he sent the radio message, Isaac, who said he was the second in command, responded and denied that they had a sister vessel called MV Adede II.
"When I asked whether he had heard about the name Adede before, he replied ‘no’," witness said, and added that he asked that question because the photograph they had of the MV Adede was similar to the MV Benjamin.
Commander Yakubu said that raised his suspicion and, therefore, he sent four men on board the MV Benjamin to look for the documents of the ship, which it did not have.
He said when the crew was asked about the documents, they explained that they had left them in the office. To another question on how long the vessel had been at sea, they replied that they had not been fishing for the past one year.
According to him, the crew stated that they were testing the engine of the vessel, a reply which prompted him to ask them how long they had been at their current position, to which they replied the past one week.
He said that also raised his suspicion because the team had not seen them the previous day.
At that stage, the witness said that he informed the crew that they were being escorted to the main harbour and got his boss informed about the development.
He said when the team arrived at the harbour, personnel from the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) were already there with some Navy officers waiting for them.
He said the team, in its bid to search the vessel, first visited the bridge, from where the vessel was controlled, where Isaac Arhin was recognised, together with the two Chinese.
Commander Yakubu said in the presence of the NACOB personnel, the crew were asked whether they knew of the MV Adede II and they denied any knowledge.
It was when the team started searching through the books on a table on the vessel that they found MV Adede II written on a small paper, with a few glossaries.
"This is what you have and you have said that you did not know anything about the vessel?" witness said he asked the crew, and showed to them the photograph they had of the MV Adede II.
After that, the witness said, he put it to the crew that the MV Benjamin was the MV Adede II but after that question he realised the crew had become jittery so he asked them to confess. But they still denied, maintaining that they had gone for engine testing.
Commander Yakubu said with that exhibit the crew was told that their vessel was going to be searched, after statements had been taken from them.
A photograph was taken of Isaac Arhin's statement and tendered in court, together with other photographs of the operation.
In the statement, the accused admitted that the cartons parked into the vessel contained cocaine because the captain said so.
He stated that to the best of his knowledge the vessel was to sail to Tema but the crew later realised that it was sailing to dangerous seas so they asked the captain what the matter was.
Arhin said they sailed to the sea around Monrovia, Liberia, and because they feared for their safety, they kept quiet over the incident until the vessel entered the anchorage of the breakwater in Tema.
Commander Yakubu said from Arhin’s testimony, he thought the job was completed but on his way to the office Mr Ben Ndego of NACOB called him and said that since NACOB did not have the expertise, the Navy team should assist in searching the vessel.
He said when the got to the hatch of the vessel, it was locked, but it was forced open with the assistance of one of the crew members.
In the course of all that, he said, the two Chinese remained very passive, since they did not speak English, but during the search one of them became active by leading them but he suddenly changed his countenance and prevented one officer from carrying a bag in which the 30 slabs of cocaine was concealed.
He said the captain of the vessel escaped with one of the canoes which had gone to take the cargo from the MV Benjamin the previous night before the accused persons were arrested.
Commander Issah Yakubu said that raised the team’s suspicion that the name of the vessel had been changed from MV Adede II to its present name because some fresh paint was seen where its name was written.
According to the witness, when the team spotted the vessel, it sent a radio message to find out whether it had a sister vessel by the name MV Adede II but the crew denied knowledge of any vessel with that name.
He was testifying in the case concerning some missing cocaine on board the MV Benjamin in which 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 gave an account of the operation, which he led as the captain of a Ghana Navy ship sent to look for a suspected vessel carrying narcotics into the country.
He was able to identify the accused persons, except the vessel owner and the Korean.
Commander Yakubu said the team sailed from the Sekondi Naval Base to look for the MV Adede II, having armed itself with a photograph of the vessel.
He said the team did not find anything until April 27 when it was about to replenish its stock when it saw the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port anchorage.
The witness said when he sent the radio message, Isaac, who said he was the second in command, responded and denied that they had a sister vessel called MV Adede II.
"When I asked whether he had heard about the name Adede before, he replied ‘no’," witness said, and added that he asked that question because the photograph they had of the MV Adede was similar to the MV Benjamin.
Commander Yakubu said that raised his suspicion and, therefore, he sent four men on board the MV Benjamin to look for the documents of the ship, which it did not have.
He said when the crew was asked about the documents, they explained that they had left them in the office. To another question on how long the vessel had been at sea, they replied that they had not been fishing for the past one year.
According to him, the crew stated that they were testing the engine of the vessel, a reply which prompted him to ask them how long they had been at their current position, to which they replied the past one week.
He said that also raised his suspicion because the team had not seen them the previous day.
At that stage, the witness said that he informed the crew that they were being escorted to the main harbour and got his boss informed about the development.
He said when the team arrived at the harbour, personnel from the Narcotic Control Board (NACOB) were already there with some Navy officers waiting for them.
He said the team, in its bid to search the vessel, first visited the bridge, from where the vessel was controlled, where Isaac Arhin was recognised, together with the two Chinese.
Commander Yakubu said in the presence of the NACOB personnel, the crew were asked whether they knew of the MV Adede II and they denied any knowledge.
It was when the team started searching through the books on a table on the vessel that they found MV Adede II written on a small paper, with a few glossaries.
"This is what you have and you have said that you did not know anything about the vessel?" witness said he asked the crew, and showed to them the photograph they had of the MV Adede II.
After that, the witness said, he put it to the crew that the MV Benjamin was the MV Adede II but after that question he realised the crew had become jittery so he asked them to confess. But they still denied, maintaining that they had gone for engine testing.
Commander Yakubu said with that exhibit the crew was told that their vessel was going to be searched, after statements had been taken from them.
A photograph was taken of Isaac Arhin's statement and tendered in court, together with other photographs of the operation.
In the statement, the accused admitted that the cartons parked into the vessel contained cocaine because the captain said so.
He stated that to the best of his knowledge the vessel was to sail to Tema but the crew later realised that it was sailing to dangerous seas so they asked the captain what the matter was.
Arhin said they sailed to the sea around Monrovia, Liberia, and because they feared for their safety, they kept quiet over the incident until the vessel entered the anchorage of the breakwater in Tema.
Commander Yakubu said from Arhin’s testimony, he thought the job was completed but on his way to the office Mr Ben Ndego of NACOB called him and said that since NACOB did not have the expertise, the Navy team should assist in searching the vessel.
He said when the got to the hatch of the vessel, it was locked, but it was forced open with the assistance of one of the crew members.
In the course of all that, he said, the two Chinese remained very passive, since they did not speak English, but during the search one of them became active by leading them but he suddenly changed his countenance and prevented one officer from carrying a bag in which the 30 slabs of cocaine was concealed.
He said the captain of the vessel escaped with one of the canoes which had gone to take the cargo from the MV Benjamin the previous night before the accused persons were arrested.
Mobile Phone Provider and National Communications Authority sued
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)