February 1, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment