Head of communications ackbone company testifies at Vodafone trial

June 12, 2012 (Page 20) THE Head of Contract Management at the National Communications Backbone Company (NCBC) has informed the Commercial Court in Accra that he was not aware the national fibre optic cable was not part of assets expected to be acquired by Vodafone. According to him, he had not read the full report on the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) which according to counsel for seven persons challenging the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone, did not include the national fibre optic cable. Answering questions from Mr. Bright Akwetey, Mr. Asare said he was also not aware Vodafone was expected to acquire 70 per cent of Ghana Telecom shares and not the national fibre optic cable. The NCBC, which until 2008 solely owned the fibre optic cable, now owns 30 per cent shares while Vodafone owns 70 per cent of the cable which is sold to mobile network operators and licenced internet service providers. He said the NCBC, which was responsible for managing the national fibre optic cable currently shared offices with Vodafone. He said the National Grid Company (GRIDCO) currently maintained the fibre optic cable and had since 2008 been paid a little in excess of $1.3 million. Earlier, a lawyer at the Volta River Authority (VRA), Mrs. Angelina Dormakyaare, told the court that VRA set up Voltacom to commercialise its excess fibre optic cables in order to earn money for the country. He said the nature of the business was to carry signals to companies in the communication sector. The Head of Visa Fraud and Documentation Unit of the Ghana Police Service, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr. Francis Baah, tendered in evidence minutes of the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) from 2001 to date. A former Minister Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Joe Ghartey, was present in court following the issuance of a subpoena but he could not testify because he was yet to receive a copy of the SPA for study. Mr. Akwetey, promised the former Minister or his lawyer, Mr. Frank Davies, with a copy of the SPA to enable him testify later. Hearing continues on June 18, 2012. The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar General over the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone. The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr. Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr. Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms. Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, and they are calling for a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest. They are, therefore, seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity. They are also seeking an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect. The plaintiffs are further praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the government from disposing of its 70 per cent share of GT to Vodafone or any other foreign company without first exploring avenues for funding and better management in Ghana, among others. The plaintiffs are contending that the SPA entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government. They said they were opposed to the unlawful establishment of the said Enlarged GT Group, as it undermined the sovereignty of the country and endangered the national security of Ghana. According to them, the decision of the government to transfer the assets, properties, shares, equipment, among others, to Vodafone was obnoxious, unlawful and inimical to the public interest, particularly when no consideration was required to be paid by Vodafone for the stated assets. The plaintiffs argued that the three Ministers of State and the managing director of GT who signed the agreement on behalf of the government did not exercise the requisite level of circumspection required of them as public officers in relation to public property. END.