June 18, 2008 (Lead Story)
THE Tema Oil Refinery (TOR) has stated that it has, since 2004, phased out leaded petrol from its line of production.
It, therefore, dismissed claims that the refinery was currently serving leaded petrol to the public and urged the public to ignore oil marketing companies (OMCs) which maintained that they were serving only unleaded petrol to consumers.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, the Public Affairs Manager of TOR, Mrs Aba Lokko, said the deregulation exercise in the petroleum sector gave the OMCs the right to purchase petroleum products from other countries.
She said it was, therefore, unfortunate that some OMCs had taken advantage of the exercise to peddle falsehood.
Mrs Lokko, who declined to specifically mention the OMCs, said the refinery was stating the facts publicly because the perception being created was that it was serving leaded fuel to consumers.
According to her, the perception was so widespread that the refinery had decided to embark on a massive public campaign to educate Ghanaians on the unleaded fuel programme.
She explained that the phasing out of lead began in 2003, saying it was completely phased out in January 2004 after the Petroleum (Amendment) Regulation, 2003 (LI 1732) had been passed.
The regulation, which came into force on January 1, 2004, prohibited the production and importation of leaded petrol.
Sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the regulation said, “A person shall not produce, import, store, sell or use leaded gasoline in Ghana”, while Sub-section 2 warned that “a person who contravenes sub-regulation (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 250 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or to both”.
Each penalty unit is GH¢12, thus a person found liable of importing or producing leaded petrol will pay a fine not exceeding GH¢3,000.
Explaining further, Mrs Lokko said that TOR formulated its unleaded petrol with a compound called methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) as an octane booster.
"Extensive testing had been done on MMT by Afton Chemicals and other environmental organisations around the world and those organisations had all concluded that MMT did not pose any risks for humans," she explained.
She explained further that the Environmental Services and Quality Control departments of TOR monitored the concentration of manganese in air periodically and reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mrs Lokko explained that the octane level in gasoline was 91 and gave the assurance that petroleum products from the refinery were of high quality.
Unleaded gasoline promotes high engine performance, thereby reducing high maintenance cost, among other attributes.
Other effects of lead poisoning, which is extremely toxic, even in lower concentrations, are loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, increased blood pressure, stroke, joint or muscle ache, impairment of mental development in children leading to behavioural disorders, neuro-development damage, leading to lower intelligence, as well as decreased sexual drive.
Other African countries which produce unleaded fuel are Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroun, South Africa, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon, bringing the number of countries which produce unleaded fuel in Africa to 10.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Aggrey closes case against Scancom
June 18, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
MR Richmond Aggrey, a businessman who has sued Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of MTN, over a shareholding dispute, yesterday closed his case and prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to order the defendants to restore his name as the holder of 20 per cent shares in the company.
He also prayed the court to order Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
Mr Aggrey, who was led by his counsel, Mr Yonny Kulendi, in his evidence-in-chief, is also seeking the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
The businessman has joined Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management to the suit over unlawful take-over of his 20 per cent shares in Scancom.
According to Mr Aggrey, he was forced to pull out of the company because of former President Rawlings’s interference and threats which had the potential of collapsing the company.
Mr Aggrey, who was then the Vice-Chairman of Scancom, said following the continuous threats, he was advised by the other shareholders to pull out and instead nominate someone to represent him.
He said following those developments, he nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
He said he and other minority shareholders were deceived, adding, “I left to help the company to survive persecution. What we started in order to sustain our common interest is now being used to take away my shares.”
Mr Aggrey accused Investcom of unilaterally increasing its shares, to his detriment, and that of other minor shareholders.
He denied assertions by Scancom that he transferred the 20 per cent shares to Grandview out of his own free will, adding that he left to save the company and not to sacrifice his shares.
He further denied a claim by Scancom that he was paid by Grandview after the transfer of the shares.
The defence is expected to cross-examine Mr Aggrey at the court’s sitting today.
The Commercial Court is also expected to give its ruling on an application filed by Investcom praying the court to determine whether or not the suit filed by Mr Aggrey could be determined through arbitration in London.
According to Investcom, by virtue of the shareholders’ agreement dated January 12, 1996, subsequently amended in June, 1996, Investcom and Mr Aggrey agreed that the right forum for the resolution of any dispute arising from or in connection with the shareholders’ agreement was in London.
Investcom had earlier filed an application praying the court to stay proceedings on the case to enable parties in the matter to go for arbitration in London but the court dismissed it on the grounds that it was misplaced.
Mr Aggrey began giving evidence on April 28, 2008, following the non-attainment of a settlement between him and the three defendants at a pre-trial conference under commercial court rules, resulting in the matter being referred for trial.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN, 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
MR Richmond Aggrey, a businessman who has sued Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of MTN, over a shareholding dispute, yesterday closed his case and prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to order the defendants to restore his name as the holder of 20 per cent shares in the company.
He also prayed the court to order Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
Mr Aggrey, who was led by his counsel, Mr Yonny Kulendi, in his evidence-in-chief, is also seeking the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
The businessman has joined Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management to the suit over unlawful take-over of his 20 per cent shares in Scancom.
According to Mr Aggrey, he was forced to pull out of the company because of former President Rawlings’s interference and threats which had the potential of collapsing the company.
Mr Aggrey, who was then the Vice-Chairman of Scancom, said following the continuous threats, he was advised by the other shareholders to pull out and instead nominate someone to represent him.
He said following those developments, he nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
He said he and other minority shareholders were deceived, adding, “I left to help the company to survive persecution. What we started in order to sustain our common interest is now being used to take away my shares.”
Mr Aggrey accused Investcom of unilaterally increasing its shares, to his detriment, and that of other minor shareholders.
He denied assertions by Scancom that he transferred the 20 per cent shares to Grandview out of his own free will, adding that he left to save the company and not to sacrifice his shares.
He further denied a claim by Scancom that he was paid by Grandview after the transfer of the shares.
The defence is expected to cross-examine Mr Aggrey at the court’s sitting today.
The Commercial Court is also expected to give its ruling on an application filed by Investcom praying the court to determine whether or not the suit filed by Mr Aggrey could be determined through arbitration in London.
According to Investcom, by virtue of the shareholders’ agreement dated January 12, 1996, subsequently amended in June, 1996, Investcom and Mr Aggrey agreed that the right forum for the resolution of any dispute arising from or in connection with the shareholders’ agreement was in London.
Investcom had earlier filed an application praying the court to stay proceedings on the case to enable parties in the matter to go for arbitration in London but the court dismissed it on the grounds that it was misplaced.
Mr Aggrey began giving evidence on April 28, 2008, following the non-attainment of a settlement between him and the three defendants at a pre-trial conference under commercial court rules, resulting in the matter being referred for trial.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN, 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Man sentenced for incest
June 7, 2008 (UNPUBLISHED)
A 45-year-old security officer, Laud Ford Mensah, was yesterday sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for impregnating his 16-year-old daughter.
The convict was said to have sexually assaulted his daughter several times, leading to her being pregnant and throughout her pregnancy until a year ago.
Mensah pleaded guilty to one count of incest and attributed his actions to the work of the devil.
However, the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, took a serious view of the convict’s conduct and passed the sentence, which, she said, would serve as a deterrent to others.
According to the prosecution, Mensah, a security officer, lived at Agbogba, a suburb of Accra, with his five daughters. His victim happened to be the oldest daughter.
It said Mensah, a divorcee for the past eight years, confined his daughter, sexually assaulted her and did not allow her to communicate with anyone.
The prosecution pointed out that Mensah named the baby when it was born without the knowledge of his family members and after sometime began making advances towards his daughter.
His daughter, who had had enough of her father’s acts, refused to give in and consequently reported Mensah’s behaviour to the Madina Police.
The prosecution stated that the victim informed the police that her father threatened to kill her, if she dared refuse his demands and out of fear, she gave in.
According to the prosecution, Mensah was arrested on Friday, June 6, 2008 and during police interrogation, he admitted committing the offence .
A 45-year-old security officer, Laud Ford Mensah, was yesterday sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with hard labour by the Accra Circuit Court for impregnating his 16-year-old daughter.
The convict was said to have sexually assaulted his daughter several times, leading to her being pregnant and throughout her pregnancy until a year ago.
Mensah pleaded guilty to one count of incest and attributed his actions to the work of the devil.
However, the court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, took a serious view of the convict’s conduct and passed the sentence, which, she said, would serve as a deterrent to others.
According to the prosecution, Mensah, a security officer, lived at Agbogba, a suburb of Accra, with his five daughters. His victim happened to be the oldest daughter.
It said Mensah, a divorcee for the past eight years, confined his daughter, sexually assaulted her and did not allow her to communicate with anyone.
The prosecution pointed out that Mensah named the baby when it was born without the knowledge of his family members and after sometime began making advances towards his daughter.
His daughter, who had had enough of her father’s acts, refused to give in and consequently reported Mensah’s behaviour to the Madina Police.
The prosecution stated that the victim informed the police that her father threatened to kill her, if she dared refuse his demands and out of fear, she gave in.
According to the prosecution, Mensah was arrested on Friday, June 6, 2008 and during police interrogation, he admitted committing the offence .
BOST to build storage tanks for aviation fuel
June 16, 2008 (Page 47)
THE Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST) will early next year begin construction of two storage tanks for the storage of aviation fuel to curb the perennial shortage of the product.
The tanks would have the capacity to store aviation fuel which would be enough to cater for demands for eight weeks in case there was a shortage of the product.
Each tank has the capacity to store 10,000 cubic metres of aviation fuel as a strategic reserve.
The Managing Director (MD) of the BOST, Mr J.O.K. Addo-Yobo, told the Daily Graphic in an interview that BOST was expecting a loan facility from the US Exim Bank by the close of the year, adding that the receipt of the facility would pave the way for the construction of the storage tanks.
Mr Addo-Yobo stated that the smooth operations of the aviation industry was important for national development and, for that matter, the BOST would treat construction of the storage tanks with utmost priority.
In addition to that, Mr Addo-Yobo disclosed that a pipeline would be constructed from the Tema Port through the Tema Oil Refinery to the Kotoka International Airport to discharge aviation fuel from the refinery as well as discharge imported products.
According to the MD, construction works on the storage facilities would be completed between 18 and 24 months.
Touching on strategic national reserve for fuel products for the country, Mr Addo-Yobo said the country had a current reserve for petrol and diesel for a period of four weeks.
He said construction of additional storage tanks was almost completed to cater for two weeks additional storage capacity of national reserve for petrol and diesel.
Mr Addo-Yobo gave the assurance that construction works on the storage tanks would be completed by the end of this year.
He gave the assurance that BOST would discharge its duties diligently to ensure that fuel products were always and readily available for the market.
THE Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company Limited (BOST) will early next year begin construction of two storage tanks for the storage of aviation fuel to curb the perennial shortage of the product.
The tanks would have the capacity to store aviation fuel which would be enough to cater for demands for eight weeks in case there was a shortage of the product.
Each tank has the capacity to store 10,000 cubic metres of aviation fuel as a strategic reserve.
The Managing Director (MD) of the BOST, Mr J.O.K. Addo-Yobo, told the Daily Graphic in an interview that BOST was expecting a loan facility from the US Exim Bank by the close of the year, adding that the receipt of the facility would pave the way for the construction of the storage tanks.
Mr Addo-Yobo stated that the smooth operations of the aviation industry was important for national development and, for that matter, the BOST would treat construction of the storage tanks with utmost priority.
In addition to that, Mr Addo-Yobo disclosed that a pipeline would be constructed from the Tema Port through the Tema Oil Refinery to the Kotoka International Airport to discharge aviation fuel from the refinery as well as discharge imported products.
According to the MD, construction works on the storage facilities would be completed between 18 and 24 months.
Touching on strategic national reserve for fuel products for the country, Mr Addo-Yobo said the country had a current reserve for petrol and diesel for a period of four weeks.
He said construction of additional storage tanks was almost completed to cater for two weeks additional storage capacity of national reserve for petrol and diesel.
Mr Addo-Yobo gave the assurance that construction works on the storage tanks would be completed by the end of this year.
He gave the assurance that BOST would discharge its duties diligently to ensure that fuel products were always and readily available for the market.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
District Common Fund to support sanitation activities
THE District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) has released GH¢70.2 million to support sanitation activities under the National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP) this year.
The NYEP is working in conjunction with Zoomlion and the money is expected to be paid to those employed under the NYEP.
The Administrator of the DACF, Mr Joshua Magnus Nicol, told the Daily Graphic in an interview that 170 districts would benefit from the amount.
According to Mr Nicol, the money was what would have been paid into the Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF) but the persistent non-payment of moneys loaned to beneficiaries led to the scrapping of the fund.
Consequently, the money had since last year been channelled to support activities under the NYEP.
Touching on the Members of Parliament (MPs) Common Fund, the administrator said GH¢3.3 million had been released to the 230 MPs in the country for execution of their constituency projects for the first quarter of this year.
He further explained that GH¢4,827 was directly released to each MP in the first quarter to enable them to monitor and evaluate their projects.
Mr Nicol explained that moneys for evaluation and monitoring purposes were released to the MPs through the district assemblies but the mode of disbursement changed following differences which usually arose between MPs and district chief executives (DCEs) over the release of funds.
According to him, his outfit received numerous complaints from some MPs on the alleged deliberate delays by some DCEs to release those moneys.
“To avert conflicts between MPs and DCEs, government has decided to directly release those moneys to the MPs,” Mr Nicol pointed out.
He also disclosed that GH¢47.1 million was released to all the 170 metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies for the first quarter of this year for development projects.
Touching on the Regional Co-ordinating Councils (RCCs), he said they were given GH¢832,000 for monitoring and supervision of projects in the 170 districts.
Mr Nicol added that persons living with disabilities also benefited from a GH¢381,000 package for the first quarter of this year to support their programmes and activities.
The NYEP is working in conjunction with Zoomlion and the money is expected to be paid to those employed under the NYEP.
The Administrator of the DACF, Mr Joshua Magnus Nicol, told the Daily Graphic in an interview that 170 districts would benefit from the amount.
According to Mr Nicol, the money was what would have been paid into the Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF) but the persistent non-payment of moneys loaned to beneficiaries led to the scrapping of the fund.
Consequently, the money had since last year been channelled to support activities under the NYEP.
Touching on the Members of Parliament (MPs) Common Fund, the administrator said GH¢3.3 million had been released to the 230 MPs in the country for execution of their constituency projects for the first quarter of this year.
He further explained that GH¢4,827 was directly released to each MP in the first quarter to enable them to monitor and evaluate their projects.
Mr Nicol explained that moneys for evaluation and monitoring purposes were released to the MPs through the district assemblies but the mode of disbursement changed following differences which usually arose between MPs and district chief executives (DCEs) over the release of funds.
According to him, his outfit received numerous complaints from some MPs on the alleged deliberate delays by some DCEs to release those moneys.
“To avert conflicts between MPs and DCEs, government has decided to directly release those moneys to the MPs,” Mr Nicol pointed out.
He also disclosed that GH¢47.1 million was released to all the 170 metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies for the first quarter of this year for development projects.
Touching on the Regional Co-ordinating Councils (RCCs), he said they were given GH¢832,000 for monitoring and supervision of projects in the 170 districts.
Mr Nicol added that persons living with disabilities also benefited from a GH¢381,000 package for the first quarter of this year to support their programmes and activities.
Kosmos to instal sub-sea facility for oil production
June 11, 2008 (Front Page)
Following the successful test run on its oil fields over the weekend, Kosmos Energy Ghana Limited will soon design and instal a sub-sea facility which will be connected to a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel to pump oil out for production.
Kosmos has already received bids from four companies, namely, SBM, MODEC, SAIPEM and BW Offshore, which have expressed interest in building the FPSO, while Acergy, SAIPEM, Technip and Subsea 7 have also expressed interest in building sub-sea works.
According to a statement signed by representatives of the partners of Cosmos, namely, Tullow Oil Plc, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Sabre Oil and Gas, and issued by Kosmos from its headquarters in Texas, USA, contracts were likely to be awarded by the end of tjavascript:void(0)his month.
The other partners of Kosmos are E.O. Group, Ghana and the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC).
The statement said upon completion of the testing phase, Kosmos planned to acquire oil samples to conduct comprehensive refinery trials to ascertain the characteristics of the crude oil and its value on the global market.
It said the company was expected to complete the Mahogany-2 Well where the tests were being conducted and later suspend it as a potential development well.
The statement said Kosmos was led by a seasoned management and technical team with extensive international and West Africa experience which had a proven record of finding and developing significant oil reserves.
“With the backing of international private equity investors, Warburg Pincus and Blackstone Capital Partners, the company possesses a significant financial and operational capability to generate and participate in multiple high-impact upstream projects,” it said.
Kosmos also announced that “the company's deep water Mahogany-2 appraisal well in the Jubilee Field offshore west Cape Three points Block tested at a flow rate of 5,200 barrels of oil per day (bopd) of 36-degree API gravity crude oil and approximately 5.5 million cubic feet per day of associated natural gas on a 40/64-inch choke with a flowing tubing pressure of 1,543 pounds per square inch”.
It estimated that the Jubilee Field reservoirs were highly productive, which validated the company's fast-track appraisal and field development programme.
"The findings of this drillstem test go one giant step further to endorse the upside potential of the Jubilee Field by confirming that this reservoir is extremely productive, thereby allowing us to develop the field on an aggressive timetable and as economically as possible,” the statement quoted the Chief Operating Officer of Kosmos, Mr Brian F. Maxted, as saying.
The statement gave the assurance that the company and its partners were moving ahead prudently but expeditiously in order to make progress for early production.
Kosmos Energy, which announced the oil find in June 2007, and its partners will need to invest about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for the production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos and its partners will develop the discovered fields in phases.
Following the successful test run on its oil fields over the weekend, Kosmos Energy Ghana Limited will soon design and instal a sub-sea facility which will be connected to a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel to pump oil out for production.
Kosmos has already received bids from four companies, namely, SBM, MODEC, SAIPEM and BW Offshore, which have expressed interest in building the FPSO, while Acergy, SAIPEM, Technip and Subsea 7 have also expressed interest in building sub-sea works.
According to a statement signed by representatives of the partners of Cosmos, namely, Tullow Oil Plc, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Sabre Oil and Gas, and issued by Kosmos from its headquarters in Texas, USA, contracts were likely to be awarded by the end of tjavascript:void(0)his month.
The other partners of Kosmos are E.O. Group, Ghana and the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC).
The statement said upon completion of the testing phase, Kosmos planned to acquire oil samples to conduct comprehensive refinery trials to ascertain the characteristics of the crude oil and its value on the global market.
It said the company was expected to complete the Mahogany-2 Well where the tests were being conducted and later suspend it as a potential development well.
The statement said Kosmos was led by a seasoned management and technical team with extensive international and West Africa experience which had a proven record of finding and developing significant oil reserves.
“With the backing of international private equity investors, Warburg Pincus and Blackstone Capital Partners, the company possesses a significant financial and operational capability to generate and participate in multiple high-impact upstream projects,” it said.
Kosmos also announced that “the company's deep water Mahogany-2 appraisal well in the Jubilee Field offshore west Cape Three points Block tested at a flow rate of 5,200 barrels of oil per day (bopd) of 36-degree API gravity crude oil and approximately 5.5 million cubic feet per day of associated natural gas on a 40/64-inch choke with a flowing tubing pressure of 1,543 pounds per square inch”.
It estimated that the Jubilee Field reservoirs were highly productive, which validated the company's fast-track appraisal and field development programme.
"The findings of this drillstem test go one giant step further to endorse the upside potential of the Jubilee Field by confirming that this reservoir is extremely productive, thereby allowing us to develop the field on an aggressive timetable and as economically as possible,” the statement quoted the Chief Operating Officer of Kosmos, Mr Brian F. Maxted, as saying.
The statement gave the assurance that the company and its partners were moving ahead prudently but expeditiously in order to make progress for early production.
Kosmos Energy, which announced the oil find in June 2007, and its partners will need to invest about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for the production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos and its partners will develop the discovered fields in phases.
41 Firms apply for oil exploration
June 10, 2008 (Front Page)
THE Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) says it has been inundated with applications from foreign companies expressing interest to invest in oil exploration between January 2007 and June 2008.
A total of 41 firms have so far applied with 20 companies doing so last year, while 21 applied for blocks to prospect for oil as of June 2008. Four companies applied for blocks in the Saltpond, Tano Basin and Accra-Keta basins in 2006.
The Managing Director of the GNPC, Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, told the Daily Graphic that the GNPC, in the past, received a maximum of four applications in a year but the trend changed immediately Kosmos Energy discovered oil at Cape Three Points in June 2007.
The application from Oranto, which was one of the 41 companies which applied for blocks at Saltpond, is currently before Parliament awaiting approval.
Mr Boateng explained that although as many as 45 companies had put in applications to explore for oil, majority of them did not have the financial and technical capabilities which were the major criteria to be met before approval would be given.
According to him, six other companies had so far been assessed and found to have both financial and technical capabilities.
The companies are Yep-Dawant, Afren-Celtique, Sahara Energy Field Limited, Tap Oil, South Atlantic Natural Resources and Addax Petroleum.
Mr Boateng explained that each of those companies was expected to invest not less than $100 million in its operations.
He described the rate at which companies had expressed interest in exploration activities as encouraging, noting, however, that “our worry is that the major companies have not shown interest. Why it is so, we do not know”.
Mr Boateng said he believed the major oil companies were either adopting a “wait-and-see attitude or strategising to buy out companies which make discoveries”.
Which ever way the trend might be, he urged the big companies in the oil sector to invest in the country’s exploration activities.
“We do not want to make the mistake of allotting blocks to companies which want to come in for speculation purposes. That is why we are treading cautiously,” he explained.
Kosmos Energy Ghana Limited and its partners will need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for the production of oil.
As a result of the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners will develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas; Sabre Oil, UK; E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Testing the oil discovered was done over the weekend to enable the experts to confirm the grade of the discovery on the deep sea off the coast of Cape Three Points in the Western Region.
THE Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) says it has been inundated with applications from foreign companies expressing interest to invest in oil exploration between January 2007 and June 2008.
A total of 41 firms have so far applied with 20 companies doing so last year, while 21 applied for blocks to prospect for oil as of June 2008. Four companies applied for blocks in the Saltpond, Tano Basin and Accra-Keta basins in 2006.
The Managing Director of the GNPC, Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, told the Daily Graphic that the GNPC, in the past, received a maximum of four applications in a year but the trend changed immediately Kosmos Energy discovered oil at Cape Three Points in June 2007.
The application from Oranto, which was one of the 41 companies which applied for blocks at Saltpond, is currently before Parliament awaiting approval.
Mr Boateng explained that although as many as 45 companies had put in applications to explore for oil, majority of them did not have the financial and technical capabilities which were the major criteria to be met before approval would be given.
According to him, six other companies had so far been assessed and found to have both financial and technical capabilities.
The companies are Yep-Dawant, Afren-Celtique, Sahara Energy Field Limited, Tap Oil, South Atlantic Natural Resources and Addax Petroleum.
Mr Boateng explained that each of those companies was expected to invest not less than $100 million in its operations.
He described the rate at which companies had expressed interest in exploration activities as encouraging, noting, however, that “our worry is that the major companies have not shown interest. Why it is so, we do not know”.
Mr Boateng said he believed the major oil companies were either adopting a “wait-and-see attitude or strategising to buy out companies which make discoveries”.
Which ever way the trend might be, he urged the big companies in the oil sector to invest in the country’s exploration activities.
“We do not want to make the mistake of allotting blocks to companies which want to come in for speculation purposes. That is why we are treading cautiously,” he explained.
Kosmos Energy Ghana Limited and its partners will need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for the production of oil.
As a result of the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners will develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas; Sabre Oil, UK; E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Testing the oil discovered was done over the weekend to enable the experts to confirm the grade of the discovery on the deep sea off the coast of Cape Three Points in the Western Region.
Ignore directives from NLA
June 6, 2008 (Page 34)
THE Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) has urged private lotto operators and publishers of lotto numbers to ignore a directive from the National Lottery Authority (NLA) aimed at barring them from publishing lotto results.
According to the association, it was illegal for the NLA to direct lotto publishers, through media publications, to desist from publishing drawn lotto numbers because the NLA had been restrained by the High Court from interfering with the operations of the GLOA until the Supreme Court decided on a legal action instituted against the NLA by the association.
The Accra High Court, on March 14, 2008, granted an interlocutory injunction filed by the GLOA and six others to restrain the NLA from interfering with the property rights of lotto operating businesses of those concerned.
According to the court, the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The Supreme Court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the matter.
Reacting to newspaper publications by the NLA which had asked publishers not to publish numbers drawn by the GLOA, the Secretary of the association, Mr Seth Amoaning, accused the NLA of cajoling suppliers of GLOA, lotto publishers, among other clients.
“The subterfuge being adopted by the NLA to achieve its unconstitutional ambition to collapse the lotto business when the Supreme Court is yet to determine the case is most unfortunate and unacceptable under the present constitutional dispensation,” Mr Amoaning stated on behalf of the association.
He said “the subterfuge by the NLA is most unfortunate, given the fact that the dispute between us is pending and a restraint is in place”.
Mr Amoaning further stated that the GLOA employed a large number of Ghanaians, as well as provided revenue for the government, and for that matter it would use all legal means to contest the NLA’s interference in its business.
In the substantive matter, the plaintiffs — including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises — filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating businesses of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter”.
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the NLA to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the director-general by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs”.
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the NLA to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role for the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in the private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conducted business for them or assisted them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA, in July 2007, advertised its establishment in the media and said it was the only body that was mandated under the act to operate lotto business in the country.
The plaintiffs contended that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons who, before Act 722 came into force, had their own machines or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of the NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them, as stipulated by Act 722, regarding the machines or equipment.
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA, nor could the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
THE Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) has urged private lotto operators and publishers of lotto numbers to ignore a directive from the National Lottery Authority (NLA) aimed at barring them from publishing lotto results.
According to the association, it was illegal for the NLA to direct lotto publishers, through media publications, to desist from publishing drawn lotto numbers because the NLA had been restrained by the High Court from interfering with the operations of the GLOA until the Supreme Court decided on a legal action instituted against the NLA by the association.
The Accra High Court, on March 14, 2008, granted an interlocutory injunction filed by the GLOA and six others to restrain the NLA from interfering with the property rights of lotto operating businesses of those concerned.
According to the court, the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The Supreme Court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the matter.
Reacting to newspaper publications by the NLA which had asked publishers not to publish numbers drawn by the GLOA, the Secretary of the association, Mr Seth Amoaning, accused the NLA of cajoling suppliers of GLOA, lotto publishers, among other clients.
“The subterfuge being adopted by the NLA to achieve its unconstitutional ambition to collapse the lotto business when the Supreme Court is yet to determine the case is most unfortunate and unacceptable under the present constitutional dispensation,” Mr Amoaning stated on behalf of the association.
He said “the subterfuge by the NLA is most unfortunate, given the fact that the dispute between us is pending and a restraint is in place”.
Mr Amoaning further stated that the GLOA employed a large number of Ghanaians, as well as provided revenue for the government, and for that matter it would use all legal means to contest the NLA’s interference in its business.
In the substantive matter, the plaintiffs — including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises — filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating businesses of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter”.
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the NLA to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the director-general by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs”.
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the NLA to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role for the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in the private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conducted business for them or assisted them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA, in July 2007, advertised its establishment in the media and said it was the only body that was mandated under the act to operate lotto business in the country.
The plaintiffs contended that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons who, before Act 722 came into force, had their own machines or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of the NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them, as stipulated by Act 722, regarding the machines or equipment.
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA, nor could the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.
GH¢180,000 cocaine destroyed
JUne 5, 2008 (Page 40)
FIFTY-NINE kilogrammes of cocaine with a street value of GH¢180,000 was destroyed yesterday on the orders of the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
The drugs were found by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) at the duty free shop of the Kotoka International Airport through the assistance of the Aviation Security on March 14, 2007.
The burning of the drugs was witnessed by court officials, the prosecution, officials of the NACOB, among others, at an open space near the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal premises in Accra yesterday.
Kwame Owusu Yelbert is standing trial at the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal in connection with the narcotics.
He has been charged with two counts of conspiracy and abetment of crime and would reappear before the court on June 17, 2008.
Three others — Daniel Sandja Nimako, Emmanuel Boakye and Felix Edusei — who were also charged with possession of narcotics without authority, are on the run.
The facts of the case were that on March 14, 2008 officials of NACOB had information from the Aviation Security that some people were hiding narcotic drugs within the airport premises.
According to the prosecution, a search was conducted within the airport and two polythene bags containing whitish powdered substances suspected to be cocaine were found at the duty free shop.
Investigations revealed that Edusei, who was then the driver of a duty vehicle on the night of March 13, 2007, was spotted removing a bag popularly known as ‘Ghana Must Go’ from the duty vehicle with the assistance of Nimako, Boakye and Yelbert.
The Commander of the Aviation Security went to the CCTV room to view the recording of March 13, 2008 and it was in the recording that Yelbert was spotted standing at the entrance of the arrival hall while Nimako and Boakye were also captured carrying the said bags through the arrival hall to the entrance of the transit shop, which was also part of the duty free shop.
Yelbert was subsequently arrested but his accomplices bolted and have since not been seen.
Officials of the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) run tests on the substances, which tested positive for cocaine.
FIFTY-NINE kilogrammes of cocaine with a street value of GH¢180,000 was destroyed yesterday on the orders of the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
The drugs were found by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) at the duty free shop of the Kotoka International Airport through the assistance of the Aviation Security on March 14, 2007.
The burning of the drugs was witnessed by court officials, the prosecution, officials of the NACOB, among others, at an open space near the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal premises in Accra yesterday.
Kwame Owusu Yelbert is standing trial at the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal in connection with the narcotics.
He has been charged with two counts of conspiracy and abetment of crime and would reappear before the court on June 17, 2008.
Three others — Daniel Sandja Nimako, Emmanuel Boakye and Felix Edusei — who were also charged with possession of narcotics without authority, are on the run.
The facts of the case were that on March 14, 2008 officials of NACOB had information from the Aviation Security that some people were hiding narcotic drugs within the airport premises.
According to the prosecution, a search was conducted within the airport and two polythene bags containing whitish powdered substances suspected to be cocaine were found at the duty free shop.
Investigations revealed that Edusei, who was then the driver of a duty vehicle on the night of March 13, 2007, was spotted removing a bag popularly known as ‘Ghana Must Go’ from the duty vehicle with the assistance of Nimako, Boakye and Yelbert.
The Commander of the Aviation Security went to the CCTV room to view the recording of March 13, 2008 and it was in the recording that Yelbert was spotted standing at the entrance of the arrival hall while Nimako and Boakye were also captured carrying the said bags through the arrival hall to the entrance of the transit shop, which was also part of the duty free shop.
Yelbert was subsequently arrested but his accomplices bolted and have since not been seen.
Officials of the Ghana Standards Board (GSB) run tests on the substances, which tested positive for cocaine.
American firm to build refinery in Ghana
June 7, 2008 (Back Page Lead)
BARCLAYS Gerdi Group Incorporated (BBG), a US-based company, has expressed interest in establishing a $1.7 billion oil refinery in the country.
The group is currently holding talks with government agencies to pave the way for the smooth take-off of the project.
When established, the refinery is expected to process 100,000 barrels of crude oil a day, almost twice of what the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR) produces presently.
The company is also expected to establish a $350 million cement plant to process 50,000 tonnes of white cement a day.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, the local representative of the group, Mr Hamid Moomen, said the refinery and the cement plant would provide permanent employment for more than 3,000 Ghanaians and temporary employment for 4,000 local and foreign workers during the construction stage.
According to him, employees would be provided with accommodation while the country’s railway sector would also benefit due to the plans of BGG to construct modern railway lines to carry its products.
Another benefit to be derived from the refinery was the generation of electricity for the refinery’s operations out of which the excess electricity generated would be fed into the national grid.
Mr Moomen, who is also Chairman of Moomen Group in the USA, said BGG would begin construction works before the end of the year immediately it received permit from the appropriate authorities to operate in the country.
He further explained that the minimal design and construction time period would be four years after all arrangements had been finalised.
He said the company would acquire a 6,000 hectare most preferably in Takoradi for the establishment of the refinery and cement plants while a college of technology would be constructed to train employees locally in refinery operations.
Facilities to be provided include a modern satellite city fitted with potable water and sewage systems, shopping malls, schools, a clinic, pharmaceutical shops, supermarkets, fire fighting stations, banks, playgrounds, parks, fuel filling stations, a library, cinemas and other needed facilities that would help employees and their families not to travel too far for their regular daily needs.
He was particularly grateful to the Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, who he said had been very instrumental in assisting the BGG to invest in Ghana.
BGG, which operates in Gabon, Angola, Algeria and Tunisia has to its credit the installation of water, sewer gas and oil pipelines, the construction and development of cement plants, satellite cities, roads, shopping malls, oil refineries and the distribution of security equipment.
BARCLAYS Gerdi Group Incorporated (BBG), a US-based company, has expressed interest in establishing a $1.7 billion oil refinery in the country.
The group is currently holding talks with government agencies to pave the way for the smooth take-off of the project.
When established, the refinery is expected to process 100,000 barrels of crude oil a day, almost twice of what the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR) produces presently.
The company is also expected to establish a $350 million cement plant to process 50,000 tonnes of white cement a day.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, the local representative of the group, Mr Hamid Moomen, said the refinery and the cement plant would provide permanent employment for more than 3,000 Ghanaians and temporary employment for 4,000 local and foreign workers during the construction stage.
According to him, employees would be provided with accommodation while the country’s railway sector would also benefit due to the plans of BGG to construct modern railway lines to carry its products.
Another benefit to be derived from the refinery was the generation of electricity for the refinery’s operations out of which the excess electricity generated would be fed into the national grid.
Mr Moomen, who is also Chairman of Moomen Group in the USA, said BGG would begin construction works before the end of the year immediately it received permit from the appropriate authorities to operate in the country.
He further explained that the minimal design and construction time period would be four years after all arrangements had been finalised.
He said the company would acquire a 6,000 hectare most preferably in Takoradi for the establishment of the refinery and cement plants while a college of technology would be constructed to train employees locally in refinery operations.
Facilities to be provided include a modern satellite city fitted with potable water and sewage systems, shopping malls, schools, a clinic, pharmaceutical shops, supermarkets, fire fighting stations, banks, playgrounds, parks, fuel filling stations, a library, cinemas and other needed facilities that would help employees and their families not to travel too far for their regular daily needs.
He was particularly grateful to the Chief of Staff, Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, who he said had been very instrumental in assisting the BGG to invest in Ghana.
BGG, which operates in Gabon, Angola, Algeria and Tunisia has to its credit the installation of water, sewer gas and oil pipelines, the construction and development of cement plants, satellite cities, roads, shopping malls, oil refineries and the distribution of security equipment.
Nsawam cocaine case: 3 before tribunal
June 3, 2008 (Page 3)
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
THE three persons who were caught in possession of 399 parcels of cocaine at Nsawam last Friday were yesterday remanded in custody by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Kwame Anane, 34, a Ghanaian, Kofi Amewu, 30, and Kofi Deble, 35, both Togolese nationals, were remanded to reappear on June 19, 2008.
The three were charged with three counts of conspiracy, possession of narcotic drugs without authority and importation of narcotic drugs without authority.
Their pleas were not taken.
Prosecuting, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) P. K. Frimpong prayed the tribunal to adjourn the case because investigations were ongoing.
The tribunal obliged and accordingly remanded the three accused persons.
The facts of the case were that on May 30, 2008 between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., the Nsawam police, acting upon a tip-off, mounted a surveillance and intercepted a Mercedes Benz truck with registration number GT 3359 Z, which was moving from Kumasi.
A search conducted in the vehicle uncovered 399 parcels of a substance suspected to be cocaine concealed in an artificially created compartment.
The occupants of the vehicle were arrested to assist the police in their investigations.
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
THE three persons who were caught in possession of 399 parcels of cocaine at Nsawam last Friday were yesterday remanded in custody by the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
Kwame Anane, 34, a Ghanaian, Kofi Amewu, 30, and Kofi Deble, 35, both Togolese nationals, were remanded to reappear on June 19, 2008.
The three were charged with three counts of conspiracy, possession of narcotic drugs without authority and importation of narcotic drugs without authority.
Their pleas were not taken.
Prosecuting, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) P. K. Frimpong prayed the tribunal to adjourn the case because investigations were ongoing.
The tribunal obliged and accordingly remanded the three accused persons.
The facts of the case were that on May 30, 2008 between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., the Nsawam police, acting upon a tip-off, mounted a surveillance and intercepted a Mercedes Benz truck with registration number GT 3359 Z, which was moving from Kumasi.
A search conducted in the vehicle uncovered 399 parcels of a substance suspected to be cocaine concealed in an artificially created compartment.
The occupants of the vehicle were arrested to assist the police in their investigations.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Graphic accounts clerk in court for stealing
May 29, 2008
AN accounts clerk of the Graphic Communications Group Limited, Daniel Tsagli, was arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court yesterday for allegedly stealing GH¢140,000 belonging to the company.
Tsagli, who is stationed at the Ho office of the company, was alleged to have failed to lodge in the company’s accounts at the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) money collected from vendors and agents of the company from January, 2007 to March, 2008.
He pleaded not guilty to three counts of forgery of documents, possession of forged documents and stealing.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, granted Tsagli bail in the sum of GH¢140,000 with four sureties.
He is to appear again on June 18, 2008.
Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr George Abavelim, told the court that sometime in April, 2008, the company was preparing its accounts for the 2007 financial year when it detected that the accused person had failed to lodge in the company’s accounts with GCB GH¢140,000 which he had collected from vendors and agents of the company.
Instead, Tsagli presented fake pay-in slips to show he had deposited the said amount at the bank, the prosecution stated.
According to the prosecution, investigations revealed that Tsagli secured a stamp similar to that of the Ho branch of the GCB and stamped various pay-in slips amounting to GH¢140,000.
In his attempt to cover up his deeds, Tsagli allegedly forged signatures purported to be those of tellers of the bank and presented them to the head office of the company.
The prosecution further stated that Tsagli, who had been on the run, surrendered to the police on May 19, 2008 but could not offer any tangible explanation for his actions in his caution statement to the police.
According to the prosecution, Tsagli had also failed to co-operate with the police.
AN accounts clerk of the Graphic Communications Group Limited, Daniel Tsagli, was arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court yesterday for allegedly stealing GH¢140,000 belonging to the company.
Tsagli, who is stationed at the Ho office of the company, was alleged to have failed to lodge in the company’s accounts at the Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) money collected from vendors and agents of the company from January, 2007 to March, 2008.
He pleaded not guilty to three counts of forgery of documents, possession of forged documents and stealing.
The court, presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa, granted Tsagli bail in the sum of GH¢140,000 with four sureties.
He is to appear again on June 18, 2008.
Prosecuting, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mr George Abavelim, told the court that sometime in April, 2008, the company was preparing its accounts for the 2007 financial year when it detected that the accused person had failed to lodge in the company’s accounts with GCB GH¢140,000 which he had collected from vendors and agents of the company.
Instead, Tsagli presented fake pay-in slips to show he had deposited the said amount at the bank, the prosecution stated.
According to the prosecution, investigations revealed that Tsagli secured a stamp similar to that of the Ho branch of the GCB and stamped various pay-in slips amounting to GH¢140,000.
In his attempt to cover up his deeds, Tsagli allegedly forged signatures purported to be those of tellers of the bank and presented them to the head office of the company.
The prosecution further stated that Tsagli, who had been on the run, surrendered to the police on May 19, 2008 but could not offer any tangible explanation for his actions in his caution statement to the police.
According to the prosecution, Tsagli had also failed to co-operate with the police.
JJ's threats forced me out
May 8, 2008 (Second Lead Story)
A VIDEO recording of former President J.J. Rawlings’s attack on the personality of Mr Richmond Aggrey, a businessman who has sued Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of MTN, over a shareholding dispute, was played at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday.
In the recording, former President Rawlings had accused Mr Aggrey of ripping Nigerians off their money and had returned home to Ghana with the same intention.
Addressing members of the Diplomatic Corps, chiefs, Africans and African-Americans in the Diaspora, foreign dignitaries and members of the public on state television on Emancipation Day in the first week of August 1999, Mr Rawlings had said Mr Aggrey was a corrupt man who had returned with economic power and “currently had 20 per cent shares in a telecommunications enterprise”.
The video was shown at the instance of Mr Aggrey, who has sued over unlawful take-over of his 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Also joined in the suit are Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management.
Mr Aggrey showed the video to the fully packed courtroom to buttress his claim that he had been forced to pull out of the company because of former President Rawlings’s interference and threats which had the potential of collapsing the company.
According to Mr Aggrey, who was then the Vice-Chairman of Scancom, following the continuous threats, he was advised by the other shareholders to pull out and instead nominate someone to represent him.
He said following those developments, he nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to the company’s growth.
In the video recording, Mr Rawlings had specifically referred to Mr Aggrey as being corrupt and had expressed the hope that he (Mr Aggrey) was not related to the late statesman, Dr Kwegyir Aggrey.
He had accused Mr Aggrey of investing virtually nothing in Scancom and yet succeeding in amassing wealth.
Dressed in African attire and guarded by the late WOI Tetteh, former President Rawlings had informed the fully packed auditorium that Mr Aggrey had gone round informing people that he (former President Rawlings) had only two years to leave office and that he (Mr Aggrey) knew the Inspector-General of Police and other top government officials.
He also accused Mr Aggrey of maligning him and the then First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, with the hope of achieving political goals elsewhere.
The case had to be adjourned to May 15, 2008 as a result of poor sound quality which was experienced midway through the viewing.
Mr Aggrey, who is currently being led by his counsel, Mr Yonny Kulendi, to give his evidence-in-chief, is expected to present another recording with a better sound quality on the next adjourned date.
He told the court that he usually taped state functions because of the cultural displays which accompanied them and said it was during one of such recordings that former President Rawlings openly expressed his disdain and hatred towards him (Mr Aggrey).
He said he was shocked to see himself being put on the negative spotlight on a live programme which was being covered by both local and international media.
According to Mr Aggrey, he was overly shocked because it had been rumoured all along that former President Rawlings wanted him out of Scancom and “for the first time in the public domain I was the subject of discussion”.
He said in 1998 he was the Chairman of the board of directors which appointed Mr Ahmed Farouk, who was then the Financial Controller of Scancom, as the Managing Director of the company.
According to him, Scancom had 7,000 initial subscribers when it started operations in 1996.
Counsel for Investcom, Mr Felix Ntrakwa, had objected to the screening of the video recording, explaining that it was of no essence, but Mr Kulendi had objected and said it was of extreme essence to Mr Aggrey because he (Mr Aggrey) sought to establish that he had pulled out of Scancom because of former President Rawlings.
Mr Aggrey continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 15, 2008.
Mr Aggrey began giving evidence on April 28, 2008, following the non-attainment of a settlement between himself and the three defendants at a pre-trial conference under commercial court rules, resulting in the matter being referred for trial.
He and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but Mr Kulendi, on behalf of Mr Aggrey, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter, pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
A VIDEO recording of former President J.J. Rawlings’s attack on the personality of Mr Richmond Aggrey, a businessman who has sued Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of MTN, over a shareholding dispute, was played at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday.
In the recording, former President Rawlings had accused Mr Aggrey of ripping Nigerians off their money and had returned home to Ghana with the same intention.
Addressing members of the Diplomatic Corps, chiefs, Africans and African-Americans in the Diaspora, foreign dignitaries and members of the public on state television on Emancipation Day in the first week of August 1999, Mr Rawlings had said Mr Aggrey was a corrupt man who had returned with economic power and “currently had 20 per cent shares in a telecommunications enterprise”.
The video was shown at the instance of Mr Aggrey, who has sued over unlawful take-over of his 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Also joined in the suit are Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management.
Mr Aggrey showed the video to the fully packed courtroom to buttress his claim that he had been forced to pull out of the company because of former President Rawlings’s interference and threats which had the potential of collapsing the company.
According to Mr Aggrey, who was then the Vice-Chairman of Scancom, following the continuous threats, he was advised by the other shareholders to pull out and instead nominate someone to represent him.
He said following those developments, he nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to the company’s growth.
In the video recording, Mr Rawlings had specifically referred to Mr Aggrey as being corrupt and had expressed the hope that he (Mr Aggrey) was not related to the late statesman, Dr Kwegyir Aggrey.
He had accused Mr Aggrey of investing virtually nothing in Scancom and yet succeeding in amassing wealth.
Dressed in African attire and guarded by the late WOI Tetteh, former President Rawlings had informed the fully packed auditorium that Mr Aggrey had gone round informing people that he (former President Rawlings) had only two years to leave office and that he (Mr Aggrey) knew the Inspector-General of Police and other top government officials.
He also accused Mr Aggrey of maligning him and the then First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, with the hope of achieving political goals elsewhere.
The case had to be adjourned to May 15, 2008 as a result of poor sound quality which was experienced midway through the viewing.
Mr Aggrey, who is currently being led by his counsel, Mr Yonny Kulendi, to give his evidence-in-chief, is expected to present another recording with a better sound quality on the next adjourned date.
He told the court that he usually taped state functions because of the cultural displays which accompanied them and said it was during one of such recordings that former President Rawlings openly expressed his disdain and hatred towards him (Mr Aggrey).
He said he was shocked to see himself being put on the negative spotlight on a live programme which was being covered by both local and international media.
According to Mr Aggrey, he was overly shocked because it had been rumoured all along that former President Rawlings wanted him out of Scancom and “for the first time in the public domain I was the subject of discussion”.
He said in 1998 he was the Chairman of the board of directors which appointed Mr Ahmed Farouk, who was then the Financial Controller of Scancom, as the Managing Director of the company.
According to him, Scancom had 7,000 initial subscribers when it started operations in 1996.
Counsel for Investcom, Mr Felix Ntrakwa, had objected to the screening of the video recording, explaining that it was of no essence, but Mr Kulendi had objected and said it was of extreme essence to Mr Aggrey because he (Mr Aggrey) sought to establish that he had pulled out of Scancom because of former President Rawlings.
Mr Aggrey continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 15, 2008.
Mr Aggrey began giving evidence on April 28, 2008, following the non-attainment of a settlement between himself and the three defendants at a pre-trial conference under commercial court rules, resulting in the matter being referred for trial.
He and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but Mr Kulendi, on behalf of Mr Aggrey, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter, pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
GCB issues ultimatum - Pay us GHCedi 550,000 - to secure re-opening of Greenland Hotel
May 3, 2008 (Lead Story)
GHANA Commercial Bank (GCB) is demanding GH¢550,000 from the management of Greenland Hotel Limited by May 9, 2008 as a condition for the re-opening of the hotel.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is the accrued interest on a GH¢200,000 loan it took from the bank.
The latest decision of the bank was communicated to the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday in the case in which the management of the hotel is praying for an order to set aside the execution of a court decision that culminated in the closure of the hotel.
That followed a call by the court, presided over by Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, on both parties in the matter to negotiate and come to agreeable terms in order for the hotel to be re-opened.
However, the management of the hotel said it could only pay the amount, which represents 50 per cent of the outstanding amount, by the end of June this year and pay the balance by December 31.
Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, counsel for GCB, told the court at its sitting yesterday that the management of the bank had agreed to open the hotel at exactly 2.00 p.m. on May 9, 2008 if the hotel was able to pay the proposed amount.
But counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed with the request and prayed the court to order the immediate re-opening of the hotel.
The court, however, declined the request, with the reason that justice must be seen to be done to both sides.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she would confer with the bank for it to decide whether or not to open the hotel as suggested by the court.
The court was of the view that parties in the matter should negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order its re-opening.
Mr Dame said the bank’s decision was severe, considering the fact that the hotel was making huge losses following its continued closure.
He said it would be difficult for his client to come up with GH¢550,000 within a week and gave the assurance that the hotel was seriously making efforts to pay back the loan.
Buttressing his point, counsel said the owner of the hotel, the late Nana Kwame Eyiah, had a property at the Airport Residential Area in Accra which should have been sold to pay off the loan but there had been a delay because the sale price of the property was being contested at another High Court.
He said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure and gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
For her part, Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah stated that the bank was willing to re-open the hotel provided it made efforts to pay a substantial amount to the bank.
She said the matter had gone beyond management level and was currently before the Board of Directors of the bank.
The court urged the hotel to demonstrate that it was willing and capable of paying back the loan.
It said it had taken cognisance of the hotel’s plight but emphasised that justice must be seen to be done to both parties in the matter.
The case was adjourned to Wednesday, May 7, 2008 to enable Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah to confer with the bank.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against the hotel in default of appearance.
GHANA Commercial Bank (GCB) is demanding GH¢550,000 from the management of Greenland Hotel Limited by May 9, 2008 as a condition for the re-opening of the hotel.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is the accrued interest on a GH¢200,000 loan it took from the bank.
The latest decision of the bank was communicated to the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday in the case in which the management of the hotel is praying for an order to set aside the execution of a court decision that culminated in the closure of the hotel.
That followed a call by the court, presided over by Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, on both parties in the matter to negotiate and come to agreeable terms in order for the hotel to be re-opened.
However, the management of the hotel said it could only pay the amount, which represents 50 per cent of the outstanding amount, by the end of June this year and pay the balance by December 31.
Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, counsel for GCB, told the court at its sitting yesterday that the management of the bank had agreed to open the hotel at exactly 2.00 p.m. on May 9, 2008 if the hotel was able to pay the proposed amount.
But counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed with the request and prayed the court to order the immediate re-opening of the hotel.
The court, however, declined the request, with the reason that justice must be seen to be done to both sides.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she would confer with the bank for it to decide whether or not to open the hotel as suggested by the court.
The court was of the view that parties in the matter should negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order its re-opening.
Mr Dame said the bank’s decision was severe, considering the fact that the hotel was making huge losses following its continued closure.
He said it would be difficult for his client to come up with GH¢550,000 within a week and gave the assurance that the hotel was seriously making efforts to pay back the loan.
Buttressing his point, counsel said the owner of the hotel, the late Nana Kwame Eyiah, had a property at the Airport Residential Area in Accra which should have been sold to pay off the loan but there had been a delay because the sale price of the property was being contested at another High Court.
He said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure and gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
For her part, Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah stated that the bank was willing to re-open the hotel provided it made efforts to pay a substantial amount to the bank.
She said the matter had gone beyond management level and was currently before the Board of Directors of the bank.
The court urged the hotel to demonstrate that it was willing and capable of paying back the loan.
It said it had taken cognisance of the hotel’s plight but emphasised that justice must be seen to be done to both parties in the matter.
The case was adjourned to Wednesday, May 7, 2008 to enable Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah to confer with the bank.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against the hotel in default of appearance.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Court orders CEPS to restore licences
May 1, 2008 (Back Page)
THE Commercial Court in Accra has ordered the Commissioner of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) to restore the licences of three shipping companies.
The court also declared as unlawful the blockage of the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system because “it has the effect of revoking their licences”.
According to the court, the Commissioner of CEPS acted ultra vires of the powers vested in him by LI 1178 by revoking the licences of Quality Shipping Limited, Globe Ventures Limited and Prime Freight Limited.
Counsel for the three companies, Mr Stanley R. K. Ahorlu, applied for judicial review on behalf of his clients following the decision of the Commissioner of CEPS to block the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system on the grounds that the three had made false declaration as Customs House Clearing Agents.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that the Commissioner of CEPS did not follow laid down principles of law such as rules of natural justice before blocking the shipping companies from accessing the GCNet system.
He said “I consequently order the respondent to restore the licence of the applicants. I do not think the respondent (Commissioner of CEPS) can be stopped from conducting investigation into the activities of the applicants”.
“In fact, that is what the respondent is supposed to do under Sections 15 and 16 of LI 1978. The investigation is to go on but the applicants’ licences ought to be restored,” the court continued.
The matter was adjourned to May 5, 2008 for assessment of damages against CEPS.
An affidavit in support of the shipping companies’ motion alleged that the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system was blocked without notice or legitimate reason on November 11, 2007.
That action, the shipping companies stated, amounted to the revoking of their licences as Customs House agents.
It said officers of the affected companies were arrested on the same day for allegedly making false declarations but they were released after they had written statements refuting the allegations and were accordingly granted bail.
“That, in effect, the respondent has arbitrarily revoked the licences of the applicants as Customs House Clearing Agents without first conducting a conclusive investigation into the said allegation against them, without written notification of proof of those allegations, as well as not offering them the opportunity to defend themselves, and, therefore, the opportunity to appeal any adverse findings against them,” the affidavit averred.
According to the shipping companies, the action of the Commissioner of CEPS had resulted in the loss of a monthly revenue of GH¢1,500 for each of the shipping companies with effect from November 11, 2007, as well as the collapse of their freight forwarding businesses and damage to their reputation as freight forwarders.
However, the CEPS denied assertions by the shipping companies and stated that investigations were ongoing into the shipping companies’ alleged falsification of Final Classification and Valuation Report (FCVR) to the CEPS.
CEPS further argued that although investigations had not been completed it had emerged that the shipping companies had made false declaration thereby causing financial loss to the state.
It argued that there was the need for the licences of the shipping companies to be revoked in order to stop them from further engaging in alleged fraudulent activities.
THE Commercial Court in Accra has ordered the Commissioner of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) to restore the licences of three shipping companies.
The court also declared as unlawful the blockage of the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system because “it has the effect of revoking their licences”.
According to the court, the Commissioner of CEPS acted ultra vires of the powers vested in him by LI 1178 by revoking the licences of Quality Shipping Limited, Globe Ventures Limited and Prime Freight Limited.
Counsel for the three companies, Mr Stanley R. K. Ahorlu, applied for judicial review on behalf of his clients following the decision of the Commissioner of CEPS to block the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system on the grounds that the three had made false declaration as Customs House Clearing Agents.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, held that the Commissioner of CEPS did not follow laid down principles of law such as rules of natural justice before blocking the shipping companies from accessing the GCNet system.
He said “I consequently order the respondent to restore the licence of the applicants. I do not think the respondent (Commissioner of CEPS) can be stopped from conducting investigation into the activities of the applicants”.
“In fact, that is what the respondent is supposed to do under Sections 15 and 16 of LI 1978. The investigation is to go on but the applicants’ licences ought to be restored,” the court continued.
The matter was adjourned to May 5, 2008 for assessment of damages against CEPS.
An affidavit in support of the shipping companies’ motion alleged that the shipping companies’ access to the GCNet system was blocked without notice or legitimate reason on November 11, 2007.
That action, the shipping companies stated, amounted to the revoking of their licences as Customs House agents.
It said officers of the affected companies were arrested on the same day for allegedly making false declarations but they were released after they had written statements refuting the allegations and were accordingly granted bail.
“That, in effect, the respondent has arbitrarily revoked the licences of the applicants as Customs House Clearing Agents without first conducting a conclusive investigation into the said allegation against them, without written notification of proof of those allegations, as well as not offering them the opportunity to defend themselves, and, therefore, the opportunity to appeal any adverse findings against them,” the affidavit averred.
According to the shipping companies, the action of the Commissioner of CEPS had resulted in the loss of a monthly revenue of GH¢1,500 for each of the shipping companies with effect from November 11, 2007, as well as the collapse of their freight forwarding businesses and damage to their reputation as freight forwarders.
However, the CEPS denied assertions by the shipping companies and stated that investigations were ongoing into the shipping companies’ alleged falsification of Final Classification and Valuation Report (FCVR) to the CEPS.
CEPS further argued that although investigations had not been completed it had emerged that the shipping companies had made false declaration thereby causing financial loss to the state.
It argued that there was the need for the licences of the shipping companies to be revoked in order to stop them from further engaging in alleged fraudulent activities.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
MTN, Aggrey case for trial
April 30, 2008 (Page 31)
FOLLOWING the non attainment of a settlement between parties at the pre-trial conference under commercial court rules between a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey, and Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba (now MTN), Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management over a shareholding dispute, the parties have been referred for trial.
Consequently, Mr Aggrey began testifying in the case at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday and stated that he pulled out of the company and nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
Mr Aggrey and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but counsel for Mr Aggrey, Mr Yonni Kulendi, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
The court held that the issues in controversy before it were not issues that could be determined by arbitration, adding that the issues could be heard by a Ghanaian court of competent jurisdiction.
It, accordingly, upheld submissions by counsel for Mr Aggrey that he could not be called to go on arbitration, which was normally between shareholders, because, as it stood now, Investcom was challenging Mr Aggrey’s claim of 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Following the court’s ruling and the fact that none of the parties had filed a new application, a pre-trial conference between the parties was held at the Commercial Court complex in Accra.
The new Commercial Court rules require that there should be a pre-trial conference to offer parties an opportunity to settle their differences within 30 days after they had filed their pleadings, which they had so far done.
At the pre-trial conference, heard in camera and presided over by another judge, the parties were not able to resolve the matter within the 30-day period so it was referred for trial.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
At the Commercial Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Aggrey, in his evidence-in-chief, informed the court that he joined Scancom in the mid 1990s and acquired 20 per cent shares, making him the second largest shareholder at the time.
He said he was made the Vice-Chairman of the company after acquiring 20 per cent shares in the company.
Led by his counsel, Mr Aggrey said he was informed by an unknown Lebanese who told him that Scancom would be in jeopardy if he (Mr Aggrey) did not pull out of the company.
He said he called the Minister of Communications at the time, who confirmed what the Lebanese had told him.
Following that development, Mr Aggrey said he left for Nigeria and, accordingly, nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares.
He continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 7, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom, operators of MTN (then Areeba), filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
FOLLOWING the non attainment of a settlement between parties at the pre-trial conference under commercial court rules between a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey, and Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba (now MTN), Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management over a shareholding dispute, the parties have been referred for trial.
Consequently, Mr Aggrey began testifying in the case at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday and stated that he pulled out of the company and nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
Mr Aggrey and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but counsel for Mr Aggrey, Mr Yonni Kulendi, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
The court held that the issues in controversy before it were not issues that could be determined by arbitration, adding that the issues could be heard by a Ghanaian court of competent jurisdiction.
It, accordingly, upheld submissions by counsel for Mr Aggrey that he could not be called to go on arbitration, which was normally between shareholders, because, as it stood now, Investcom was challenging Mr Aggrey’s claim of 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Following the court’s ruling and the fact that none of the parties had filed a new application, a pre-trial conference between the parties was held at the Commercial Court complex in Accra.
The new Commercial Court rules require that there should be a pre-trial conference to offer parties an opportunity to settle their differences within 30 days after they had filed their pleadings, which they had so far done.
At the pre-trial conference, heard in camera and presided over by another judge, the parties were not able to resolve the matter within the 30-day period so it was referred for trial.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
At the Commercial Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Aggrey, in his evidence-in-chief, informed the court that he joined Scancom in the mid 1990s and acquired 20 per cent shares, making him the second largest shareholder at the time.
He said he was made the Vice-Chairman of the company after acquiring 20 per cent shares in the company.
Led by his counsel, Mr Aggrey said he was informed by an unknown Lebanese who told him that Scancom would be in jeopardy if he (Mr Aggrey) did not pull out of the company.
He said he called the Minister of Communications at the time, who confirmed what the Lebanese had told him.
Following that development, Mr Aggrey said he left for Nigeria and, accordingly, nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares.
He continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 7, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom, operators of MTN (then Areeba), filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, 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 MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom 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 was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom 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, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
GCB to decide fate of Greenland Hotel May 2
April 29, 2008 (Page 3)
THE management of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) will, by Friday, May 2, 2008, decide whether or not to open Greenland Hotel Limited which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the bank.
Counsel for the bank, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to give her up to Friday, May 2, 2008 to enable her to consult with her client on whether or not it was willing to re-open the hotel while the hotel made arrangements to pay its debt.
This latest development was necessitated by the court’s decision to allow parties in the matter to negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the court processes could go on while the management of the bank allowed the hotel to operate.
He said there was no need for the hotel to be closed down because the bank could go ahead and sell it while it (hotel) still operated.
Mr Justice Marful-Sau said the bank could go ahead and put a representative at the hotel to collect money on its behalf while the hotel operated.
He said the livelihood of workers who also had dependants hung on the operations of the hotel and further urged the hotel to make efforts to pay back its loan.
He urged counsel to communicate the court’s views to the management of the bank for it to decide on the next line of action to take.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she needed a short adjournment to communicate the court’s views to her client.
She also urged the hotel to make efforts to pay its debt, adding that a letter from the hotel’s solicitors did not specify when it was going to start making payment.
Counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure.
He gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is praying the court for an order setting aside the execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
THE management of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) will, by Friday, May 2, 2008, decide whether or not to open Greenland Hotel Limited which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the bank.
Counsel for the bank, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to give her up to Friday, May 2, 2008 to enable her to consult with her client on whether or not it was willing to re-open the hotel while the hotel made arrangements to pay its debt.
This latest development was necessitated by the court’s decision to allow parties in the matter to negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the court processes could go on while the management of the bank allowed the hotel to operate.
He said there was no need for the hotel to be closed down because the bank could go ahead and sell it while it (hotel) still operated.
Mr Justice Marful-Sau said the bank could go ahead and put a representative at the hotel to collect money on its behalf while the hotel operated.
He said the livelihood of workers who also had dependants hung on the operations of the hotel and further urged the hotel to make efforts to pay back its loan.
He urged counsel to communicate the court’s views to the management of the bank for it to decide on the next line of action to take.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she needed a short adjournment to communicate the court’s views to her client.
She also urged the hotel to make efforts to pay its debt, adding that a letter from the hotel’s solicitors did not specify when it was going to start making payment.
Counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure.
He gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is praying the court for an order setting aside the execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Closure of Greenland Hotel case ••• GCB counsel angry with Daily Graphic
April 26, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
TWO lawyers of the Ghana Commercial Bank yesterday took a swipe at the Daily Graphic for allegedly reporting on a case between Greenland Hotel and the bank under the influence of counsel for the hotel.
The scene was at the Accra Commercial Court, presided over by Mr Justice Marful Sau. One of the lawyers, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, stated in open court that counsel for Greenland Hotel had “procured the services” of the Daily Graphic reporter to follow the case.
And to make matters worse, a male colleague of Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s whose name the Daily Graphic gathered is Mr Kwadwo Ntrakwa, fuelled the embarrassment of this reporter when he rudely asked her, after the court proceedings, what business she had in reporting a matter which was between two corporate bodies.
According to sources close to the Daily Graphic, Mr Ntrakwa is Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s brother.
It all started when Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah said she had seen counsel for Greenland Hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a chat with the reporter when she (reporter) entered the courtroom.
That, Mrs Ntrakwa-Yeboah said, was suggestive that Mr Dame had acquired the services of the reporter to publicise the case.
The whole courtroom virtually looked towards the direction of the reporter because counsel had her eyes fixed on where she (reporter) was seated while she (counsel) spoke.
However, Mr Dame quickly rebutted Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s claims and said he knew the Daily Graphic reporter as having been reporting from the courts regularly.
He also said the Daily Graphic had published the closure of the hotel in its April 18, 2008 edition and it was, therefore, only fair for the paper to publish the hotel's side of the story.
Mr Justice Sau, an Appeal Court judge who was sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, nevertheless, proceeded to bring the attention of counsel to the substantive issue.
But Mr Ntrakwa was unperturbed after the proceedings when the reporter approached his sister to clarify whether her surname was a compound name or not.
Probably out of ignorance, Mr Ntrakwa, who could not understand why the Daily Graphic should cover the proceedings of a case of public interest, also confronted the reporter and cast aspersions on her.
The substantive case was adjourned to April 28, 2008 to enable the GCB to reply to matters raised by the management of the hotel.
The management of the hotel has filed a motion praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel, which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the GCB.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is also praying the court for an order setting aside the unlawful execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah had earlier informed the court that her client was short served and, therefore, she needed enough time to appropriately respond to issues raised by Dr Eyiah.
Mr Dame said there was an urgency to the matter because the hotel had been closed down for more than a week and it was currently incurring heavy losses.
Mr Justice Sau advised parties in the matter to make efforts to negotiate.
TWO lawyers of the Ghana Commercial Bank yesterday took a swipe at the Daily Graphic for allegedly reporting on a case between Greenland Hotel and the bank under the influence of counsel for the hotel.
The scene was at the Accra Commercial Court, presided over by Mr Justice Marful Sau. One of the lawyers, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, stated in open court that counsel for Greenland Hotel had “procured the services” of the Daily Graphic reporter to follow the case.
And to make matters worse, a male colleague of Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s whose name the Daily Graphic gathered is Mr Kwadwo Ntrakwa, fuelled the embarrassment of this reporter when he rudely asked her, after the court proceedings, what business she had in reporting a matter which was between two corporate bodies.
According to sources close to the Daily Graphic, Mr Ntrakwa is Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s brother.
It all started when Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah said she had seen counsel for Greenland Hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a chat with the reporter when she (reporter) entered the courtroom.
That, Mrs Ntrakwa-Yeboah said, was suggestive that Mr Dame had acquired the services of the reporter to publicise the case.
The whole courtroom virtually looked towards the direction of the reporter because counsel had her eyes fixed on where she (reporter) was seated while she (counsel) spoke.
However, Mr Dame quickly rebutted Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s claims and said he knew the Daily Graphic reporter as having been reporting from the courts regularly.
He also said the Daily Graphic had published the closure of the hotel in its April 18, 2008 edition and it was, therefore, only fair for the paper to publish the hotel's side of the story.
Mr Justice Sau, an Appeal Court judge who was sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, nevertheless, proceeded to bring the attention of counsel to the substantive issue.
But Mr Ntrakwa was unperturbed after the proceedings when the reporter approached his sister to clarify whether her surname was a compound name or not.
Probably out of ignorance, Mr Ntrakwa, who could not understand why the Daily Graphic should cover the proceedings of a case of public interest, also confronted the reporter and cast aspersions on her.
The substantive case was adjourned to April 28, 2008 to enable the GCB to reply to matters raised by the management of the hotel.
The management of the hotel has filed a motion praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel, which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the GCB.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is also praying the court for an order setting aside the unlawful execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah had earlier informed the court that her client was short served and, therefore, she needed enough time to appropriately respond to issues raised by Dr Eyiah.
Mr Dame said there was an urgency to the matter because the hotel had been closed down for more than a week and it was currently incurring heavy losses.
Mr Justice Sau advised parties in the matter to make efforts to negotiate.
Court sanctions repatriation of Liberian refugees (UNPUBLISHED)
April 24, 2008
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave its consent to the planned repatriation of 23 Liberians who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
According to the court, available records from the GIS, the Refugee Board of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Liberian Embassy indicated that none of the 23 Liberians was registered as a refugee.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, said the court was satisfied that the applicants were not refugees and did not qualify to be, adding that “the matter should not be seen as an emotional or gender issue but it should be seen as the law taking its course”.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is supreme. The removal of the applicants is lawful and does not contravene the laws of the country,” Mr Justice Gyaesayor held.
He further held that the Liberians had neither been granted refugee status nor had justified their continuous stay in the country and for that matter they were illegal immigrants.
It, accordingly, refused go grant an interim injunction which sought to stop their repatriation by the immigration authorities.
“The application to restrain the respondents from repatriating the applicants is refused. The children should accompany their parents,” the court ordered, in apparent reference to the seven minors who were party to the suit.
On April 14, 2008, Nana Oye Lithur, counsel for the 23 Liberians, argued before the court that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the UNHCR after several requests.
But a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, had countered the assertion, insisting that the 23 were illegal migrants who posed a security threat to the country.
Giving reasons for the court’s decision, Mr Justice Gyaesayor indicated that the documents the applicants had relied on as belonging to relatives they claimed were refugees proved otherwise.
The court held that the war in Liberia had ended, resulting in the conduct of elections and the subsequent installation of a new President.
It said the war brought about the influx of Liberians into the country and that now that it was over, it was only appropriate that they went back to their country because the refugee status, if any, had come to an end.
It further argued that the applicants had not justified their stay in the country.
It said it was true that the 1992 Constitution guaranteed the right to movement, among other rights, but added that those rights went with responsibilities, in accordance with the law.
According to the court, the detention of the Liberians by the GIS authorities did not violate or contravene the law, adding that under the law, the Director of the GIS had the power to repatriate a person whose stay was seen to be unlawful.
The court also held that persons could be arrested and detained while awaiting repatriation.
It did not award costs.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave its consent to the planned repatriation of 23 Liberians who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
According to the court, available records from the GIS, the Refugee Board of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Liberian Embassy indicated that none of the 23 Liberians was registered as a refugee.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, said the court was satisfied that the applicants were not refugees and did not qualify to be, adding that “the matter should not be seen as an emotional or gender issue but it should be seen as the law taking its course”.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is supreme. The removal of the applicants is lawful and does not contravene the laws of the country,” Mr Justice Gyaesayor held.
He further held that the Liberians had neither been granted refugee status nor had justified their continuous stay in the country and for that matter they were illegal immigrants.
It, accordingly, refused go grant an interim injunction which sought to stop their repatriation by the immigration authorities.
“The application to restrain the respondents from repatriating the applicants is refused. The children should accompany their parents,” the court ordered, in apparent reference to the seven minors who were party to the suit.
On April 14, 2008, Nana Oye Lithur, counsel for the 23 Liberians, argued before the court that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the UNHCR after several requests.
But a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, had countered the assertion, insisting that the 23 were illegal migrants who posed a security threat to the country.
Giving reasons for the court’s decision, Mr Justice Gyaesayor indicated that the documents the applicants had relied on as belonging to relatives they claimed were refugees proved otherwise.
The court held that the war in Liberia had ended, resulting in the conduct of elections and the subsequent installation of a new President.
It said the war brought about the influx of Liberians into the country and that now that it was over, it was only appropriate that they went back to their country because the refugee status, if any, had come to an end.
It further argued that the applicants had not justified their stay in the country.
It said it was true that the 1992 Constitution guaranteed the right to movement, among other rights, but added that those rights went with responsibilities, in accordance with the law.
According to the court, the detention of the Liberians by the GIS authorities did not violate or contravene the law, adding that under the law, the Director of the GIS had the power to repatriate a person whose stay was seen to be unlawful.
The court also held that persons could be arrested and detained while awaiting repatriation.
It did not award costs.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Case against AMA boss adjourned
April 23, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE contempt case filed against the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, by an Accra-based businessman has been adjourned to May 5, 2008.
The case was adjourned to enable the chief executive, who was out of the jurisdiction, to be served.
An Accra-based businessman instituted the action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison Mr Adjiri-Blankson for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said bailiffs had on different occasions not been successful in serving the chief executive.
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, informed the court that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was out of the jurisdiction.
She said there was no basis for the contempt matter to be put before Mr Justice Victor Ofoe because it was another judge who had passed the judgement which Mr Seraphim claimed had not been obeyed.
Mr Justice Ofoe, who is an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, advised counsel to make those submissions on a later date after Mr Adjiri-Blankson had been served.
On April 15, 2008, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served and that prompted the court to adjourn the case to yesterday.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers, adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
THE contempt case filed against the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, by an Accra-based businessman has been adjourned to May 5, 2008.
The case was adjourned to enable the chief executive, who was out of the jurisdiction, to be served.
An Accra-based businessman instituted the action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison Mr Adjiri-Blankson for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said bailiffs had on different occasions not been successful in serving the chief executive.
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, informed the court that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was out of the jurisdiction.
She said there was no basis for the contempt matter to be put before Mr Justice Victor Ofoe because it was another judge who had passed the judgement which Mr Seraphim claimed had not been obeyed.
Mr Justice Ofoe, who is an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, advised counsel to make those submissions on a later date after Mr Adjiri-Blankson had been served.
On April 15, 2008, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served and that prompted the court to adjourn the case to yesterday.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers, adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
Course for non-law graduates soon
April 22, 2008 (Page 31)
THE Ghana School of Law will soon re-introduce a course for non-law graduates, which was scrapped some years back.
Launching the SRC Law Week celebrations of the Ghana School of Law in Accra yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, however, did not state the exact date for the re-introduction.
The theme for this year's law week celebration is "Fifty Years of Quality Professional Legal Education: The Changing Phase of Legal Practice".
Mrs Justice Wood said the General Legal Council had in the past made various decisions that included the introduction of the preliminary course for non-law graduates and the professional course for admittance to the Bar but the former was scrapped somewhere along the line.
She said the re-introduction of the course would further provide informed legal education to non-lawyers and for the good of the society.
Mrs Justice Wood appealed to lawyers to endeavour to provide free services to needy Ghanaians who seek their services.
"There is a lingering distrust among lay people about lawyers and the legal profession. One way of redeeming our image is by contributing to the public good," the Chief Justice advised.
Mrs Justice Wood said lawyers must be able to build a culture of public spiritedness.
"The legal profession has among its oldest fraternity great men and women, selfless and dedicated who have fought for and worked hard for the peace and stability of this nation at great cost to their lives," the Chief Justice said.
Mrs Justice Wood also urged the law students to use the training and education they had acquired to help build a just society.
She congratulated the law students on organising an outreach programme for the people of Akuapem South on the theme: "The rights of the child".
Touching on the poor infrastructure base of the Law School, she said it was unfortunate the school's infrastructure had not improved 50 years after its establishment.
She said the school had since 1958 produced more than 4000 lawyers and accordingly urged past students to assist in the development of the school.
Mrs Justice Wood urged past students of the school to position themselves to give back to their alma mater what it needed to plan for the future of the country.
She also appealed to the government and corporate bodies to go to the aid of the school.
The SRC President, Mr Dominic Otchere, urged the government to provide more infrastructure for the school.
THE Ghana School of Law will soon re-introduce a course for non-law graduates, which was scrapped some years back.
Launching the SRC Law Week celebrations of the Ghana School of Law in Accra yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, however, did not state the exact date for the re-introduction.
The theme for this year's law week celebration is "Fifty Years of Quality Professional Legal Education: The Changing Phase of Legal Practice".
Mrs Justice Wood said the General Legal Council had in the past made various decisions that included the introduction of the preliminary course for non-law graduates and the professional course for admittance to the Bar but the former was scrapped somewhere along the line.
She said the re-introduction of the course would further provide informed legal education to non-lawyers and for the good of the society.
Mrs Justice Wood appealed to lawyers to endeavour to provide free services to needy Ghanaians who seek their services.
"There is a lingering distrust among lay people about lawyers and the legal profession. One way of redeeming our image is by contributing to the public good," the Chief Justice advised.
Mrs Justice Wood said lawyers must be able to build a culture of public spiritedness.
"The legal profession has among its oldest fraternity great men and women, selfless and dedicated who have fought for and worked hard for the peace and stability of this nation at great cost to their lives," the Chief Justice said.
Mrs Justice Wood also urged the law students to use the training and education they had acquired to help build a just society.
She congratulated the law students on organising an outreach programme for the people of Akuapem South on the theme: "The rights of the child".
Touching on the poor infrastructure base of the Law School, she said it was unfortunate the school's infrastructure had not improved 50 years after its establishment.
She said the school had since 1958 produced more than 4000 lawyers and accordingly urged past students to assist in the development of the school.
Mrs Justice Wood urged past students of the school to position themselves to give back to their alma mater what it needed to plan for the future of the country.
She also appealed to the government and corporate bodies to go to the aid of the school.
The SRC President, Mr Dominic Otchere, urged the government to provide more infrastructure for the school.
Paint was used to mark accident scene • Police officer tells court
April 19, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
A POLICE officer attached to the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit of the Ghana Police Service told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that the police used paint to mark the accident scene that involved the President.
Answering questions under cross-examination in the case in which Thomas Osei is standing trial for ramming into the President’s vehicle, Sergeant Christian Koda said he was unaware that another police officer had already informed the court that a stone was used to mark the accident spot.
According to Sergeant Christian Koda, who tendered a sketch of the accident that occurred on November 14, 2007, the paint was taken from a painter across the street where the accident occurred.
Osei faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Akuffo: What do policemen at the MTTU take along when going to work?
Sgt. Koda: We usually take along pencils, notebooks, pens and reflective jackets when we go to work.
Mr Akuffo: Are you painters?
Sgt. Koda: We are not painters.
Mr Akuffo: Is it usual for the police to carry paint while at traffic intersection?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. When the accident happened there was a painter around so the police officer there collected paint to mark the scene. That is what my colleague told me.
Mr Akuffo: Did he tell you where he took the paint from?
Sgt. Koda: He did not tell me he took the paint from the painter.
Mr Akuffo: So you concocted he took the paint from the painter?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. The officer told me after the accident that he collected paint to mark the scene.
Mr Akuffo: Do you know you are telling the court untruths?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord.
Cross-examination of the witness continues on April 28, 2008.
The facts of the case were that around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei drove his Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car into the rear side of the President’s vehicle in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The President escaped unhurt.
A POLICE officer attached to the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit of the Ghana Police Service told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that the police used paint to mark the accident scene that involved the President.
Answering questions under cross-examination in the case in which Thomas Osei is standing trial for ramming into the President’s vehicle, Sergeant Christian Koda said he was unaware that another police officer had already informed the court that a stone was used to mark the accident spot.
According to Sergeant Christian Koda, who tendered a sketch of the accident that occurred on November 14, 2007, the paint was taken from a painter across the street where the accident occurred.
Osei faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Akuffo: What do policemen at the MTTU take along when going to work?
Sgt. Koda: We usually take along pencils, notebooks, pens and reflective jackets when we go to work.
Mr Akuffo: Are you painters?
Sgt. Koda: We are not painters.
Mr Akuffo: Is it usual for the police to carry paint while at traffic intersection?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. When the accident happened there was a painter around so the police officer there collected paint to mark the scene. That is what my colleague told me.
Mr Akuffo: Did he tell you where he took the paint from?
Sgt. Koda: He did not tell me he took the paint from the painter.
Mr Akuffo: So you concocted he took the paint from the painter?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. The officer told me after the accident that he collected paint to mark the scene.
Mr Akuffo: Do you know you are telling the court untruths?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord.
Cross-examination of the witness continues on April 28, 2008.
The facts of the case were that around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei drove his Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car into the rear side of the President’s vehicle in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The President escaped unhurt.
Court discharges Barclays Boss
April 17, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday discharged the Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Ms Margaret Mwanakatwe, and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Ms Laureen Lokko, on contempt charges.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees, who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank, following their dismissal by the bank, in spite of the fact that they had filed a motion at the court for an injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo and Matthew Kotoku.
Discharging the two, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, held that “from the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the respondents are in contempt of court”.
“I, therefore, do not find them liable for contempt and discharge them accordingly,” Mr Justice Ofoe added.
According to the court, the law imposed the duty on the employees to prove the guilt of the two beyond reasonable doubt.
It also held that the employees failed to prove that their salaries had been withheld, as well as prove that they had not received their salaries for January and February.
The court did not award costs against the employees.
The bank is expected to file its response to the substantive case by Monday, April 21, 2008 in order for a date to be fixed for hearing.
At the court’s sitting on March 12, 2008, counsel for the employees, Mr Albert Adaare, said Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko were in contempt of the court because had prevented the affected workers from going to work, thereby violating provisions in their collective agreement.
He said the respondents had been aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko, Mr Charles Hayibor, had described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the employees were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the employees had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008.
The disagreement between the employees and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the employees in support of the motion for contempt said on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the employees, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers who were trade union leaders within the bank.
The employees said on February 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank, seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner were personally aware that the application for injunction was pending.
In spite of their knowledge, the employees said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded it and treated it with disdain, which was a sacred process of the court.
They said for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances which, they said, the bank described as monthly salaries.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday discharged the Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Ms Margaret Mwanakatwe, and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Ms Laureen Lokko, on contempt charges.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees, who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank, following their dismissal by the bank, in spite of the fact that they had filed a motion at the court for an injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo and Matthew Kotoku.
Discharging the two, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, held that “from the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the respondents are in contempt of court”.
“I, therefore, do not find them liable for contempt and discharge them accordingly,” Mr Justice Ofoe added.
According to the court, the law imposed the duty on the employees to prove the guilt of the two beyond reasonable doubt.
It also held that the employees failed to prove that their salaries had been withheld, as well as prove that they had not received their salaries for January and February.
The court did not award costs against the employees.
The bank is expected to file its response to the substantive case by Monday, April 21, 2008 in order for a date to be fixed for hearing.
At the court’s sitting on March 12, 2008, counsel for the employees, Mr Albert Adaare, said Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko were in contempt of the court because had prevented the affected workers from going to work, thereby violating provisions in their collective agreement.
He said the respondents had been aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko, Mr Charles Hayibor, had described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the employees were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the employees had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008.
The disagreement between the employees and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the employees in support of the motion for contempt said on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the employees, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers who were trade union leaders within the bank.
The employees said on February 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank, seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner were personally aware that the application for injunction was pending.
In spite of their knowledge, the employees said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded it and treated it with disdain, which was a sacred process of the court.
They said for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances which, they said, the bank described as monthly salaries.
Jail Adjiri-Blankson - Businessman prays High Court
April 16, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
AN Accra-based businessman has instituted an action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served.
Counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that his outfit ensured that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was personally served.
That notwithstanding, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, adjourned the matter to April 22, 2008 to ensure that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was served.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers,
adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
AN Accra-based businessman has instituted an action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served.
Counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that his outfit ensured that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was personally served.
That notwithstanding, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, adjourned the matter to April 22, 2008 to ensure that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was served.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers,
adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Court to decide on repatriation of 23 Liberians
April 15, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 24, 2008 decide whether or not to order the repatriation of 23 Liberian nationals who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
While counsel for the Liberians, Nana Oye Lithur, argued that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) after several requests, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, insisted that the 23 were illegal immigrants who posed a security threat to the country.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, fixed the date for ruling on the matter after parties had argued their cases at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday.
The 23 Liberians, who include seven minors, sought an interim injunction from the court on April 8, 2008 to stop their repatriation by the Immigration authorities.
Arguing her case, Nana Oye Lithur denied an assertion from the immigration authorities that the Liberians were illegal immigrants and stated that there were no records to prove they had been granted refugee status or otherwise.
She said the applicants had neither committed any offence nor was there any proof that they posed security threat to the country.
Nana Oye Lithur argued that the Liberians had relatives who had been given refugee status and that automatically affected them as enshrined in the law.
She further argued that it was the duty of the Director of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to check the status of the 23 applicants before deciding to repatriate them. For instance, she stated that 17 of the applicants entered Ghana in 1997, 1999 and 2001 while two entered the country in 1990.
Nana Oye Lithur said she had now been allowed to have access to the 23 "after a long struggle".
Citing authorities, Nana Oye Lithur said the Minister of the Interior and the Director of GIS could not exercise their discretionary powers without following the due process of the law.
She, therefore, described as null and void the March 31, 2008 order that directed that the 23 Liberians should be repatriated and accordingly prayed the court to order the release of her clients from custody forthwith.
Replying, Mrs Obuobisah said there were laws that regulated the stay of refugees within any country and added that the applicants could not claim to be covered by their relatives because those relatives were no longer recognised as refugees.
She said there was currently peace in Liberia and therefore the refugee status of all Liberians ceased in 2003.
Mrs Obuobisah said the order issued by the Director of GIS was for repatriation as was stipulated under the law and explained that other Liberian nationals were currently being repatriated to Liberia.
She said because the applicants were illegal immigrants, they had been put in a detention facility and arrangements had been made to repatriate them until the court ordered otherwise.
The Principal State Attorney said the rights of the Liberians had not been flouted, arguing that the Director of GIS had every right to cause the repatriation of the applicants.
She, therefore, described the motion by the Liberians as unfounded and so the Director of the GIS should be allowed to do her work.
She added that the order for injunction filed by the counsel for the refugees was not properly laid before the court.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 24, 2008 decide whether or not to order the repatriation of 23 Liberian nationals who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
While counsel for the Liberians, Nana Oye Lithur, argued that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) after several requests, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, insisted that the 23 were illegal immigrants who posed a security threat to the country.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, fixed the date for ruling on the matter after parties had argued their cases at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday.
The 23 Liberians, who include seven minors, sought an interim injunction from the court on April 8, 2008 to stop their repatriation by the Immigration authorities.
Arguing her case, Nana Oye Lithur denied an assertion from the immigration authorities that the Liberians were illegal immigrants and stated that there were no records to prove they had been granted refugee status or otherwise.
She said the applicants had neither committed any offence nor was there any proof that they posed security threat to the country.
Nana Oye Lithur argued that the Liberians had relatives who had been given refugee status and that automatically affected them as enshrined in the law.
She further argued that it was the duty of the Director of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to check the status of the 23 applicants before deciding to repatriate them. For instance, she stated that 17 of the applicants entered Ghana in 1997, 1999 and 2001 while two entered the country in 1990.
Nana Oye Lithur said she had now been allowed to have access to the 23 "after a long struggle".
Citing authorities, Nana Oye Lithur said the Minister of the Interior and the Director of GIS could not exercise their discretionary powers without following the due process of the law.
She, therefore, described as null and void the March 31, 2008 order that directed that the 23 Liberians should be repatriated and accordingly prayed the court to order the release of her clients from custody forthwith.
Replying, Mrs Obuobisah said there were laws that regulated the stay of refugees within any country and added that the applicants could not claim to be covered by their relatives because those relatives were no longer recognised as refugees.
She said there was currently peace in Liberia and therefore the refugee status of all Liberians ceased in 2003.
Mrs Obuobisah said the order issued by the Director of GIS was for repatriation as was stipulated under the law and explained that other Liberian nationals were currently being repatriated to Liberia.
She said because the applicants were illegal immigrants, they had been put in a detention facility and arrangements had been made to repatriate them until the court ordered otherwise.
The Principal State Attorney said the rights of the Liberians had not been flouted, arguing that the Director of GIS had every right to cause the repatriation of the applicants.
She, therefore, described the motion by the Liberians as unfounded and so the Director of the GIS should be allowed to do her work.
She added that the order for injunction filed by the counsel for the refugees was not properly laid before the court.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Kosmos Partners (energy) 07/02/08
GHANA will earn $836 million annually from oil revenue when initial production begins at the fields of Cape Three Points.
Making the announcement at a press briefing in Accra, the Managing Director of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, said the amount would be earned from Ghana’s share of 38,209 barrels of crude oil a day out of the total 100,000 barrels per day to be produced.
The rest of the production would go to the country’s foreign partners in the exploration.
Ghana’s share was calculated on an assumed long term price of $US60 a barrel amounting to US$2,292,540.00 per day which would translate to US$836,777,100.00 per annum’.
Mr Boateng was reacting to a publication in an Accra-based newspaper which said Ghana would earn $584 billion annually from the oil discovery at Cape Three Points.
He said a daily production of 200,000 barrels of crude was achievable within five years after commencement of production and that could give the state a total revenue of approximately US$1.6 billion per annum.
‘In addition to the revenue due to the state from the fiscal arrangements in the petroleum agreement, petroleum operations especially development and production operations have the potential of transforming the economy through the participation of indigenous businesses.
For instance, he explained that the petroleum agreements provides for the use of Ghanaian goods and services in all phases of petroleum operations in so far as they were of quality and quantity comparable to industry standards and were priced competitively.
That he stated was popularly known in the oil industry as ‘local contents’ which could be defined as the quantum of composite value added or created in the Ghanaian economy through the utilisation of Ghanaian human and material resources for the provision of goods and services to the petroleum industry within acceptable quality, health, safety and environmental standards in order to stimulate the development of indigenous capabilities.
Touching more on the discovery, Mr Boateng said that the production of the oil would be done in phases.
Asked when Ghana would see the first oil, he said there was not a definite answer to that question because more wells would have to be drilled in addition to the Mahogany and Hyedua wells which were all drilled last year.
He said it took two to three months to drill a well adding that it also took time to acquire equipment for production because one had to join a queue in placing an order for equipment on the international market.
Mr Boateng further stated that it took 18 months to construct a gas pipeline adding that there was the need to construct one because the oil discovered had high gas content which could be of immense benefit to the country.
He said everything was on course and assured Ghanaians that Kosmos Energy and its partners were working earnestly to make it possible for early production of oil.
He further explained that exploration was a very risky business with a success rate of one out of 10.
Mr Boateng pointed out that the drilling of a single well cost between $60 million to $100 million and said most companies have had to invest thrice or more of such huge amounts only to find nothing.
In view of the high cost involved in exploration activities, Mr Boateng said the government could not afford to invest in such sector adding that ‘that is why we are encouraging more companies to invest in our oil industry’.
He said the government benefited from about 38 per cent in taxes and royalties among others from the activities of Kosmos Energy and other oil companies operating in the country.
Mr Boateng said that the oil discovery was a good thing for Ghana adding that ‘we can make it a blessing instead of a curse.’
Kosmos Energy (Ghana) Limited, the discoverer of the oil at Cape Three Points and its partners would need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners would develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, Sabre Oil, UK, E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Explaining the role of the GNPC further, the Director of Exploration, Mr Thomas Manu, gave the assurance that the GNPC was playing its supervisory role to the letter.
For instance, he said GNPC required oil companies to undergo competitive bidding anytime it needed to acquire new equipment.
He said the GNPC also took part in tender processes and the award of contracts as well as the responsibility of scrutinising, approving or rejecting annual budgets of oil companies operating in the country.
GHANA will earn $836 million annually from oil revenue when initial production begins at the fields of Cape Three Points.
Making the announcement at a press briefing in Accra, the Managing Director of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, said the amount would be earned from Ghana’s share of 38,209 barrels of crude oil a day out of the total 100,000 barrels per day to be produced.
The rest of the production would go to the country’s foreign partners in the exploration.
Ghana’s share was calculated on an assumed long term price of $US60 a barrel amounting to US$2,292,540.00 per day which would translate to US$836,777,100.00 per annum’.
Mr Boateng was reacting to a publication in an Accra-based newspaper which said Ghana would earn $584 billion annually from the oil discovery at Cape Three Points.
He said a daily production of 200,000 barrels of crude was achievable within five years after commencement of production and that could give the state a total revenue of approximately US$1.6 billion per annum.
‘In addition to the revenue due to the state from the fiscal arrangements in the petroleum agreement, petroleum operations especially development and production operations have the potential of transforming the economy through the participation of indigenous businesses.
For instance, he explained that the petroleum agreements provides for the use of Ghanaian goods and services in all phases of petroleum operations in so far as they were of quality and quantity comparable to industry standards and were priced competitively.
That he stated was popularly known in the oil industry as ‘local contents’ which could be defined as the quantum of composite value added or created in the Ghanaian economy through the utilisation of Ghanaian human and material resources for the provision of goods and services to the petroleum industry within acceptable quality, health, safety and environmental standards in order to stimulate the development of indigenous capabilities.
Touching more on the discovery, Mr Boateng said that the production of the oil would be done in phases.
Asked when Ghana would see the first oil, he said there was not a definite answer to that question because more wells would have to be drilled in addition to the Mahogany and Hyedua wells which were all drilled last year.
He said it took two to three months to drill a well adding that it also took time to acquire equipment for production because one had to join a queue in placing an order for equipment on the international market.
Mr Boateng further stated that it took 18 months to construct a gas pipeline adding that there was the need to construct one because the oil discovered had high gas content which could be of immense benefit to the country.
He said everything was on course and assured Ghanaians that Kosmos Energy and its partners were working earnestly to make it possible for early production of oil.
He further explained that exploration was a very risky business with a success rate of one out of 10.
Mr Boateng pointed out that the drilling of a single well cost between $60 million to $100 million and said most companies have had to invest thrice or more of such huge amounts only to find nothing.
In view of the high cost involved in exploration activities, Mr Boateng said the government could not afford to invest in such sector adding that ‘that is why we are encouraging more companies to invest in our oil industry’.
He said the government benefited from about 38 per cent in taxes and royalties among others from the activities of Kosmos Energy and other oil companies operating in the country.
Mr Boateng said that the oil discovery was a good thing for Ghana adding that ‘we can make it a blessing instead of a curse.’
Kosmos Energy (Ghana) Limited, the discoverer of the oil at Cape Three Points and its partners would need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners would develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, Sabre Oil, UK, E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Explaining the role of the GNPC further, the Director of Exploration, Mr Thomas Manu, gave the assurance that the GNPC was playing its supervisory role to the letter.
For instance, he said GNPC required oil companies to undergo competitive bidding anytime it needed to acquire new equipment.
He said the GNPC also took part in tender processes and the award of contracts as well as the responsibility of scrutinising, approving or rejecting annual budgets of oil companies operating in the country.
Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court
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.
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.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Man 37, arrested over payslips deal
February 4, 2008 (Page 39)
LUCK ran out for a 37-year-old barber who attempted to steal payslips of public servants to further his alleged dubious deals with Hire Purchase Companies.
Sylvester Appiah was caught in possession of the payslips at the premises of the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) last Wednesday.
Appiah, who is suspected to be in league with some hire purchase companies, is said to have earlier approached a worker at the CAGD to assist him to lay hands on the payslips.
The worker reported the matter to her superiors who urged her to feign interest and hand over some payslips to Appiah.
After collecting the payslips, Appiah gave GH ¢100 to the worker but he was arrested shortly after handing over the money.
A search on him revealed that he was in possession of more than 50 payslips of public servants.
Following the arrest of Appiah, the CAGD would be holding an emergency meeting with hire purchase companies on Monday, February 4, 2008 to re-emphasise the rules under which hire purchase companies could deal with the CAGD.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, after his arrest, the Head of Payroll of the CAGD, Mr Seidu Kotomah, said his outfit had received complaints from more than 127 public servants who claimed their salaries were being deducted for items they had not purchased.
He said seven complaints were received from public servants in August 2007, 26 in September 2007, 36 in October 2007, 30 in November 2007, while 19 and 16 complaints were received in December 2007 and January 2008 respectively.
According to Mr Kotomah, two public servants had even dragged the CAGD to court over the same issue, adding that “the issue is becoming a big problem”.
He said some unscrupulous elements laid hands on payslips, manoeuvred to meet other conditions with assistance from hire purchase companies and eventually succeeded in getting the salaries of affected public servants deducted for items they (public servants) had not purchased.
Mr Kotomah, therefore, appealed to public servants to “jealously guard” their payslips so that they would not fall in the wrong hands.
He said most public servants showed little or no interest in their payslips and said until they did so, the menace would prevail.
“People should have interest in their payslips and question any abnormality in order to nip this problem in the bud once and for all,” Mr Kotomah added, and accordingly urged Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to treat payslips with caution.
LUCK ran out for a 37-year-old barber who attempted to steal payslips of public servants to further his alleged dubious deals with Hire Purchase Companies.
Sylvester Appiah was caught in possession of the payslips at the premises of the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) last Wednesday.
Appiah, who is suspected to be in league with some hire purchase companies, is said to have earlier approached a worker at the CAGD to assist him to lay hands on the payslips.
The worker reported the matter to her superiors who urged her to feign interest and hand over some payslips to Appiah.
After collecting the payslips, Appiah gave GH ¢100 to the worker but he was arrested shortly after handing over the money.
A search on him revealed that he was in possession of more than 50 payslips of public servants.
Following the arrest of Appiah, the CAGD would be holding an emergency meeting with hire purchase companies on Monday, February 4, 2008 to re-emphasise the rules under which hire purchase companies could deal with the CAGD.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, after his arrest, the Head of Payroll of the CAGD, Mr Seidu Kotomah, said his outfit had received complaints from more than 127 public servants who claimed their salaries were being deducted for items they had not purchased.
He said seven complaints were received from public servants in August 2007, 26 in September 2007, 36 in October 2007, 30 in November 2007, while 19 and 16 complaints were received in December 2007 and January 2008 respectively.
According to Mr Kotomah, two public servants had even dragged the CAGD to court over the same issue, adding that “the issue is becoming a big problem”.
He said some unscrupulous elements laid hands on payslips, manoeuvred to meet other conditions with assistance from hire purchase companies and eventually succeeded in getting the salaries of affected public servants deducted for items they (public servants) had not purchased.
Mr Kotomah, therefore, appealed to public servants to “jealously guard” their payslips so that they would not fall in the wrong hands.
He said most public servants showed little or no interest in their payslips and said until they did so, the menace would prevail.
“People should have interest in their payslips and question any abnormality in order to nip this problem in the bud once and for all,” Mr Kotomah added, and accordingly urged Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to treat payslips with caution.
Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)