Interesting twist over money paid by UT Bank

Hearing of the contest over the ownership of $391,250 paid into the coffers of the Judicial Service by UT Bank took three interesting dimensions at the Financial Division of the High Court in Accra yesterday.

The first drama occurred when the lawyer for a complainant against the Economic Organised Crime Office (EOCO) accused the unit of instituting terrorism and money laundering investigations on Auxesia Energy Limited when, in effect, his client did not lodge any complaint with the office.
Mr James Abiaduka, counsel for Soleushing Nigeria, one of the claimants to the money and whose complaint led to the court case, also accused EOCO of failing to conduct thorough investigations into complaints lodged by his client.
He said EOCO did “absolutely nothing” about the circumstances leading to the sale, purchase, charter and delivery of low pour fuel oil (LPFO).
An investigator at EOCO, Mr Patrick Kofi Awoonor, who was being cross-examined by the lawyer, denied the claims.

Soleushing Nigeria stole vessel
The third twist to the issue ensued when another lawyer representing Soleushing UK stated that Soleushing Nigeria had stolen the vessel which was chartered to cart LPFO to Ghana.
Cross-examining Mr Awoonor, Mr Dubik Yakubu Mahama sought to portray to the court through the investigator that Soleushing UK did, indeed, lodge a complaint with the Cape Coast police against Soleushing Nigeria over a missing vessel.
The vessel was used in carting LPFO to Ghana in 2013 but Soleushing UK lodged a complaint with the Cape Coast police to the effect that Soleushing Nigeria had stolen the vessel.
Mr Awoonor, in reply, told the court that the matter formed part of issues under investigation.
Asked if Prince Adeleke Oyinyola, who lodged a complaint against Auxesia Energy, was the owner of the vessel, the investigator said, “No, my Lord. As of now there is no document to prove the vessel belongs to Prince Adeleke.”
Prince Oyinlola’s company is demanding the $391,250 from Auxesia Energy on the grounds that the vessel which was used to cart the LPFO belonged to him.

EOCO to produce statements
Mr Awoonor had on the last adjourned date told the court that the $391,250 cheque had been altered to include the name ‘Kayode’ but stated yesterday that the issues pertaining to the cheque were not part of investigations.
The investigator also conceded that a person by name Ullirch gave a statement to EOCO to the effect that Soleushing UK had stolen his vessel.
He, however, told the court that one Errol Anthony Leushing did not report any stolen vessel to EOCO.
Mr Awoonor said he was not aware of any statements from Leushing with respect to the vessel either.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, has since granted the requests of Mr Dubik and counsel for Auxesia Energy Limited,
Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, for the investigator to furnish the court with all statements and attachments connected to the case.
The court agreed with both counsel and, accordingly, directed EOCO to furnish the court with the said statements today (June 17, 2014).

Cheque not part of investigations
Answering questions under cross-examination from Mr Abiaduka, the EOCO investigator disagreed with counsel that Prince Oyinlola was not among persons who had told the EOCO that the vessel had been chartered by Earth Petroleum.
Counsel then suggested to the witness that Prince Oyinlola lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior and not directly with EOCO, but the witness explained that the matter was referred to his team by his superiors.
An affidavit sworn on behalf of EOCO by Mr Awoonor was tendered in evidence. It stated, among others, that Soleushing chartered the vessel on behalf of Auxesia Energy for the transportation of LPFO for a fee of $420,000.
He also stated in the affidavit that Auxesia Energy received the LPFO and thus received value for it.
Mr Awoonor told the court that Soleushing had not been paid for carting the LPFO but Mr Dame reminded the investigator that “EOCO is not a debt collection agency”.

 Click HERE for more on the UT Bank issue

Asabee, wife, two others freed

Former Information Minister in the Kufuor regime, Mr Stephen Asamoah Boateng and his wife Zuleika Lorwia have been acquitted and discharged by the High Court in Accra.

The former Minister and his wife were charged with six others for conspiracy to defraud the state
The charges included contravention of the public procurement act and conspiracy.
The charges were related to a contract awarded to Mr Asamaoh-Boateng’s sister-in-law for some renovation works at the Information Ministry during his tenure of office as Sector Minister.
They were charged together with six other people, including former Deputy Information Minister in the same regime, Mr Frank Agyekum. Mr Agyekum has however been asked by the court to open his defence with five other people.
The case has been pending since 2009.
The accused are alleged to have conspired to defraud the state of GH¢86,915.85 as a result of renovation works carried out at the Ministerial Block of the ministry during Mr Asamoah Boateng’s tenure as minister.
The other accused persons are Frank Agyekum; a former Deputy Minister of Information, Dominic Aloysius Yaw Sampong; a former acting Chief Director of the Ministry of Information, Kwabena Denkyira; a former Director of Finance and Administration at the ministry, and Prosper Arku of SPAL.
Mr Asamoah-Boateng, Zulieka, Kofi, Agyekum, Sampong and Domua were jointly charged with contravening the provisions of the Public Procurement Act.
A detailed report of the proceedings in court was published in Saturday June 14, 2014 edition of the Daily Graphic

EOCO testifies in UT Bank contempt tussle

The Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on June 5, began taking oral evidence to determine the actual owner of the US$391,250 which has been paid into the coffers of the Judicial Service by UT Bank.

An official of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), Mr Patrick Kofi Awoonor, said his outfit had received a complaint from Mr Prince Adeleke Oyinlola that two of the defendants in the case had planned to take away his vessel.
The said defendants are Auxesia Energy Limited, from whose account the money was withdrawn, and MT Soleushing UK, a vessel operating company.
According to the witness, the complainant also levelled money laundering and financing of terrorism activity allegations against Auxesia Energy.
Mr Awoonor said his outfit received the complaint in June 2013, for which reason EOCO froze Auxesia Energy’s account in July 2013 in order to complete investigations.

Background

Led by Mr Edward Cudjoe, counsel for EOCO, to give his evidence-in-chief, the witness said Oyinlola told EOCO that one Christopher Isiboi had contracted him (complainant) to transport low pour fuel oil (LPFO) to Saltpond in the Central Region, but two of the crew members were held hostage in Nigeria until payment was effected by Auxesia Energy.
He said Auxesia Energy issued a cheque for $391,250 to Isiboi as charter fee after the LPFO had been offloaded in Saltpond.
According to the witness, MT Soleushing UK later claimed ownership of the vessel, resulting in the matter ending up in the courts and the subsequent lodgement of the cash into the coffers of the Judicial Service.

Cross-examination

Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for Auxesia Energy, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the witness told the court that Oyinlola’s complaint bordered on the loading of the LPFO and source of the product.
Asked how the loading of the LPFO constituted a terrorist activity, the witness said the owner of the product was still under investigations, with assistance from the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) of Nigeria.
Asked to indicate the nature of the terrorism activity on the part of any of the parties to the court, Mr Awoonor said, “We are not saying we are investigating terrorism.”
At that moment, counsel read out Paragraph 22 of EOCO’s statement of case which the witness said he was well aware of.
Mr Dame read out the said paragraph, where EOCO indicated that the account of Auxesia Energy had been frozen due to terrorism allegations and then queried the witness if he meant to say Auxesia Energy was not under investigations.
Mr Awoonor then explained that MT Soleushing UK was also under investigations.
The following transpired between Mr Dame and Mr Awoonor:
Mr Dame: Is it your case that the ownership of the vessel constituted terrorism?
Mr Awoonor: I did not say that the ownership of the vessel is what we are investigating.
Counsel asked the witness how possible it was to finance a terrorism activity without it taking place, to which Mr Awoonor said Auxesia Energy made payments to people it did not know.
Mr Dame then asked the witness if he meant to say it constituted terrorism to pay business partners one did not know in other countries.
The witness answered, “No, my Lord.”

Auxesia is not source of LPFO

Mr Dame then asked Mr Awoonor if the source of the LPFO had come up during the investigations, to which the witness said Isiboi was assisting the EFCC of Nigeria.
Queried if Auxesia Energy was the source of the LPFO, the witness answered, “No, my Lord.”
In defining terrorism, Mr Awoonor said it meant engaging in activities that posed a threat and danger to others.

For more on the issue, click HERE

Kufuor interfered with process — Woyome

June 10, page -16 

Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome Monday said that former President J. A. Kufuor interfered with the bidding process for stadia construction for the CAN 2008 tournament.

Through the interference, Woyome said, Shanghai Construction Group won the bid for the construction of stadia at Essipon and Tamale.
Testifying in his GH¢51.2 million criminal case, Woyome told the Financial Division of the High Court that although the bidding process had ended and his company had won the bid for the construction of the stadia, the procurement process was sidestepped to give the Chinese company undue advantage.
Slamming the cancellation of his contract, Woyome disclosed that Shanghai’s earlier quotation of $18 million as being the cost of constructing each stadium was “not realistic” and false because a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the government and the Chinese company quoted $38 million as the cost for constructing each stadium.
He supported his claim of what he termed “interference” on the part of former President Kufuor, with a Cabinet memo signed by a former Minister of Education and Sports, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and dated July 27, 2005.

Snippets of the memo

The MoU, which has been tendered in evidence, stated, among other issues, that President Kufuor had expressed the eagerness to ensure the take-off of the project in good time and at a very competitive cost.
It said the former President was, therefore, of the view that the winning quotations were “rather too high” and hence recommended the construction of modest stadia he had come across while on a visit to Shanghai in China.
According to the memo, President Kufuor’s sentiments had earlier been communicated in a letter signed by Dr Kofi Amoah, then Chairman of the Local Organising Committee (LOC) of CAN 2008, and dated July 20, 2005.
In the said letter, Dr Amoah had informed Mr Osafo-Maafo that the Shanghai Construction Group had pleaded to be chosen to build a 15,000-capacity stadium within 21 months for $18 million.
In a related development, a letter containing Mr Osafo-Maafo’s challenge of the inclusion of the Shanghai Group’s bid is currently being sought for at the Ministries of Youth and Sports and Education.

After bid process

The Cabinet memo further pointed out that the Shanghai Group had not submitted any bid by February 7, 2005 to be considered by the evaluation committee and that the company had expected the government to provide direct funding for the construction, although other firms had been rejected for not providing funding.
Led by his lawyer, Mr Sarfo Buabeng, to give his evidence-in-chief in the case in which he has been accused of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state, Woyome said Mr Osafo-Maafo and Dr Amoah were sent to China to negotiate with the Shanghai Group.
According to the accused person, the MoU quoted $38 million as the cost of the construction of one stadium, instead of Shanghai’s earlier $18 million quotation.

Petition to Attorney-General

In an agitated tone, which was occasionally calmed by either his lawyer or the trial judge, Woyome stated that he was contracted by the government to do financial engineering to raise funds for the stadia construction project.
According to him, two per cent of the fund raised was to be paid to him and so after the government had abrogated the contract for the stadia construction project, he got in touch with a lawyer from London to represent his interest.
The accused person told the packed courtroom that his lawyer tried an amicable settlement of the matter with former President Kufuor’s government but all to no avail.
Following from that, the accused person said he consequently petitioned the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who called for a meeting of all stakeholders.
He said at the said meeting, Waterville Holdings explained that the financial engineering initiated by Woyome was separate from two contracts the government had signed with Waterville Holdings for stadia construction.
Woyome was said to have raised a 1.1 billion euro facility from Banc Austria, and as part of the conditions for the release of the funds for the stadia construction and other projects, the government was to accept the facility by September 30, 2005 or risk losing it.
The government did not accept the said facility.

Settlement

The accused person told the court that he consolidated his claim and began a process with the Attorney-General’s Department towards settlement.
He said it was eventually agreed that he should be paid two per cent of the total arranged funding for projects which would have comprised six regional hospitals, one national accident and emergency hospital with an 800-bed capacity, 10 regional stadia and more than 60 plant and tissue culture facilities for the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC).

Ghana Mission in China

A letter from the Ghana Mission in China, signed by the then First Secretary, Mr Maxwell Nyarko-Lartey, and dated August 11, 2005, which furnished the LOC with particulars of the Shanghai Group’s bid, was tendered in evidence after the court had overruled the prosecution’s objection to the tendering of the document.
Asked where he got the letter from, Woyome replied that it was a “public document” which, in effect, could be accessed by anyone.

For more information on the Case, follow this LINK

Okyenhene challenged to prove defamation

Publishers of The Herald have described a suit brought against them by the Okyenhene, Osagyefuo Amoatia Ofori Panin, as a blatant harassment for doing their legally stipulated duty as journalists.

They denied in their statement of defence that they defamed the Okyenhene.

Osagyefuo Ofori Panin has filed a libel suit at the Fast Track High Court against Prime Mark Company Limited, publisher of The Herald, Mr Larry-Alans Dogbe, Editor of the paper, and two others for variously publishing alleged libellous materials which, according to him, had tarnished his hard-won reputation both locally and internationally.

The two other defendants are Nana Kwame Adjei-Boateng, a member of the Asona royal family of Kyebi, and Kofi Nyame, a reporter with the newspaper. 

Osagyefuo Ofori Panin is accordingly praying the court to perpetually restrain the defendants from further publishing libellous materials against him.

The said libellous material was published on the front page of the May 5, 2014 edition of the paper. 

According to the Okyenhene, it sought to create the impression that he was championing illegal mining activities, popularly known as galamsey, at Kyebi. 

He wants the court to award exemplary damages in the sum of GH¢5 million against the defendants, as well as order them to bear the cost of solicitor’s fees.

The first defendant in the suit is Nana Adjei-Boateng. 

Defence 

A statement of defence filed on behalf of Mr Dogbey and Prime Mark Company Limited, by their lawyer Mr David Annan, argued that claims that only The Herald circulated the story was false because all radio stations in the country circulated it.

According to the statement, the story emanated from Nana Adjei-Boateng, a royal from the plaintiff’s family.

The defendants argued that “various receipts emanating from the Office of the Okyenhene and given to persons carrying out mining activities exist”.

Ordinary meanings

They challenged the Okyenhene to prove how the publication had lowered his reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the society or how the publication exposed him to public ridicule, odium and contempt.

Responding to the plaintiff’s claim that the story was accentuated by malice, the defendants argued that the claim was “hollow, untenable and speculative at best and constitutes a vain and futile attempt to justify the claim.”

No cause of action

The statement further held that the plaintiff’s writ and claim were extravagant, tenuous and misconceived because they disclosed no cause of action against the defendants, who it said were only performing their duty to inform and convey the sentiments and comments of individuals and organisations to other members of the public.

According to the defendants, they are constitutionally mandated to publish interviews and press releases.

Okyenhene sues The Herald for defamation; Demands GH¢5m

Okyenhene, Osagyefo Amoatia Ofori Panin

The Okyenhene, Osagyefo Amoatia Ofori Panin, has filed a suit at the Fast Track High Court against the publishers of The Herald newspaper and three others for accusing him of engaging in illegal mining.
According to the Okyenhene, Prime Mark Company Limited, publishers of The Herald newspaper, Nana Kwame Adjei-Boateng, a member of the Asona Royal family, Larry-Alans Dogbe, the Managing Editor of The Herald and Kofi Nyame, a reporter with the newspaper, variously published libellous materials which have tarnished his hard-won reputation, both locally and internationally.
The publication was carried on the front page of the May 5, 2014 edition of the newspaper.

Demand from lawyer

The Okyenhene is praying the court to perpetually restrain the defendants from further publishing libelous materials against him.
He also wants the court to award exemplary damages against the defendants, as well as order them to bear the cost of the solicitor’s fees.
Counsel for the Okyenhene, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, is asking for GH¢5 million general damages against the defendants.
According to him, the Okyenhene is a well-known local and international personality whose reputation has been gravely affected by the libelous publication.
“Therefore, the instant action is intended to stop these attacks on the personality of Osagyefo, as well as on the integrity of the stool he occupies. We intend to press the court for the award of the highest amount of damages ever awarded in the history of a libel action. The reputation of Osagyefo is very huge and cannot be maligned unnecessarily,” Mr Dame argued.
Severe damage
According to the statement of claim, the said publication sought to libel the Okyenhene as a criminal who should be put away from society.
It said the publication also sought to create the impression that the Okyenhene lived a deceptive life, championed environmental degradation and was, therefore, an unworthy ambassador in environmental protection.
“The said publication has exposed plaintiff to public odium, ridicule and contempt in the eyes of right-thinking members of society worldwide,” the statement added.

Clich HERE to Listen to the Okyehene's counsel, Godfred Yeboah Dame