NPP enters appearance in legal tussle

Lawyers for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) have entered appearance barely 48 hours after a senior member of the party filed a suit challenging the locus of the National Council (NC).

A senior member of the party, Mr David Hoezame, on June 17, 2014, filed the suit challenging the status of the party’s National Council as presently constituted.

Joined to the suit is the party’s National Chairman, Mr Paul Afoko.

The plaintiff has since filed a motion for interim injunction praying the court to restrain the defendants from taking any further action on behalf of the party until the final determination of the suit.

Hearing of the motion on notice for interim injunction will be heard on July 3, 2014.

The motion for interim injunction is specifically praying the Accra High Court to restrain the NPP from going ahead to conduct elections for the selection of a presidential candidate until the final determination of the suit.

Counsel for the NPP, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, entered appearance on behalf of the NPP.

In an interview with the Daily Graphic yesterday, Mr Otoo indicated that the party had 14 days within which to file its defence.

Two approaches being adopted

Mr Otoo, who is also the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee of the NPP, said he was adopting two approaches to resolve the issue.

The first, he explained, had to do with adhering to the court process while the second strategy would be to call for a meeting of the National Steering Committee and the NEC of the party.

Counsel noted that the issue had political implications for the party because there was the need for the party to adhere to its timelines of electing a flag bearer.

‘We have to elect a flag bearer and if the matter drags on – it can affect us,” Mr Otoo noted, and accordingly expressed the hope that the issues would be resolved in no time.

Follow due procedure

The plaintiff is praying the court to compel the NPP to follow the procedure outlined in its constitution by recomposing its NC.

Mr Hoezame is pleading with the court to declare the NC ’s December 6 as the date for the election of the presidential candidate as null and void.

He is also seeking an order directed at the defendants to restore the constitution of the party to its original state, duly and properly set up the NC  in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, as well as grant an order restraining Mr Afoko from further breaching the party’s constitution.

Mr Hoezame, who described himself as a fully paid-up, card-bearing member of the NPP from 1992 up to date, claimed that the Afoko-led executive had breached the NPP constitution by purporting to call for and taking part in deliberations of the NC without reconstituting it after they were elected into office in April 2014.

He said as a constituency chairman of the NPP and aspiring to be elected to serve on the NC of the party, he had waited in vain for the notice of the poll to enable him to put himself up for election to be elected a regional representative on the NC.

However, he was informed that a meeting had been held by a body purporting to be the party’s NC and insisted that it was in breach of the NPP constitution, thereby jeopardising his determination to contest the election.

According to the plaintiff, Mr Afoko, in concert with other officers of the party, had called for an NC meeting on June 19, 2014 to, among other issues, take a decision on the organisation of an election to choose the presidential candidate for the 2016 general election.

“As of the date hereof, the party has no National Council, since there has not been any process, in accordance with Article 7 (15) (iv), to elect regional representatives to serve on the National Council of the party,” the plaintiff noted in his sworn affidavit.

He stated that even though the NC was not in place, the party had gone forward to fix a meeting on June 19 to “meet with certain individuals to take concrete decisions on the organisation and conduct of the said election of the presidential candidate”.

Mr Hoezame, however, stated in his writ that the constitution of the party spelt out clearly that decisions on the organisation of an election of a presidential candidate must be taken by the National Council of the party and not “certain individuals”.

According to the applicant, Article 9 (B) (2) of the party’s constitution expressly provided for the membership of the NC, which included regional representatives, with the mandate to direct the affairs of the party.

I suffered humiliation at the hands of EOCO - Witness tells court

June 19 page 71

A witness in the legal fight over the ownership of $391,250 has enumerated how she suffered humiliation for two weeks at the hands of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

The Managing Director of Auxesia Energy Limited, Mrs Faith A. Odulu, said the company’s account was frozen without any notification from the EOCO.

Aside from that, she said EOCO failed to give her audience for two weeks, although she was honouring an invitation to report at the EOCO.

Last Tuesday, led by her lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, to justify why the $391,250 which was withdrawn from her company’s account be returned, she indicated how she had to use influential people to gain audience with the EOCO.

According to the witness, the Deputy Director of EOCO informed her and her Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr Bola J. Olorunsaiye, that the company had committed serious crimes but never specified the type of crime.

Background

Auxesia Energy Limited, Soleushing Nigeria and Soleushing UK are laying claim to the $391,250. Soleushing Nigeria is arguing that its vessel was used by Auxesia Energy Limited’s client, Earth Petroleum to cart Low Pour Fuel Oil (LPFO) from Nigeria to Ghana. Based on that, the company is demanding that the money must be paid to it.

But Soleushing UK is insisting the vessel does not belong to Soleushing Nigeria. It has even gone ahead to accuse Soleushing Nigeria of stealing the vessel.

Auxesia Energy Limited, on the other hand, is arguing that it did not transact business with the two companies, and is, therefore, praying the court to order the return of the money into its account.

Existence of EOCO 

Mrs Odulu told the court that she got to know the existence of the EOCO for the first time in June 2013 when she went to withdraw money from the company’s account at the UT Bank only to be told that the account had been frozen by the EOCO.

As part of her company’s resolve to find out why the account was frozen, Mrs Odulu said her company wrote to the UT Bank and a company by name Lushann International Energy Limited to arrange a meeting with EOCO to demand why the account was frozen.

Mrs Odulu said her company finally had audience with EOCO after several previous attempts had yielded no results.

At the said meeting, the witness said she was made to explain how Auxesia Energy Limited came across Earth Petroleum.

She said she explained how her company and Earth Petroleum signed a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with Earth Petroleum for the supply of 16,676 metric tonnes of LPFO.

In the said agreement, Chief Christopher Isiboi, signed on behalf of Earth Petroleum, while the CEO of Auxesia Energy Limited, Mr Bola J. Olorunsaiye, initialled on behalf of Auxesia Energy Limited.

Soleushing not party to agreement

Asked if Soleushing Nigeria and Soleushing UK were parties to the SPA, Mrs Odulu answered in the negative and explained that Earth Petroleum was to supply the LPFO, as well as pay for the charter of the vessel, which was billed to discharge the LPFO at Saltpond.

“Funny events”

Describing the events that occurred after the arrival of the LPFO as “funny,” Mrs Odulu told the court that Earth Petroleum had challenges with the crew members, who demanded payment before the discharge of the product.

She said Chief Isiboi informed her that the crew members were agitating that they had not been paid salaries for six months and, therefore, pleaded with her company to make a financial commitment to meet the demands of the crew members.

Following from that, Mrs Odulu said she got in touch with UT Bank which agreed to allow her to issue a $391,250 cheque in favour of Earth Petroleum. She further explained that Auxesia Energy Limited had made previous payments to Earth Petroleum.

EOCO not party to suit

Earlier, an investigator with the EOCO, Mr Patrick Kofi Awoonor, told the court during cross examination that he was not aware that there was a suit pending at the Commercial Court over the ownership of the vessel that transported the LPFO.

Asked by Mr Dubik Yakubu Mahama, counsel for Soleushing UK, if his outfit liaised with the Cape Coast Police to investigate a report over the alleged stealing of the vessel by Soleushing Nigeria, Mr Awoonor replied in the negative.

The investigator said his outfit had not liaised with the Nigerian Maritime Authority over the alleged misconduct of the vessel that carted the LPFO.

Mr Awoonor said he did not investigate the origin of the vessel, although it was claimed to have come from Nigeria.

I lost GH¢54m for renegotiating judgement — Woyome

19 June 2014 page 20

Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome yesterday stated that he lost GH¢54 million as a result of renegotiating a default judgement awarded him by the Commercial Court against the state.

According to him, the court originally awarded him GH¢105 million, being four per cent of a 1.1 billion Euro facility he raised from Banc Austria, but the money was reduced to GH¢51.2 million because the state said it was not in the position to pay the four per cent.

The accused person said following the renegotiation of the amount, he and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, signed an agreement to that effect.

He said the terms of settlement was filed at the registry of the Commercial Court and just when he and his lawyer were about to move in for its execution, the Attorney-General filed a process at the same court with the explanation that “everything to that stage was arrived at by mistake.”

Terming the Attorney-General’s position then as “strange and in bad faith,” Woyome said he and his lawyers decided to contest the state’s claim.

“Ruling delivered in my favour”

He said the court ruled  in his favour and it was later agreed that a timetable be drawn for the money to be paid in tranches.

According to him, the state was already out of time in honouring the payment of GH¢17 million, the amount for the first tranche.

The court, the accused person explained, also directed him to put in a guarantee which stated that he would refund the money if he lost the state’s contest to his default judgement.

Asked by his counsel, Mr Sarfo Buabeng, why he received the rest of the money despite the court’s order, Woyome explained that interest was accruing as the case between him and the state progressed, and for that reason, a pre-trial conference was held at the Commercial Court to resolve that.

Woyome told the court that the government, represented by the Attorney-General, voluntarily asked him and his lawyer to submit a proposal on how the remaining   amount would be paid. He said the government eventually paid the full amount into his account at the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB). 

He also informed the court that the state did not put in any defence to his suit at the Commercial Court, adding that it eventually led to the award of a default judgment in his favour.

Money not enough

Woyome indicated that the GH¢51.2 million was not enough to cater for loans he raised from local banks as well as payments he made to consultants in the United States of America (USA) but he, nonetheless, accepted it.

Testifying in his GH¢51.2 million criminal case, the accused person said he lost a property in Washington DC as a result of the reduction of the amount due him and he struggled to pay off local banks he had contracted loans from while arranging syndication of loans for the construction of stadia, hospitals and other facilities for the CAN 2008 tournament.

Obstacles

The accused person told the court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, that there were attempts to pay him but the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) tried to block the payment but the Attorney-General then wrote to the MOFEP to defend the payment.

He also narrated how Mrs Mould-Iddrisu asked him to write a justification letter within 48 hours to explain why he was entitled to the claim, with the explanation that a committee had been set up at the seat of the presidency to investigate his claim.

He said he sought audience with late President J.E.A. Mills but did not give details and further disclosed that he met the then Deputy Chief of Staff, Mr Alex Segbefia, over the issue.

According to him, Mr Segbefia requested copies of documents, which he provided and that resulted in Mr Segbefia asking he and his lawyer to go back and negotiate the default judgement with the Attorney-General.

He told the court that he eventually negotiated with the government, resulting in the release of the entire GH¢51.2 million to him.

See more on here

Court to rule on mandatory takeover of HFC June 23

June 17 page 20

The Commercial Court in Accra will, on June 23, 2014, determine whether or not to set aside a suit challenging the mandatory takeover of HFC Bank’s shares by the Republic Bank.

An application filed by Mr Fui Tsikata, lawyer for the Republic Bank, is praying the court to set aside the writ of summons brought against Republic Bank and the Securities and Exhcnages Commission (SEC).
It is also praying the court to dismiss the entire action on the grounds that it is without merit and shows no cause of action.
But lawyers for HFC Bank, led by Nania Owusu-Ankomah, are opposed to the application and praying the court to entertain the writ on the grounds that it has merit.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice George K. Koomson, at its sitting in Accra yesterday, directed parties to file written submissions to enable the court to rule on the matter on June 23, 2014.

Timeline for parties
The Republic Bank and the SEC have been given 24 hours to file their submissions, while HFC Bank has 24 hours to respond upon receipt of the filed submissions.

Background
The Republic Bank filed the action on the grounds that the Securities Industry Law 1993 (PNDCL 333) provides explicitly for the matters complained of by HFC to be submitted to the SEC before redress can be sought in court.
According to the Republic Bank, it was improper for the HFC to resort to the court when it had, indeed, failed to report alleged breach of Securities Industry Law to the SEC as was required by law.
The applicant is further arguing that the HFC Bank took the legal action without authorisation from the board of directors of HFC Bank.

Abuse of process
According to the bank, HFC’s action was vexatious and an abuse of the court process because the board of directors of HFC Bank approved the transaction eight months ago.
It said the transaction, which formed the core issue before the court,  had been resolved by the board of directors of HFC Bank and for that reason HFC Bank had no leg to stand on.

Background
The HFC Bank, on May 23, 2014, instituted legal action against the Republic Bank and the SEC.
According to the bank, there was a transaction involving the purchase of HFC shares held by the Union Bank of Nigeria from the Republic Bank, which according to HFC, was in breach of SEC Law.
According to the HFC Bank, the Union Bank of Nigeria sold its shares to the Republic Bank in breach of the SEC Law.
But the Republic Bank is arguing that that transaction had received approval from the board of directors of HFC Bank.

Click HERE for more stories on the HFC takeover issue