‘ITLOS decision on Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire maritime dispute is victory for both countries’

Armah-Kofi Buah, Minister of Petroleum

 

Two ministers of state have described the decision by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to allow production of oil to take place on a maritime boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire as victory for both countries.

The Minister of Energy and Petroleum, Mr Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, have also hailed Saturday’s ruling as victory for international diplomacy, respect for the rule of law and a boost for investor confidence in Ghana.
Mr Buah and Mrs Marietta Appiah-Opong, in separate interviews with the Daily Graphic in Hamburg last Saturday, stressed that the ruling had also averted huge global financial catastrophe in the oil and gas industry.
They both expressed joy that the exploration and exploitation works on drilled wells for the Tweneboah-Enyenra-Ntoumme (TEN) project, being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners, could proceed without any restrictions.

ITLOS’s Decision

The tribunal on Saturday, April 25, 2015, gave Ghana the nod to continue oil production activities at a disputed maritime boundary area between it and Cote d’Ivoire.
It, however, ordered Ghana not to start any new offshore drilling for oil in the disputed waters until the substantive matter is resolved.
These were contained in a unanimous decision by the tribunal, following Cote d’Ivoire’s call for the suspension of activities on the disputed maritime boundary until the final determination of their disagreement over the boundary.
Ghana and its partners would have lost more than $4.7 billion from April 25, 2015 till 2018 when the matter would be settled if the tribunal had heeded Cote d’Ivoire’s call for a suspension of oil exploration activities.
Another key issue raised by both ministers was that although the tribunal directed that new wells should not be drilled in the disputed area, exploration and exploitation works being conducted by other oil companies had not been affected in any way because they were not operating in the disputed area.
“Work on the TEN project has progressed by more than 50 per cent, with enough drilled wells for production,” Mr Buah said.

Mr Buah

“This decision has really given our upstream industry a big boost and renewed investor confidence in our basins and Ghana’s basic objective is to become the oil hub in Africa. It is decisive enough to tell investors we can go on.
“Some companies were holding on and now that this decision has lifted the dark clouds, we hope reluctant companies will now show more interest in Ghana’s oil and gas industry,” he added.
He said Ghana would have lost $2.7 billion in deferred revenue from December 2016 to February 2018 when judgement would be delivered.
Future
Justifying why both countries had a future tied together, Mr Buah said: “Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire work together on energy challenges and we have major agreements on the exchange of electricity, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to work on a West African gas company and we have to focus on strengthening those agreements to address the issue of access to cheaper energy source.
“As we speak, we exchange power with Cote d’Ivoire on a daily basis, our transmission grids are linked. We have a future potential to extend the West African Gas Pipeline beyond Ghana to Cote d’Ivoire.”
Mrs Brew Appiah-Opong
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice said the outcome of the application was extremely important to Ghana because what it sought to do was to stop the country’s oil companies, in particular Tullow Oil Plc and its partners, from working in the area.
“What it means is that all our oil companies can continue to operate without fear that their activities will be stopped during the course of this court action.
“We put in a good fight. Every single member of the team worked hard from all relevant agencies and each needs to be proud for a good work done,” Mrs  Appiah-Opong said.
The team’s main focus now, she said, was to start preparing for the main case, which will be heard in 2017.
“The other focus is we must endeavour to strengthen our relationship with Cote d’Ivoire and we will continue to co-operate with them in the energy sector as we have always done,” she added.
Background
Ghana went to the ITLOS in September 2014 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters.
Cote d’Ivoire, in February 2015, filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the definitive determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.”
The case was filed by Ghana after 10 failed attempts at negotiation and Cote d’Ivoire’s issuance of threatening letters to oil companies operating in the disputed area.

Maritime boundary dispute: Special Chamber prescribes provisional measures

The Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) formed to deal with the dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean last Saturday delivered its Order on a Request for provisional measures filed by Côte d’Ivoire.

Judge Boualem Bouguetaia, President of the Special Chamber, read the Order at a public sitting of the Chamber.

The dispute was submitted, by way of special agreement concluded between the two sates concerned on December 3 2014, to a special chamber formed in application of Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. The case was entered as No. 23 in the List of cases of the Tribunal.

Submission of request

The Request for provisional measures was submitted to the Special Chamber by Côte d’Ivoire on February  27 2015. At the public hearing held on March 29 and 30 2015,  Côte d’Ivoire requested the Special Chamber to prescribe provisional measures requiring: 

• Take all steps to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area. 

• Refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.

• Take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire; and, generally, 

• Take all necessary steps to preserve the continental shelf, its superjacent waters and its subsoil; and desist and refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.

At the same public hearing, Ghana requested the Special Chamber to deny all of Côte d’Ivoire’s requests for provisional measures.

Special Chamber’s Order

In its Order of April 25 2015, having found that it has prima facie jurisdiction over the dispute, the Special Chamber notes that the power to prescribe provisional measures under Article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention has as its object the preservation of the ITLOS/Press 229 April 25 2015 respective rights of the parties to the dispute or the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment pending the final decision (paragraph 39). 

It considers, however, that it may not prescribe provisional measures unless it finds that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights of the parties in dispute (paragraph 41). Concerning the rights which Côte d’Ivoire claims on the merits and seeks to protect, the Chamber states that, before prescribing provisional measures, it needs only to satisfy itself that these rights are at least plausible (paragraph 58) and finds that Côte d’Ivoire has presented enough material to show that the rights it seeks to protect in the disputed area are plausible (paragraph 62).

Insufficient Ivorian evidence

In relation to Côte d’Ivoire’s request for provisional measures to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, the Chamber finds that Côte d’Ivoire has not adduced sufficient evidence to support its allegations that the activities conducted by Ghana in the disputed area are such as to create an imminent risk of serious harm to the marine environment (paragraph 67). The Special Chamber underlines, however, that the risk of serious harm to the marine environment is of great concern to it (paragraph 68) and that the Parties should in the circumstances “act with prudence and caution to prevent serious harm to the marine environment” (paragraph 72).

The Special Chamber also considers that there is a risk of irreparable prejudice where, in particular, activities result in significant and permanent modification of the physical character of the area in dispute and where such modification cannot be fully compensated by financial reparations (paragraph 89) and that whatever its nature, any compensation awarded would never be able to restore the status quo ante in respect of the seabed and subsoil (paragraph 90).

This situation may affect Côte d’Ivoire rights in an irreversible manner if the Special Chamber were to find in its decision on the merits that all or any part of the area in dispute belongs to Côte d’Ivoire (paragraph 91). The Chamber therefore considers that the exploration and exploitation activities, as planned by Ghana, may cause irreparable prejudice to the sovereign and exclusive rights invoked by Côte d’Ivoire in the continental shelf and superjacent waters of the disputed area, before a decision on the merits is given by the Special Chamber, and that the risk of such prejudice is imminent (paragraph 96).

The Special Chamber further notes that, in accordance with article 89, paragraph 5, of the Rules, it may prescribe measures different in whole or in part from those requested (paragraph 97).

In the view of the Special Chamber, the suspension of ongoing activities conducted by Ghana in respect of which drilling has already taken place would entail the risk of considerable financial loss to Ghana and its concessionaires and could also pose a serious danger to the marine environment resulting, in particular, from the deterioration of equipment (paragraph 99). It therefore considers that an order suspending all exploration or exploitation activities conducted by or on behalf of Ghana in the disputed area, including activities in respect of which drilling has already taken place, would cause prejudice to the rights claimed by Ghana and create an undue burden on it and that such an order could also cause harm to the marine environment (paragraphs 100 and 101).

No new drilling

The Special Chamber considers it appropriate, in order to preserve the rights of Côte d’Ivoire, to order Ghana to take all the necessary steps to ensure that no new drilling either by Ghana or under its control takes place in the disputed area (paragraph 102).

Pursuant to article 95, paragraph 1, of the Rules, the Special Chamber requests each Party to submit a report and information on compliance with the provisional measures prescribed not later than 25 May 2015.

Provisions of Order

The operative provisions of the Order of 25 April 2015 read as follows:

“THE SPECIAL CHAMBER, (1) Unanimously, prescribes, pending the final decision, the following provisional measures under article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention:

(a) Ghana shall take all necessary steps to ensure that no new drilling either by Ghana or under its control takes place in the disputed area ...;

(b) Ghana shall take all necessary steps to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area that is not already in the public domain from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire;

(c) Ghana shall carry out strict and continuous monitoring of all activities undertaken by Ghana or with its authorization in the disputed area with a view to ensuring the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment;

(d) The Parties shall take all necessary steps to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, including the continental shelf and its superjacent waters, in the disputed area and shall cooperate to that end;

(e) The Parties shall pursue cooperation and refrain from any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.

(2) Unanimously,

Decides that Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire shall each submit to the Special Chamber the initial report referred to in paragraph 105 not later than 25 May 2015, and authorizes the President of the Special Chamber, after that date, to request such information from the Parties as he may consider appropriate after that date.

(3) Unanimously, Decides that each Party shall bear its own costs.”

Judge ad hoc Mensah appends a separate opinion to the Order of the Special Chamber.

Tribunal gives Ghana the nod to continue oil production: TEN Project to go on (UPDATED)

Ghana has been given the nod to continue oil production activities at a disputed maritime boundary area between it and Cote d’Ivoire.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), in unanimously dismissing Cote d’Ivoire’s call for the suspension of activities on the disputed maritime boundary until the final determination of their disagreement over the boundary – held that work can go on uninterrupted.
The tribunal, however, ordered Ghana not to start new drilling activity on the disputed area until the matter is resolved.
In effect, exploration and exploitation works on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project, being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners, can proceed unabated, reports Graphiconline’s court correspondent, Mabel Aku Baneseh from Hamburg, Germany.
“In the view of the Special Chamber, the suspension of ongoing activities conducted by Ghana in respect of which drilling has already taken place would entail the risk of considerable financial loss to Ghana, and its concessioners and could also pose a serious danger to the marine environment resulting, in particular, from the deterioration of equipment."
It, therefore, considers that an order suspending all exploration or exploitation activities conducted by or on behalf of Ghana in the disputed area, including activities in respect of which drilling has already taken place, would cause prejudice to the rights claimed by Ghana and create an undue burden on it, and that such an order could also cause harm to the marine environment.
The Special Chamber considers it appropriate, in order to preserve the rights of Côte d’Ivoire, to order Ghana to take all the necessary steps to ensure that no new drilling either by Ghana or under its control takes place in the disputed area.
Pursuant to article 95, paragraph 1, of the Rules, the Special Chamber requests each Party to submit a report and information on compliance with the provisional measures prescribed not later than 25 May 2015,” the order affirmed.
Ghana and its partners would have lost $4.7 billion from April 25, 2015 till 2018, when the matter would be settled, if the tribunal had ordered for a suspension of oil exploration activities.
Additional orders
The tribunal further ordered “Ghana shall take all necessary steps to ensure that no new drilling either by Ghana or under its control takes place in the disputed area as defined in paragraph 60;
Ghana shall take all necessary steps to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorization, in the disputed area that is not already in the public domain from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire;
Ghana shall carry out strict and continuous monitoring of all activities undertaken by Ghana or with its authorization in the disputed area with a view to ensuring the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment;The Parties shall take all necessary steps to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, including the continental shelf and its superjacent waters, in the disputed area and shall cooperate to that end;
The Parties shall pursue cooperation and refrain from any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.”Both countries are expected to submit to the Special Chamber, the initial report referred on the compliance of the tribunal’s order not later than May 25, 2015.On the issue of cost, the tribunal “unanimously 
decided that each Party shall bear its own costs.”
Judge Boualem Bouguetaia, presided with Judges Rudiger Wolfrum; Jin-Hyun Paik; Thomas Mensah and Ronny Abraham as the panel members. Judges Mensah and Abraham were appointed by Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire respectively, in accordance with the rules of the ITLOS.
Judge Mensah’s Opinion
I have some doubts about the claim of Cȏte d’Ivoire to the maritime areas in dispute. In particular, I do not think that this claim has serious prospects of success on the merits. However, I agree with the finding of the Chamber that the claim is plausible.
This is because I accept that the test of “plausibility” is the only test that is applicable at this stage of the proceedings when the Special Chamber is not dealing with the merits of the case.
I also agree with the finding that, if the Special Chamber finds that any part of the disputed area pertains to Cote d’Ivoire,the activities being undertaken by Ghana in the area would pose a risk of prejudice to the rights that Cȏte d’Ivoire claims and the risk is imminent.
Consequently, I agree that the ordering of some provisional measures to protect the rights which Cȏte d’Ivoire claims in the area is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
However, I do not think that the first provisional measure requested by Cote d’Ivoire should be granted.
Cȏte d’Ivoire requests the Chamber to order Ghana “to take all steps to “suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area”.
I do not consider that such an order would be appropriate in this case
Article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention gives power to the Special Chamber (and to other competent courts and tribunals) to prescribe provisional measures that “it considers [to be] appropriate under the circumstances to preserve the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, pending the final decision”. As has repeatedly been underlined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and by other international courts and tribunals which have been called upon to pronounce on the matter, provisional measures have as their object “preservation of the respective rights of the parties in the case pending the final decision on the merits.”
In its Order of 15 March 1996 in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria the International Court of Justice explained: “it follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures “the rights which may subsequently be adjudged to belong to either party”.
This means that provisional measures ordered by the Special Chamber should have as their object, preservation of the rights not only of the party which requests the measures, but also the rights of the other Party in the dispute.
In other words, the measures prescribed by the Chamber should be such that they protect the rights that may subsequently be adjudged to“ belong either to the Applicant or to the Respondent ” (Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 21, para. 35.
When a court or tribunal considers a request for the prescription of provisional measures, it is necessarily faced with different rights or claimed rights, that is to say, the rights claimed by the opposing parties in the case.
In most cases, these rights are in conflict. In such a situation, the court or tribunal is obliged to weigh the different rights of the parties against each other.
Ghana has cogently argued that the activities of exploration and exploitation that it has undertaken or authorised in the disputed area“ are not new.”
Its argument is that, in line with a Decree by then President of Cȏte d’Ivoire, Ghana has for a very long time (“more than four decades”) regarded the equidistance line as the border between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire.
Ghana states that it has treated this line as the“international border”in every concession agreement; in every one of the seismic and other exploratory activity; in all the drilling and development activities and in all its communications with
Cote d”Ivoire and third parties ever since. Ghana denies that it has acted imprudently or illegitimately in authorising activities in the disputed area and claims that Cote d’Ivoire had been fully aware of these activities and has in fact facilitated some of them
In any case, Ghana claims that Cote d”Ivoire has not objected any of these activities until the present case was submitted to arbitration.
Hence, according to Ghana Cote d”Ivoire cannot now be permitted to object to any of these activities.
Ghana also submits that the provisional measures requested Cote d”Ivoire especially an order to Ghana to cease all exploration and exploitation activities in the disputed area would deliver a crippling blow to Ghana’s petroleum industry, cause major dislocations and set back economic development for many years.”
Official reaction from Ghana
An official statement issued by Ghana’s team in Hamburg on behalf of the government of Ghana said “Ghana welcomes the order adopted by the Special Chamber of ITLOS this afternoon.
It carefully balances and protects the rights of both countries.
Ghana will be able to continue to engage in offshore exploration and, if it wishes grant new concessions.
More significantly, Ghana will be able to continue to exploit all wells that have been drilled.
This means that exploitation of the TEN field will be able to proceed in accordance with the schedule.
This should also provide ample reassurance to all Ghana’s investors that their rights and interests have been fully protected.”
Excitement
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong and the Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Emmanuel Armah-Buah, Ghana’s lead international lawyer, Professor Philippe Sands, Ghana’s Ambassador to Germany, Ms Akua Sena Dansua and Mr Fui Tsikata, Ghana’s local lawyer, Mr Kwame Mfodwo, Co-ordinator of the Ghana Maritime Commission and Mr Paul Riechler an international lawyer, were all elated by the decision. Representatives of Tullow Oil Plc were also ecstatic with the turn of events.
Officials from Cote d’Ivoire declined to comment on the tribunal’s order but took group photographs with Ghana’s team.
Background
Cote d’Ivoire in February 2015 filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the definitive determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.”
The dispute has been listed as “Case 23,” by ITLOS.
Legal and technical representatives from both countries legally clashed on March 29 and 30, 2015 at ITLOS’s Special Chamber in Hamburg, Germany on Cote d’Ivoire’s call for activities to stop on the disputed area until the substantive case is settled in 2018.
Effect of the Order
Saturday's decision is preliminary but it has the potential to boost the shares of Tullow Oil and its partners on the stock market.
Billions of dollars is at stake and a shift from the status quo would have had frightful consequences for Ghana, shareholders and Ghana’s quest to woo more investors in the oil and gas industry.
Work on the field would have grinded to a halt - tools would have decayed - a new $ 900 million plus Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel which is being built in Singapore would have been idle if the ruling had gone in favour of Cote d’Ivoire.
In short, Ghana would have lost out in revenue, not to talk of the financial crisis that would have hit Tullow Oil Plc, its partners, insurers, bankers and shareholders on the stock market.
These and other reasons were inclusive of why Ghana saw Cote d’Ivoire’s claims and request as out of place, pointless and not founded on law and international norm.
Ghana’s views were articulated through Mrs Appiah-Opong, a team of local and international lawyers and experts. It held the view Cote d’Ivoire had nothing to lose because it (Cote d’Ivoire) has invested nothing into the disputed area.
Cote d’Ivoire’s request
A written request from Cote d’Ivoire, signed by its
 Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, had prayed the tribunal to halt all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.
It also wanted the tribunal to refrain Ghana from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area
Another prayer from Cote d’Ivoire was an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorization, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire.”
Ghana’s neigbour further urged the tribunal to direct Ghana to desist from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.
Ghana opposed
Praying the tribunal to reject Cote d’Ivoire’s request, Ghana, condemned its neighbour for departing from the law, making baseless accusations, being inconsistent and failing to produce witnesses and expert evidence.
Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its lack of consistency and merit in filing for preliminary measure adding that the absence of credible data and evidence from Cote d’Ivoire, according to Ghana, was due to Cote d’Ivoire’s handicap in producing factual documents to back its case.
According to Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire failed to challenge the evidence of its technical witnesses which, according to Ghana, summed up to fragment Cote d’Ivoire’s case.
“We invite you to firmly decline the application before you,” Mrs Appiah-Opong noted and further held that Cote d’Ivoire had failed to prove Ghana had encroached on its territorial waters to warrant the stoppage of activities including the exploration of oil at the disputed area until the final determination of the dispute.
“There is no justification in law, logic, fairness or on the evidence for the measures sought. They would be unprecedented, an invasion of sovereign rights that stand in the face of representations made by Cote d’Ivoire for more than four decades, on which others and we have relied on,” Mrs Appiah-Opong stressed.
“Until Ghana was well advanced with its oil exploration programme on its side of the boundary there were no difficulties. At the time when Cote d’Ivoire had much more oil and gas production than Ghana, there were no claims about moving the maritime boundary.
In 2009 Cote d’Ivoire started to make representations to Ghana about their desire to alter the boundary. Yet its public position did not change. None of its inconsistent positions has any proper justification in law,” Mrs Appiah-Opong added.
Ghana’s argument was eventually accepted by the tribunal.
After 10 failed negotiations, Ghana went to ITLOS under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in September 2014 seeking a declaration that it has not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS

Dr. Kpessa Whyte - Ag. NSS Boss

The Attorney-General’s Department has contracted international audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a forensic audit into the accounts of the National Service Scheme (NSS).

The audit takes effect from September 2013 to August 2014 – the period when more than GH¢80 million was paid to 30,816 non-existent national service persons.
More than 100 NSS directors in the national, regional and district offices of the scheme have been implicated in the scandal.
Explaining the rationale behind the decision, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong told the Daily Graphic in an interview in Accra that “the figures involved are huge and it is important we conduct a forensic audit to arrive at the actual embezzled figure.”
PwC began its work a week ago and it is expected to furnish the Attorney-General’s Department with the final report within a month.
Mrs Appiah-Opong declined to state the specific terms of reference to PwC, but said “the BNI is collaborating with PricewaterhouseCoopers to enable the audit firm to conduct a comprehensive audit into how the accounts of the NSS was handled during the period under review.”

Benefits 

Highlighting the need for the forensic audit, Mrs Appiah-Opong said accounting was an integral part of litigation and investigation.
She said the audit would make it possible for the damage sustained by the state in the fraud to be quantified and urged Ghanaians to appreciate her office’s resolve to protect the state’s coffers.

Backdrop

The Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) made a major breakthrough in October 2014, when it unearthed a multi-million cedi fraud in the distribution of national service persons across the country.
That discovery resulted in the arrest, detention and interrogation of more than 100 officials from the NSS.
Another feat chalked up by the Bureau was the recovery GH¢30 million from the stolen funds.
The BNI late last year succeeded in striking a deal with suspects who embezzled various sums of money to refund the said amounts.
So far, 171 individuals, including the former Executive Director of the NSS, Alhaji Imoro Alhassan, have been implicated in the scandal.
He was listed among 23 individuals who paid a total of GH¢200,000 bribe to the BNI to halt the investigations.
He was alleged to have paid GH¢100,000 out of the total amount.
The next highest amount of bribe paid to BNI officials was GH¢26,000.
According to the BNI, some of the implicated directors have entered into an agreement with the BNI and are currently refunding the money.
Materials gathered by the Daily Graphic, which first broke the scandal in October last year, indicated that the fraud was perpetuated through mandatory,  voluntary and overpayment of returns.
The breakdown showed that 29,358 ghost names were generated for the mandatory scheme, while 853 and 605 names were generated for the voluntary and overpayment returns respectively.

NSS boss charged

Alhaji Alhassan is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the High Court presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa and has pleaded not guilty the charge of stealing GH¢86.9 million.
He has been granted a GH¢90 million, with three sureties, all to be justified, with property valued at more than one million Ghana cedis and is to reappear on May 27, 2015.

PricewaterhouseCoopers audits NSS accounts

The Attorney-General’s Department has contracted international audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a forensic audit into the accounts of the National Service Scheme (NSS).

The audit takes effect from September 2013 to August 2014 – the period when more than GH¢80 million was paid to 30,816 non-existent national service persons.
More than 100 NSS directors in the national, regional and district offices of the scheme have been implicated in the scandal.
Explaining the rationale behind the decision, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong told the Daily Graphic in an interview in Accra that “the figures involved are huge and it is important we conduct a forensic audit to arrive at the actual embezzled figure.”
PwC began its work a week ago and it is expected to furnish the Attorney-General’s Department with the final report within a month.
Mrs Appiah-Opong declined to state the specific terms of reference to PwC, but said “the BNI is collaborating with PricewaterhouseCoopers to enable the audit firm to conduct a comprehensive audit into how the accounts of the NSS was handled during the period under review.”

Benefits 

Highlighting the need for the forensic audit, Mrs Appiah-Opong said accounting was an integral part of litigation and investigation.
She said the audit would make it possible for the damage sustained by the state in the fraud to be quantified and urged Ghanaians to appreciate her office’s resolve to protect the state’s coffers.

Backdrop

The Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) made a major breakthrough in October 2014, when it unearthed a multi-million cedi fraud in the distribution of national service persons across the country.
That discovery resulted in the arrest, detention and interrogation of more than 100 officials from the NSS.
Another feat chalked up by the Bureau was the recovery GH¢30 million from the stolen funds.
The BNI late last year succeeded in striking a deal with suspects who embezzled various sums of money to refund the said amounts.
So far, 171 individuals, including the former Executive Director of the NSS, Alhaji Imoro Alhassan, have been implicated in the scandal.
He was listed among 23 individuals who paid a total of GH¢200,000 bribe to the BNI to halt the investigations.
He was alleged to have paid GH¢100,000 out of the total amount.
The next highest amount of bribe paid to BNI officials was GH¢26,000.
According to the BNI, some of the implicated directors have entered into an agreement with the BNI and are currently refunding the money.
Materials gathered by the Daily Graphic, which first broke the scandal in October last year, indicated that the fraud was perpetuated through mandatory,  voluntary and overpayment of returns.
The breakdown showed that 29,358 ghost names were generated for the mandatory scheme, while 853 and 605 names were generated for the voluntary and overpayment returns respectively.

NSS boss charged

Alhaji Alhassan is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the High Court presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa and has pleaded not guilty the charge of stealing GH¢86.9 million.
He has been granted a GH¢90 million, with three sureties, all to be justified, with property valued at more than one million Ghana cedis and is to reappear on May 27, 2015.

Dr. Kpessa Whyte - Ag. NSS Boss

The Attorney-General’s Department has contracted international audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a forensic audit into the accounts of the National Service Scheme (NSS).

The audit takes effect from September 2013 to August 2014 – the period when more than GH¢80 million was paid to 30,816 non-existent national service persons.
More than 100 NSS directors in the national, regional and district offices of the scheme have been implicated in the scandal.
Explaining the rationale behind the decision, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong told the Daily Graphic in an interview in Accra that “the figures involved are huge and it is important we conduct a forensic audit to arrive at the actual embezzled figure.”
PwC began its work a week ago and it is expected to furnish the Attorney-General’s Department with the final report within a month.
Mrs Appiah-Opong declined to state the specific terms of reference to PwC, but said “the BNI is collaborating with PricewaterhouseCoopers to enable the audit firm to conduct a comprehensive audit into how the accounts of the NSS was handled during the period under review.”

Benefits 

Highlighting the need for the forensic audit, Mrs Appiah-Opong said accounting was an integral part of litigation and investigation.
She said the audit would make it possible for the damage sustained by the state in the fraud to be quantified and urged Ghanaians to appreciate her office’s resolve to protect the state’s coffers.

Backdrop

The Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) made a major breakthrough in October 2014, when it unearthed a multi-million cedi fraud in the distribution of national service persons across the country.
That discovery resulted in the arrest, detention and interrogation of more than 100 officials from the NSS.
Another feat chalked up by the Bureau was the recovery GH¢30 million from the stolen funds.
The BNI late last year succeeded in striking a deal with suspects who embezzled various sums of money to refund the said amounts.
So far, 171 individuals, including the former Executive Director of the NSS, Alhaji Imoro Alhassan, have been implicated in the scandal.
He was listed among 23 individuals who paid a total of GH¢200,000 bribe to the BNI to halt the investigations.
He was alleged to have paid GH¢100,000 out of the total amount.
The next highest amount of bribe paid to BNI officials was GH¢26,000.
According to the BNI, some of the implicated directors have entered into an agreement with the BNI and are currently refunding the money.
Materials gathered by the Daily Graphic, which first broke the scandal in October last year, indicated that the fraud was perpetuated through mandatory,  voluntary and overpayment of returns.
The breakdown showed that 29,358 ghost names were generated for the mandatory scheme, while 853 and 605 names were generated for the voluntary and overpayment returns respectively.

NSS boss charged

Alhaji Alhassan is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the High Court presided over by Mrs Georgina Mensah-Datsa and has pleaded not guilty the charge of stealing GH¢86.9 million.
He has been granted a GH¢90 million, with three sureties, all to be justified, with property valued at more than one million Ghana cedis and is to reappear on May 27, 2015.

Ruling on Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire maritime boundary dispute Saturday

Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong

The Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS) will on Saturday, April 25, 2015, deliver its ruling in the dispute between Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana over their disputed maritime boundary.

The date was confirmed in a press release issued on the website of ITLOS last Tuesday. 

Cote d’Ivoire has called for the cessation of all activities, including oil exploration on the disputed maritime boundary, untll the hearing of the substantive case, which is set to be settled in 2018.

Legal and technical representatives from both countries battled it out at ITLOS’s Special Chamber in Hamburg, Germany, on March 29 and 30, 2015.

Oil battle

The conflict began from boardrooms via threatening letters to oil companies to stop operating, but Ghana took the bull by the horn in September, 2014 when it dragged Cote d’Ivoire to the ITLOS for final resolution of its neighbour’s claims over portions of Ghana’s oilfields and adjoining seabed.

After 10 failed attempts at negotiation between both countries, Ghana went to ITLOS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. 

Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS.

Cote d’Ivoire, in February 2015, filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the definitive determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.” 

Implications 

Ghana maintained that Cote d’Ivoire began issuing ominous letters to oil companies operating in the disputed area after millions of dollars had been invested to develop the affected oilfields. 

Exploration and exploitation work on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners would be gravely affected should the tribunal order for a suspension of all activities, it said.

Cote d’Ivoire’s request

A 27-page application from Cote d’Ivoire, signed by its Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, urged the tribunal to halt all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.

It also prayed the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.

Another prayer was an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire”.

It further asked the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.

Cote d’Ivoire argued that it would suffer severe and irreparable economic injury if its request was not granted by the tribunal.

Arguments at ITLOS

Cote d’Ivoire accused Ghana of attempting to prejudice the tribunal’s upcoming decision by going into the merit of the case with volumes of documents and witness statements, but Ghana faulted its neighbour for departing from the law, making baseless accusations, being inconsistent and failing to produce witnesses and expert evidence. 

Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its lack of consistency and merit in filing for preliminary measures.

The absence of credible data and evidence from Cote d’Ivoire, according to Ghana, was due to that country’s handicap in producing factual documents to back its case.

Ghana’s position

Ghana, which was led by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, also reminded the tribunal of Cote d’Ivoire’s failure to challenge the evidence of its technical witnesses which, according to it, summed up to shred Cote d’Ivoire’s case.

“We invite you to firmly decline the application before you,” Mrs Appiah-Opong said, with the argument that Cote d’Ivoire had failed to prove that Ghana had encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters to warrant the stoppage of activities, including the exploration of oil in the disputed area, until the final determination of the dispute.

“There is no justification in law, logic, fairness or on the evidence for the measures sought. They will be unprecedented, an invasion of sovereign rights that stand in the face of representations made by Cote d’Ivoire for more than four decades, on which others and we have relied,” she stressed.

Leading a team of local and international lawyers and technical staff from relevant agencies, Mrs Appiah-Opong told the ITLOS’s five-member panel that “until Ghana was well advanced with its oil exploration programme on its side of the boundary, there were no difficulties.

“ At the time when Cote d’Ivoire had much more oil and gas production than Ghana, there were no claims about moving the maritime boundary. 

“In 2009, Cote d’Ivoire started to make representations to Ghana about its desire to alter the boundary. Yet its public position did not change. None of its inconsistent positions has any proper justification in law,” she said.

Panel

The tribunal is presided over by Judge Boualem Bouguetaia, with Judge Rudiger Wolfrum, Judge Jin-Hyun Paik, Judge Thomas Mensah and Judge Ronny Abraham as members.

Judges Mensah and Abraham were appointed by Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, respectively, in accordance with the rules of the tribunal.

GYEEDA trial ends; Ruling on June 19

Philip Akpeena Assibit (left) and Abuga Pele

 

Hearing of the GH¢4.1 million Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency (GYEEDA) scandal has ended.

Following from that, the Financial Division of the High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe, will on June 19, 2015, deliver its ruling on whether to discharge the former National Co-ordinator of GYEEDA, Abuga Pele, and a private businessman, Philip Akpeena Assibit, or to open their defence in the case in which they have been accused of playing various roles leading to the state losing GH¢4.1 million.
Pele was alleged to have recommended payment of the said amount to Assibit, when  Assibit had not performed any work to merit payment.
A Chief State Attorney, Mrs Evelyn Keelson, announced the closure of the prosecution’s case after the lawyer for Pele, Mr Carl Adongo, finished cross-examining the investigator in the case.
The investigator, Mrs Diana Adu-Anane, began testifying on March 17, 2015.
The other prosecution witnesses were Alhaji Nuru Hamidan, formerly of GYEEDA, Mohammed Pelpuo also of GYEEDA, Ms Gladys Ghartey of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), Mr Clement Humado, a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Dr Sulley Ali Gariba of the Management Productivity and Development Institute (MDPI) and Mr Eric Sunu, an internal auditor.
Charges
The state has accused Assibit of putting in false claims that he had secured a $65-million World Bank funding for the creation of one million jobs for the youth, resulting in the government parting with GH¢4.1 million.
Pele is alleged to have acted in a manner resulting in the loss of the amount to the state.
Pele has pleaded not guilty to two counts of abetment of crime, intentionally misapplying public property, and five counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state.
Assibit has also pleaded not guilty to six counts of defrauding by false pretences and five counts of dishonestly causing loss to public property.
They are both on bail.
The investigator 
Answering questions under cross-examination from Mr Adongo, the investigator informed the court that investigations were ongoing into the rot and that dockets were handed over for prosecution as and when a phase had been completed.
She said Mr Humado approved payment to Assibit and MDPI based on recommendations from Pele.
Mrs Adu-Anane was emphatic no work was done to warrant such payment, adding that “their position that work had been done was false”.
According to the investigator, the only work that was done was the recruitment and training of 250 youth for which payment was effected.
Cabinet letter
On the claim of Assibit receiving payment for procuring a $65-million from the World Bank, the investigator denounced that notion on the grounds that investigations revealed otherwise.
Referring to a cabinet memo, which said the $65 million had been secured from the World Bank, counsel sought to suggest to the witness that the money had indeed been procured but Mrs Adu-Anane disagreed.
She insisted that the investigating team had an official correspondence from the World Bank after the team had made an enquiry.
She quoted the World Bank as saying Ghana was still at the preparatory stage of accessing the money and that it (World Bank) had not approved the release of funds.
The ruling on the submission of no case, which is yet to be filed by the defence team, has been fixed for June 19, 2015.
Mrs Justice Asare-Botwe was emphatic she would proceed to deliver her ruling even if the parties failed to file their submissions.

BNI picks up software developer for Legon election fraud

Officials of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) have picked up a 30-year-old man for allegedly manipulating computer software for conducting elections.

Stephen Forson, a software developer and manager of electronic voting on most campuses in parts of the country, was picked up last Tuesday after the BNI had received reports of the alleged manipulation.
Forson had conducted Students Representative Council (SRC) elections at the University of Ghana on April 9, 2015 before his arrest the following day.
A highly-placed BNI source told the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday that, “Following allegations of manipulations of the electronic voting system of the University of Ghana, Legon [used in] SRC elections held on April 9, 2015, the bureau requested evidence and retrieved six of the computers used as servers during the election.
“A careful scrutiny of the computers during preliminary investigations revealed that the electronic voting system was manipulated to favour a particular candidate,” the source said.
According to the investigators, the suspect initially denied the computers could be manipulated but “when investigators gave him one of the retrieved computers used during the voting exercise to demonstrate by adding five names to the voter register and voting for the two SRC presidential candidates, the results came out manipulated.
“Although the given new “voters” voted three for candidate A and two for candidate B, the results as declared by the electronic system gave candidate A one vote and candidate B four votes.”
Method of operation
Preliminary investigations revealed that the electronic voting system was tampered with to credit all votes with voter identities ending with even numbers to a particular candidate, while voter identities ending with odd numbers were equally shared based on the ballots cast.
The source denied media reports that Forson was arrested in the night and tortured by people from the Flagstaff House and later handed over to the BNI.
“He was picked up from his home and sent directly to the offices of the BNI where he is currently being kept,” the source said.
It said a thorough scrutiny of the retrieved computers was going on to unravel how the system was manipulated.
National issue
Asked why the BNI had had to investigate the issue, the source said, “The BNI is there for everyone, including students. If anyone feels cheated or defrauded in any manner and reports to the BNI, our duty is to investigate.
“In any case, this is a serious matter because it can assume national dimension one day, and it is, therefore, important the BNI looks into the method of operation and how to curb a future occurrence.
“We cannot sit aloof for such an incident to have a spill over effect. That would be dangerous for our democracy,“  the source said.
“We do not know who the contestants are. All we are interested in is whether or not fraud was perpetuated during the voting process,” it added.
The source said the docket on the case would be prepared after investigations and would be forwarded to the Attorney-General’s office for advice.

GH¢30m recovered from NSS directors implicated in multi-million-cedi fraud

Alhaji Imoro Alhassan

 

The Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) has so far recovered GH¢30 million from officials implicated in the multi-million-cedi fraud at the secretariat of the National Service Scheme (NSS).

The money, according to a highly placed BNI source, was retrieved from 150 regional and district directors of the NSS beginning from January this year.
So far, 171 individuals, including the former Executive Director of the scheme, Alhaji Imoro Alhassan, have been implicated in the scandal, which involves GH¢80.1 million.
Regional and district directors of the scheme have a total liability of GH¢49 million, while directors at the NSS headquarters are accountable for a refund of GH¢31.1 million.

Deal

Late last year, the BNI succeeded in striking a deal with the suspects who embezzled various sums of money to refund the  amounts invested.

Indictment

Alhaji Alhassan was listed among 23 individuals who paid a total of GH¢200,000 bribe to BNI officials to halt the investigations.
He was alleged to have paid GHc100,000 out of the amount, while the next highest amount of bribe paid to BNI officials was GH¢26,000.

Recovery

According to the source, some of the implicated directors had entered into an agreement with the BNI and were currently refunding the money, which was part of the amount paid to 30,816 non-existent national service persons from September 2013 to August 2014.
Information gathered by the Daily Graphic, which first broke the scandal in October last year, indicated that the fraud was perpetrated through mandatory, voluntary and overpayment of returns.
The breakdown showed that 29,358 ghost names were generated for the mandatory scheme, while 853 and 605 names were generated for the voluntary and overpayment returns respectively.
The source declined to disclose the names of the directors who were refunding the money, with the explanation that the bureau did not intend to contravene the agreement between it and the directors.
It explained that the BNI’s immediate concentration after completing the investigations was on retrieving all the stolen funds, adding, “We are still in the process of retrieving the money and that is our focus.”
Pleading with Ghanaians to have faith in the BNI to bring the case to its logical conclusion, the source said,  “The number of persons involved is big. We must, therefore, not be stampeded into hurriedly handing over the docket.”
“We wish to assure Ghanaians of the BNI’s resolve to work diligently to protect citizens, foreigners and the public purse at all material times,” it added.

NSS boss 

Alhaji Alhassan is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the High Court, where he has pleaded not guilty to the charge of stealing GH¢86.9 million.
He has been granted bail in the sum of GH¢90 million, with three sureties, all to be justified. He is to reappear in court on April 21, 2015.

Two sue Akufo-Addo over use of state vehicle

Nana Addo Danquah Akuffo Addo

Two individuals have dragged the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, to court for allegedly possessing a state vehicle for 20 months.

According to the plaintiffs, Messrs Alex Doe and George Spencer Quaye, the defendant acted in contravention of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana when he used the said vehicle for 20 months after leaving public office.
The suit comes barely a month after a pressure group, OccupyGhana, and one of its directors had sued a former Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei, for keeping a state vehicle months after leaving office.
The group and its director, Mr Sydney Casely-Hayford, are asking the court to order the former minister to pay GH¢355,812 as special damages for what they termed “illegal and wrongful” use of the vehicle for a period of 222 days.
But the writ of summons filed against Nana Akufo-Addo has not specified any amount.
It is, however, asking the High Court to declare that “the defendant, having resigned as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration in July 2007, ought to return the vehicle and not keep same for private use for close to 20 calendar months between July 2007 and January 8, 2009”.
Another relief being sought by the plaintiffs is a “declaration that the act of the defendant to keep the said vehicle for his private use was unacceptable of someone aspiring to be the President of the Republic of Ghana”.
The plaintiffs are also urging the court to direct the Auditor-General to compute the cost of usage of the said vehicle, a Toyota Land Cruiser with registration number GT 1983 X, for 20 months at the current rental rate in Ghana.
They are asking for a further order directed at the defendant to pay the computed sum with interest with effect from 2007 to the date of final payment.

Statement of claim

A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons, which was signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by BCMS Consulting, a law firm in Accra, stated, among other things, that the said vehicle was bought on April 1, 2006 and assigned to Nana Akufo-Addo.
It said the plaintiff, instead of returning the vehicle after resigning, decided to use it privately.
“Plaintiff says that this unacceptable behaviour and act of the defendant violates the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and also was an act or behaviour of a person unfit to contest and occupy any public office,” it pointed out.
It added that “the defendant’s act was a drain on the finances of the state” and thus he must be made to refund all losses incurred to the state.

Special Report: Ghana debunks Ivorian claims over ownership of oilfields

 

Both teams put up in the same hotel, had adjoining conference rooms but kept their doors shut from each other.

The only time they were spotted interacting was at the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Diplomacy was on display when it came to exchanging pleasantries but legal arguments from both sides clearly showed the seriousness they both attached to the matter.

It is the first maritime boundary dispute two West African countries at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
They have been neighbours since time immemorial and have lived in peaceful coexistence ever since. Language has been a major barrier between these two West African countries, but that did not in any way mar their diplomatic and business relations.
The issue that has now placed Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire on vertical lines is oil. Cote d’Ivoire claims it had since 1988 made its maritime boundary claims known to Ghana but Ghana insists Cote d’Ivoire, which began exploring for oil years before Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 – began sending threatening messages to oil companies recently.
Ghana accuses Cote d’Ivoire of not laying claim to any portion of Ghana’s oilfields until after Ghana had invested hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire data, explore and produce oil.
After 10 failed negotiations between both countries, Ghana in September 2014, dragged Cote d’Ivoire to ITLOS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS.
20150409031128

Cote d’Ivoire’s request

But before the tribunal could hear the substantive case, Cote d’Ivoire in February 2015 filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the final determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.”
An immediate project to be affected should Cote d’Ivoire’s call for all activities to cease on the disputed boundary be upheld, is the exploration and exploitation works on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners.
Cote d’Ivoire’s 27-page request, signed by its Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, is asking the tribunal to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.
It is also asking the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.
Another prayer from Cote d’Ivoire is an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire.”
Ghana’s neighbour is further urging the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.
Led by Mr Toungara, Cote d’Ivoire argued it would suffer severe and irreparable economic injury if its request is not granted by the tribunal.
But Ghana, led by its Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, has described Cote d’Ivoire’s request as baseless, without supporting evidence, and not founded on law but allegations and conjectures.
Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong right and Ghana s team sfter the hearing

What transpired at ITLOS

It was a battle of wits. Both countries did not mince words in stating what they needed from the tribunal in their March 29 and March 30, 2015 argument before the tribunal in Hamburg, Germany.
Cote d’Ivoire accused Tullow Oil plc of incompetence and polluting the environment around the disputed area but Ghana denied the assertion and informed the tribunal that Tullow Oil had indeed been licensed to operate because of its competence and track record.
Ghana’s neighbour also denied having a mutual agreement with Ghana over their maritime boundary but Ghana held a different thought and took the tribunal through its 40-year history with Cote d’Ivoire and insisted even Cote d’Ivoire’s first President recognised the boundary between the two countries by signing a decree to that effect.
Cote d’Ivoire told the tribunal it first drew Ghana’s attention to maritime boundary claims in 1988 but Ghana said its neighbour began making ugly noises behind closed doors when Ghana announced it had discovered oil in commercial quantities.
ilo

The maps

Cote d’Ivoire produced three different maps labelled Meridian One, Meridian Two and Bisector Line, all claiming portions of Ghana’s oilfields and adjoining boundaries, but Ghana reproached it of uncertainty and showing signs of desperation with those maps, which Ghana said did not pinpoint any clear case for Cote d’Ivoire.
Ghana filed a 57-page written address, four witness statements from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) and Tullow Oil Plc, 2,000 documents including maps and expert opinions but Cote d’Ivoire did none of that. Rather, it accused Ghana of deliberately going into the merit of the case with its voluminous data in an attempt to prejudice the court’s pending decision.
Rebutting their counterpart’s accusation, Ghana said what Cote d’Ivoire was seeking the tribunal to do was a serious matter and it would have been most untenable for Ghana to come half prepared. Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its failure to cross-examine witnesses produced by Ghana. Cote d’Ivoire’s failure to cross-examine the witnesses, according to Ghana, meant the evidence put forward by Ghana was incontrovertible.

Petroci disowned

There was an interesting spectacle at the tribunal when Cote d’Ivoire made a U-turn and indicted Petroci, the agency vested with Cote d’Ivoire’s hydrocarbons. According to Cote d’Ivoire, maps produced and in possession of Petroci could not be used to illustrate the official position of Cote d’Ivoire. Ghana would have none of that. Ghana told the tribunal its rival was denying Petroci because the maps in Petroci’s possession tallied with Ghana’s. Ghana also argued that that, perhaps, was the main reason representatives of Petroci were sidelined by Cote d’Ivoire. There was no representation from Petroci at the preliminary hearing.

Approximate boundary

Cote d’Ivoire described the boundary between it and Ghana as approximate but Ghana held the view that that boundary had been respected by both countries for four decades until recently.
Ghana’s neighbour wants all ongoing oil exploration and other activities at the disputed area to be suspended but Ghana has argued that Cote d’Ivoire has nothing to lose when that happens.
It outlined the implications for Ghana should Cote d’Ivoire’s request be granted.
Ghana said it would suffer an unquantifiable loss should the tribunal uphold Cote d’Ivoire’s claim and that it had, together with its oil companies, invested millions of dollars and as a result, any hold on ongoing works would have dire consequences for Ghana.
Ghana also accused Cote d’Ivoire of not giving any assurances on available remedies should the case be finally settled in favour of Ghana.
On the other hand, Ghana has contended that Cote d’Ivoire could be compensated in quantifiable monetary terms in the event it wins the case.
Ghana s Ambassador to Germany Ms Akua Sena Dansua right and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Opong at ITLOS
Per the foregoing, Ghana is praying the tribunal to dismiss Cote d’Ivoire’s application for preliminary measures as without merit.
It also accused Cote d’Ivoire of failing to advance any tangible legal arguments backed by facts except to rely on unfounded allegations in its bid to invite the tribunal to shift the maritime boundary in Cote d’Ivoire’s favour.
Both parties have expressed optimism for a favourable ruling from the tribunal.
The substantive case will take three years to end but the tribunal has indicated it will deliver its ruling on the preliminary issues before the end of April 2015.

Ghana’s team

Mrs Appiah-Opong led Ghana’s legal and technical team. Other members of Ghana’s team included Prof. Philippe Sands, a Professor of International Law, University College of London; Prof. Pierre Klein, Centre for International Law, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Mr Paul S. Reichler, a partner at Foley Hoag law firm; Ms Alison Macdonald, Matrix Law Chambers, London and Ms Clara Brillembourg, a partner of Foley Hoag.
Other members of Ghana’s legal team were Mrs Helen Awo Ziwu, Solicitor-General; Ms Akua Sena Dansua, Ghana’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Daniel Alexander, a London-based lawyer; Ms Anjolie Singh, a member of the Indian Bar, New Delhi; Mr Fui Tsikata, a lawyer at Reindorf Chambers, Accra, Professor Martin Tsamenyi, a law professor of A. M. University of Wollongong, Australia, and Mrs Jane Aheto, Director of Legal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.
Some members of the Ivorian delegation to ITLOS
Mr Kwame Mfodwo of the Maritime Boundaries Secretariat, Office of the President; Mr Korshie Gavor, a lawyer at the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC); Ms Vivienne Gadzekpo, head of legal department of the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum; Mr Alex Tait, Vice-President, International Mapping Associates; Mr Theo Ahwireng, the Chief Executive Officer of the Petroleum Commission; Mr Thomas Manu, Director of Exploration, GNPC, and Mr Lawrence Apaalse, Lead Geologist, GNPC were also part of Ghana’s contingent.
The rest of Ghana’s delegation comprised Mr Kwame Ntow-Amoah, GNPC; Nana Asafu-Adjaye, a consultant on petroleum issues; Mr Kojo Agbenor-Efunam, the Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr Joseph Kwadwo Asenso, Head of Oil and Gas Revenue Unit, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Nana Poku, Cartographer, GNPC, and Ms Nancy Lopez and Ms Anna Aviles-Alvaro, both lawyers at Foley Hoag law firm at Washington, DC.

Cote d’Ivoire’s delegation

Mr Toungara led Cote d’Ivoire’s team, which had Dr Ibrahim Diaby, Director-General of Hydrocarbons at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy; Mr Thierry Tanoh, Deputy Director-General to the Presidency; Mr Leon Houadja Kacou Adom, Cote d’Ivoire’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Michel Pitron, a lawyer from Paris, France; Mr Adama Kamara, a lawyer in Cote d’Ivoire; Professor Emeritus Alain Pellet, University of Paris Ouest; Sir Michael Wood, a lawyer in the United Kingdom and Dr Alina Miron, law doctor at the University of Paris Ouest.
The rest of Cote d’Ivoire’s team comprised Ms Issabelle Rouche and Mr Jean-Sebastian Bazille, both Paris-based lawyers; Mr Etran Sthoeger of New York University School of Law; Mr Lucien Kouacou, Director-General of Hydrocarbons, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ms Lucie Bustreau from France.

Both teams put up in the same hotel, had adjoining conference rooms but kept their doors shut from each other.

The only time they were spotted interacting was at the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Diplomacy was on display when it came to exchanging pleasantries but legal arguments from both sides clearly showed the seriousness they both attached to the matter.

It is the first maritime boundary dispute two West African countries at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
They have been neighbours since time immemorial and have lived in peaceful coexistence ever since. Language has been a major barrier between these two West African countries, but that did not in any way mar their diplomatic and business relations.
The issue that has now placed Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire on vertical lines is oil. Cote d’Ivoire claims it had since 1988 made its maritime boundary claims known to Ghana but Ghana insists Cote d’Ivoire, which began exploring for oil years before Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 – began sending threatening messages to oil companies recently.
Ghana accuses Cote d’Ivoire of not laying claim to any portion of Ghana’s oilfields until after Ghana had invested hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire data, explore and produce oil.
After 10 failed negotiations between both countries, Ghana in September 2014, dragged Cote d’Ivoire to ITLOS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS.
20150409031128

Cote d’Ivoire’s request

But before the tribunal could hear the substantive case, Cote d’Ivoire in February 2015 filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the final determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.”
An immediate project to be affected should Cote d’Ivoire’s call for all activities to cease on the disputed boundary be upheld, is the exploration and exploitation works on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners.
Cote d’Ivoire’s 27-page request, signed by its Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, is asking the tribunal to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.
It is also asking the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.
Another prayer from Cote d’Ivoire is an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire.”
Ghana’s neighbour is further urging the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.
Led by Mr Toungara, Cote d’Ivoire argued it would suffer severe and irreparable economic injury if its request is not granted by the tribunal.
But Ghana, led by its Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, has described Cote d’Ivoire’s request as baseless, without supporting evidence, and not founded on law but allegations and conjectures.
Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong right and Ghana s team sfter the hearing

What transpired at ITLOS

It was a battle of wits. Both countries did not mince words in stating what they needed from the tribunal in their March 29 and March 30, 2015 argument before the tribunal in Hamburg, Germany.
Cote d’Ivoire accused Tullow Oil plc of incompetence and polluting the environment around the disputed area but Ghana denied the assertion and informed the tribunal that Tullow Oil had indeed been licensed to operate because of its competence and track record.
Ghana’s neighbour also denied having a mutual agreement with Ghana over their maritime boundary but Ghana held a different thought and took the tribunal through its 40-year history with Cote d’Ivoire and insisted even Cote d’Ivoire’s first President recognised the boundary between the two countries by signing a decree to that effect.
Cote d’Ivoire told the tribunal it first drew Ghana’s attention to maritime boundary claims in 1988 but Ghana said its neighbour began making ugly noises behind closed doors when Ghana announced it had discovered oil in commercial quantities.
ilo

The maps

Cote d’Ivoire produced three different maps labelled Meridian One, Meridian Two and Bisector Line, all claiming portions of Ghana’s oilfields and adjoining boundaries, but Ghana reproached it of uncertainty and showing signs of desperation with those maps, which Ghana said did not pinpoint any clear case for Cote d’Ivoire.
Ghana filed a 57-page written address, four witness statements from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) and Tullow Oil Plc, 2,000 documents including maps and expert opinions but Cote d’Ivoire did none of that. Rather, it accused Ghana of deliberately going into the merit of the case with its voluminous data in an attempt to prejudice the court’s pending decision.
Rebutting their counterpart’s accusation, Ghana said what Cote d’Ivoire was seeking the tribunal to do was a serious matter and it would have been most untenable for Ghana to come half prepared. Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its failure to cross-examine witnesses produced by Ghana. Cote d’Ivoire’s failure to cross-examine the witnesses, according to Ghana, meant the evidence put forward by Ghana was incontrovertible.

Petroci disowned

There was an interesting spectacle at the tribunal when Cote d’Ivoire made a U-turn and indicted Petroci, the agency vested with Cote d’Ivoire’s hydrocarbons. According to Cote d’Ivoire, maps produced and in possession of Petroci could not be used to illustrate the official position of Cote d’Ivoire. Ghana would have none of that. Ghana told the tribunal its rival was denying Petroci because the maps in Petroci’s possession tallied with Ghana’s. Ghana also argued that that, perhaps, was the main reason representatives of Petroci were sidelined by Cote d’Ivoire. There was no representation from Petroci at the preliminary hearing.

Approximate boundary

Cote d’Ivoire described the boundary between it and Ghana as approximate but Ghana held the view that that boundary had been respected by both countries for four decades until recently.
Ghana’s neighbour wants all ongoing oil exploration and other activities at the disputed area to be suspended but Ghana has argued that Cote d’Ivoire has nothing to lose when that happens.
It outlined the implications for Ghana should Cote d’Ivoire’s request be granted.
Ghana said it would suffer an unquantifiable loss should the tribunal uphold Cote d’Ivoire’s claim and that it had, together with its oil companies, invested millions of dollars and as a result, any hold on ongoing works would have dire consequences for Ghana.
Ghana also accused Cote d’Ivoire of not giving any assurances on available remedies should the case be finally settled in favour of Ghana.
On the other hand, Ghana has contended that Cote d’Ivoire could be compensated in quantifiable monetary terms in the event it wins the case.
Ghana s Ambassador to Germany Ms Akua Sena Dansua right and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Opong at ITLOS
Per the foregoing, Ghana is praying the tribunal to dismiss Cote d’Ivoire’s application for preliminary measures as without merit.
It also accused Cote d’Ivoire of failing to advance any tangible legal arguments backed by facts except to rely on unfounded allegations in its bid to invite the tribunal to shift the maritime boundary in Cote d’Ivoire’s favour.
Both parties have expressed optimism for a favourable ruling from the tribunal.
The substantive case will take three years to end but the tribunal has indicated it will deliver its ruling on the preliminary issues before the end of April 2015.

Ghana’s team

Mrs Appiah-Opong led Ghana’s legal and technical team. Other members of Ghana’s team included Prof. Philippe Sands, a Professor of International Law, University College of London; Prof. Pierre Klein, Centre for International Law, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Mr Paul S. Reichler, a partner at Foley Hoag law firm; Ms Alison Macdonald, Matrix Law Chambers, London and Ms Clara Brillembourg, a partner of Foley Hoag.
Other members of Ghana’s legal team were Mrs Helen Awo Ziwu, Solicitor-General; Ms Akua Sena Dansua, Ghana’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Daniel Alexander, a London-based lawyer; Ms Anjolie Singh, a member of the Indian Bar, New Delhi; Mr Fui Tsikata, a lawyer at Reindorf Chambers, Accra, Professor Martin Tsamenyi, a law professor of A. M. University of Wollongong, Australia, and Mrs Jane Aheto, Director of Legal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.
Some members of the Ivorian delegation to ITLOS
Mr Kwame Mfodwo of the Maritime Boundaries Secretariat, Office of the President; Mr Korshie Gavor, a lawyer at the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC); Ms Vivienne Gadzekpo, head of legal department of the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum; Mr Alex Tait, Vice-President, International Mapping Associates; Mr Theo Ahwireng, the Chief Executive Officer of the Petroleum Commission; Mr Thomas Manu, Director of Exploration, GNPC, and Mr Lawrence Apaalse, Lead Geologist, GNPC were also part of Ghana’s contingent.
The rest of Ghana’s delegation comprised Mr Kwame Ntow-Amoah, GNPC; Nana Asafu-Adjaye, a consultant on petroleum issues; Mr Kojo Agbenor-Efunam, the Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr Joseph Kwadwo Asenso, Head of Oil and Gas Revenue Unit, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Nana Poku, Cartographer, GNPC, and Ms Nancy Lopez and Ms Anna Aviles-Alvaro, both lawyers at Foley Hoag law firm at Washington, DC.

Cote d’Ivoire’s delegation

Mr Toungara led Cote d’Ivoire’s team, which had Dr Ibrahim Diaby, Director-General of Hydrocarbons at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy; Mr Thierry Tanoh, Deputy Director-General to the Presidency; Mr Leon Houadja Kacou Adom, Cote d’Ivoire’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Michel Pitron, a lawyer from Paris, France; Mr Adama Kamara, a lawyer in Cote d’Ivoire; Professor Emeritus Alain Pellet, University of Paris Ouest; Sir Michael Wood, a lawyer in the United Kingdom and Dr Alina Miron, law doctor at the University of Paris Ouest.
The rest of Cote d’Ivoire’s team comprised Ms Issabelle Rouche and Mr Jean-Sebastian Bazille, both Paris-based lawyers; Mr Etran Sthoeger of New York University School of Law; Mr Lucien Kouacou, Director-General of Hydrocarbons, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ms Lucie Bustreau from France.

Both teams put up in the same hotel, had adjoining conference rooms but kept their doors shut from each other.

The only time they were spotted interacting was at the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Diplomacy was on display when it came to exchanging pleasantries but legal arguments from both sides clearly showed the seriousness they both attached to the matter.

It is the first maritime boundary dispute two West African countries at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

They have been neighbours since time immemorial and have lived in peaceful coexistence ever since. Language has been a major barrier between these two West African countries, but that did not in any way mar their diplomatic and business relations.

The issue that has now placed Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire on vertical lines is oil. Cote d’Ivoire claims it had since 1988 made its maritime boundary claims known to Ghana but Ghana insists Cote d’Ivoire, which began exploring for oil years before Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 – began sending threatening messages to oil companies recently.

Ghana accuses Cote d’Ivoire of not laying claim to any portion of Ghana’s oilfields until after Ghana had invested hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire data, explore and produce oil.

After 10 failed negotiations between both countries, Ghana in September 2014, dragged Cote d’Ivoire to ITLOS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS.

20150409031128

Cote d’Ivoire’s request

But before the tribunal could hear the substantive case, Cote d’Ivoire in February 2015 filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the final determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.” 

An immediate project to be affected should Cote d’Ivoire’s call for all activities to cease on the disputed boundary be upheld, is the exploration and exploitation works on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners.

Cote d’Ivoire’s 27-page request, signed by its Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, is asking the tribunal to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.

It is also asking the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.

Another prayer from Cote d’Ivoire is an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire.”

Ghana’s neighbour is further urging the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.

Led by Mr Toungara, Cote d’Ivoire argued it would suffer severe and irreparable economic injury if its request is not granted by the tribunal.

But Ghana, led by its Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, has described Cote d’Ivoire’s request as baseless, without supporting evidence, and not founded on law but allegations and conjectures.

Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong right and Ghana s team sfter the hearing

What transpired at ITLOS

It was a battle of wits. Both countries did not mince words in stating what they needed from the tribunal in their March 29 and March 30, 2015 argument before the tribunal in Hamburg, Germany.

Cote d’Ivoire accused Tullow Oil plc of incompetence and polluting the environment around the disputed area but Ghana denied the assertion and informed the tribunal that Tullow Oil had indeed been licensed to operate because of its competence and track record.

Ghana’s neighbour also denied having a mutual agreement with Ghana over their maritime boundary but Ghana held a different thought and took the tribunal through its 40-year history with Cote d’Ivoire and insisted even Cote d’Ivoire’s first President recognised the boundary between the two countries by signing a decree to that effect.

Cote d’Ivoire told the tribunal it first drew Ghana’s attention to maritime boundary claims in 1988 but Ghana said its neighbour began making ugly noises behind closed doors when Ghana announced it had discovered oil in commercial quantities.

ilo

The maps

Cote d’Ivoire produced three different maps labelled Meridian One, Meridian Two and Bisector Line, all claiming portions of Ghana’s oilfields and adjoining boundaries, but Ghana reproached it of uncertainty and showing signs of desperation with those maps, which Ghana said did not pinpoint any clear case for Cote d’Ivoire.

Ghana filed a 57-page written address, four witness statements from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) and Tullow Oil Plc, 2,000 documents including maps and expert opinions but Cote d’Ivoire did none of that. Rather, it accused Ghana of deliberately going into the merit of the case with its voluminous data in an attempt to prejudice the court’s pending decision. 

Rebutting their counterpart’s accusation, Ghana said what Cote d’Ivoire was seeking the tribunal to do was a serious matter and it would have been most untenable for Ghana to come half prepared. Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its failure to cross-examine witnesses produced by Ghana. Cote d’Ivoire’s failure to cross-examine the witnesses, according to Ghana, meant the evidence put forward by Ghana was incontrovertible.

Petroci disowned

There was an interesting spectacle at the tribunal when Cote d’Ivoire made a U-turn and indicted Petroci, the agency vested with Cote d’Ivoire’s hydrocarbons. According to Cote d’Ivoire, maps produced and in possession of Petroci could not be used to illustrate the official position of Cote d’Ivoire. Ghana would have none of that. Ghana told the tribunal its rival was denying Petroci because the maps in Petroci’s possession tallied with Ghana’s. Ghana also argued that that, perhaps, was the main reason representatives of Petroci were sidelined by Cote d’Ivoire. There was no representation from Petroci at the preliminary hearing.

Approximate boundary

Cote d’Ivoire described the boundary between it and Ghana as approximate but Ghana held the view that that boundary had been respected by both countries for four decades until recently.

Ghana’s neighbour wants all ongoing oil exploration and other activities at the disputed area to be suspended but Ghana has argued that Cote d’Ivoire has nothing to lose when that happens.

It outlined the implications for Ghana should Cote d’Ivoire’s request be granted.

Ghana said it would suffer an unquantifiable loss should the tribunal uphold Cote d’Ivoire’s claim and that it had, together with its oil companies, invested millions of dollars and as a result, any hold on ongoing works would have dire consequences for Ghana.

Ghana also accused Cote d’Ivoire of not giving any assurances on available remedies should the case be finally settled in favour of Ghana.

On the other hand, Ghana has contended that Cote d’Ivoire could be compensated in quantifiable monetary terms in the event it wins the case. 

Ghana s Ambassador to Germany Ms Akua Sena Dansua right and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Opong at ITLOS

Per the foregoing, Ghana is praying the tribunal to dismiss Cote d’Ivoire’s application for preliminary measures as without merit.

It also accused Cote d’Ivoire of failing to advance any tangible legal arguments backed by facts except to rely on unfounded allegations in its bid to invite the tribunal to shift the maritime boundary in Cote d’Ivoire’s favour. 

Both parties have expressed optimism for a favourable ruling from the tribunal.

The substantive case will take three years to end but the tribunal has indicated it will deliver its ruling on the preliminary issues before the end of April 2015.

Ghana’s team

Mrs Appiah-Opong led Ghana’s legal and technical team. Other members of Ghana’s team included Prof. Philippe Sands, a Professor of International Law, University College of London; Prof. Pierre Klein, Centre for International Law, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Mr Paul S. Reichler, a partner at Foley Hoag law firm; Ms Alison Macdonald, Matrix Law Chambers, London and Ms Clara Brillembourg, a partner of Foley Hoag.

Other members of Ghana’s legal team were Mrs Helen Awo Ziwu, Solicitor-General; Ms Akua Sena Dansua, Ghana’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Daniel Alexander, a London-based lawyer; Ms Anjolie Singh, a member of the Indian Bar, New Delhi; Mr Fui Tsikata, a lawyer at Reindorf Chambers, Accra, Professor Martin Tsamenyi, a law professor of A. M. University of Wollongong, Australia, and Mrs Jane Aheto, Director of Legal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.

Some members of the Ivorian delegation to ITLOS

Mr Kwame Mfodwo of the Maritime Boundaries Secretariat, Office of the President; Mr Korshie Gavor, a lawyer at the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC); Ms Vivienne Gadzekpo, head of legal department of the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum; Mr Alex Tait, Vice-President, International Mapping Associates; Mr Theo Ahwireng, the Chief Executive Officer of the Petroleum Commission; Mr Thomas Manu, Director of Exploration, GNPC, and Mr Lawrence Apaalse, Lead Geologist, GNPC were also part of Ghana’s contingent.

The rest of Ghana’s delegation comprised Mr Kwame Ntow-Amoah, GNPC; Nana Asafu-Adjaye, a consultant on petroleum issues; Mr Kojo Agbenor-Efunam, the Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr Joseph Kwadwo Asenso, Head of Oil and Gas Revenue Unit, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Nana Poku, Cartographer, GNPC, and Ms Nancy Lopez and Ms Anna Aviles-Alvaro, both lawyers at Foley Hoag law firm at Washington, DC.

Cote d’Ivoire’s delegation

Mr Toungara led Cote d’Ivoire’s team, which had Dr Ibrahim Diaby, Director-General of Hydrocarbons at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy; Mr Thierry Tanoh, Deputy Director-General to the Presidency; Mr Leon Houadja Kacou Adom, Cote d’Ivoire’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Michel Pitron, a lawyer from Paris, France; Mr Adama Kamara, a lawyer in Cote d’Ivoire; Professor Emeritus Alain Pellet, University of Paris Ouest; Sir Michael Wood, a lawyer in the United Kingdom and Dr Alina Miron, law doctor at the University of Paris Ouest.

The rest of Cote d’Ivoire’s team comprised Ms Issabelle Rouche and Mr Jean-Sebastian Bazille, both Paris-based lawyers; Mr Etran Sthoeger of New York University School of Law; Mr Lucien Kouacou, Director-General of Hydrocarbons, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ms Lucie Bustreau from France.

Both teams put up in the same hotel, had adjoining conference rooms but kept their doors shut from each other.

The only time they were spotted interacting was at the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Diplomacy was on display when it came to exchanging pleasantries but legal arguments from both sides clearly showed the seriousness they both attached to the matter.

It is the first maritime boundary dispute two West African countries at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

They have been neighbours since time immemorial and have lived in peaceful coexistence ever since. Language has been a major barrier between these two West African countries, but that did not in any way mar their diplomatic and business relations.

The issue that has now placed Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire on vertical lines is oil. Cote d’Ivoire claims it had since 1988 made its maritime boundary claims known to Ghana but Ghana insists Cote d’Ivoire, which began exploring for oil years before Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities in June 2007 – began sending threatening messages to oil companies recently.

Ghana accuses Cote d’Ivoire of not laying claim to any portion of Ghana’s oilfields until after Ghana had invested hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire data, explore and produce oil.

After 10 failed negotiations between both countries, Ghana in September 2014, dragged Cote d’Ivoire to ITLOS under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking a declaration that it had not encroached on Cote d’Ivoire’s territorial waters. Ghana filed its suit based on Article 287 Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS.

20150409031128

Cote d’Ivoire’s request

But before the tribunal could hear the substantive case, Cote d’Ivoire in February 2015 filed for preliminary measures urging the tribunal to suspend all activities on the disputed area until the final determination of the case, dubbed: “Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean.” 

An immediate project to be affected should Cote d’Ivoire’s call for all activities to cease on the disputed boundary be upheld, is the exploration and exploitation works on the Tweneboah-Enyera-Ntoumme (TEN) project being operated by Tullow Oil Plc and its partners.

Cote d’Ivoire’s 27-page request, signed by its Minister of Petroleum and Energy, Mr Adama Toungara, is asking the tribunal to suspend all ongoing oil exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area.

It is also asking the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from granting any new permit for oil exploration and exploitation in the disputed area.

Another prayer from Cote d’Ivoire is an order directed at Ghana to “take all steps necessary to prevent information resulting from past, ongoing or future exploration activities conducted by Ghana, or with its authorisation, in the disputed area from being used in any way whatsoever to the detriment of Côte d’Ivoire.”

Ghana’s neighbour is further urging the tribunal to direct Ghana to refrain from any unilateral action entailing a risk of prejudice to the rights of Côte d’Ivoire and any unilateral action that might lead to aggravating the dispute.

Led by Mr Toungara, Cote d’Ivoire argued it would suffer severe and irreparable economic injury if its request is not granted by the tribunal.

But Ghana, led by its Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, has described Cote d’Ivoire’s request as baseless, without supporting evidence, and not founded on law but allegations and conjectures.

Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong right and Ghana s team sfter the hearing

What transpired at ITLOS

It was a battle of wits. Both countries did not mince words in stating what they needed from the tribunal in their March 29 and March 30, 2015 argument before the tribunal in Hamburg, Germany.

Cote d’Ivoire accused Tullow Oil plc of incompetence and polluting the environment around the disputed area but Ghana denied the assertion and informed the tribunal that Tullow Oil had indeed been licensed to operate because of its competence and track record.

Ghana’s neighbour also denied having a mutual agreement with Ghana over their maritime boundary but Ghana held a different thought and took the tribunal through its 40-year history with Cote d’Ivoire and insisted even Cote d’Ivoire’s first President recognised the boundary between the two countries by signing a decree to that effect.

Cote d’Ivoire told the tribunal it first drew Ghana’s attention to maritime boundary claims in 1988 but Ghana said its neighbour began making ugly noises behind closed doors when Ghana announced it had discovered oil in commercial quantities.

ilo

The maps

Cote d’Ivoire produced three different maps labelled Meridian One, Meridian Two and Bisector Line, all claiming portions of Ghana’s oilfields and adjoining boundaries, but Ghana reproached it of uncertainty and showing signs of desperation with those maps, which Ghana said did not pinpoint any clear case for Cote d’Ivoire.

Ghana filed a 57-page written address, four witness statements from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) and Tullow Oil Plc, 2,000 documents including maps and expert opinions but Cote d’Ivoire did none of that. Rather, it accused Ghana of deliberately going into the merit of the case with its voluminous data in an attempt to prejudice the court’s pending decision. 

Rebutting their counterpart’s accusation, Ghana said what Cote d’Ivoire was seeking the tribunal to do was a serious matter and it would have been most untenable for Ghana to come half prepared. Ghana also reminded Cote d’Ivoire of its failure to cross-examine witnesses produced by Ghana. Cote d’Ivoire’s failure to cross-examine the witnesses, according to Ghana, meant the evidence put forward by Ghana was incontrovertible.

Petroci disowned

There was an interesting spectacle at the tribunal when Cote d’Ivoire made a U-turn and indicted Petroci, the agency vested with Cote d’Ivoire’s hydrocarbons. According to Cote d’Ivoire, maps produced and in possession of Petroci could not be used to illustrate the official position of Cote d’Ivoire. Ghana would have none of that. Ghana told the tribunal its rival was denying Petroci because the maps in Petroci’s possession tallied with Ghana’s. Ghana also argued that that, perhaps, was the main reason representatives of Petroci were sidelined by Cote d’Ivoire. There was no representation from Petroci at the preliminary hearing.

Approximate boundary

Cote d’Ivoire described the boundary between it and Ghana as approximate but Ghana held the view that that boundary had been respected by both countries for four decades until recently.

Ghana’s neighbour wants all ongoing oil exploration and other activities at the disputed area to be suspended but Ghana has argued that Cote d’Ivoire has nothing to lose when that happens.

It outlined the implications for Ghana should Cote d’Ivoire’s request be granted.

Ghana said it would suffer an unquantifiable loss should the tribunal uphold Cote d’Ivoire’s claim and that it had, together with its oil companies, invested millions of dollars and as a result, any hold on ongoing works would have dire consequences for Ghana.

Ghana also accused Cote d’Ivoire of not giving any assurances on available remedies should the case be finally settled in favour of Ghana.

On the other hand, Ghana has contended that Cote d’Ivoire could be compensated in quantifiable monetary terms in the event it wins the case. 

Ghana s Ambassador to Germany Ms Akua Sena Dansua right and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah Opong at ITLOS

Per the foregoing, Ghana is praying the tribunal to dismiss Cote d’Ivoire’s application for preliminary measures as without merit.

It also accused Cote d’Ivoire of failing to advance any tangible legal arguments backed by facts except to rely on unfounded allegations in its bid to invite the tribunal to shift the maritime boundary in Cote d’Ivoire’s favour. 

Both parties have expressed optimism for a favourable ruling from the tribunal.

The substantive case will take three years to end but the tribunal has indicated it will deliver its ruling on the preliminary issues before the end of April 2015.

Ghana’s team

Mrs Appiah-Opong led Ghana’s legal and technical team. Other members of Ghana’s team included Prof. Philippe Sands, a Professor of International Law, University College of London; Prof. Pierre Klein, Centre for International Law, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Mr Paul S. Reichler, a partner at Foley Hoag law firm; Ms Alison Macdonald, Matrix Law Chambers, London and Ms Clara Brillembourg, a partner of Foley Hoag.

Other members of Ghana’s legal team were Mrs Helen Awo Ziwu, Solicitor-General; Ms Akua Sena Dansua, Ghana’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Daniel Alexander, a London-based lawyer; Ms Anjolie Singh, a member of the Indian Bar, New Delhi; Mr Fui Tsikata, a lawyer at Reindorf Chambers, Accra, Professor Martin Tsamenyi, a law professor of A. M. University of Wollongong, Australia, and Mrs Jane Aheto, Director of Legal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.

Some members of the Ivorian delegation to ITLOS

Mr Kwame Mfodwo of the Maritime Boundaries Secretariat, Office of the President; Mr Korshie Gavor, a lawyer at the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC); Ms Vivienne Gadzekpo, head of legal department of the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum; Mr Alex Tait, Vice-President, International Mapping Associates; Mr Theo Ahwireng, the Chief Executive Officer of the Petroleum Commission; Mr Thomas Manu, Director of Exploration, GNPC, and Mr Lawrence Apaalse, Lead Geologist, GNPC were also part of Ghana’s contingent.

The rest of Ghana’s delegation comprised Mr Kwame Ntow-Amoah, GNPC; Nana Asafu-Adjaye, a consultant on petroleum issues; Mr Kojo Agbenor-Efunam, the Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr Joseph Kwadwo Asenso, Head of Oil and Gas Revenue Unit, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; Nana Poku, Cartographer, GNPC, and Ms Nancy Lopez and Ms Anna Aviles-Alvaro, both lawyers at Foley Hoag law firm at Washington, DC.

Cote d’Ivoire’s delegation

Mr Toungara led Cote d’Ivoire’s team, which had Dr Ibrahim Diaby, Director-General of Hydrocarbons at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy; Mr Thierry Tanoh, Deputy Director-General to the Presidency; Mr Leon Houadja Kacou Adom, Cote d’Ivoire’s Ambassador to Germany; Mr Michel Pitron, a lawyer from Paris, France; Mr Adama Kamara, a lawyer in Cote d’Ivoire; Professor Emeritus Alain Pellet, University of Paris Ouest; Sir Michael Wood, a lawyer in the United Kingdom and Dr Alina Miron, law doctor at the University of Paris Ouest.

The rest of Cote d’Ivoire’s team comprised Ms Issabelle Rouche and Mr Jean-Sebastian Bazille, both Paris-based lawyers; Mr Etran Sthoeger of New York University School of Law; Mr Lucien Kouacou, Director-General of Hydrocarbons, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ms Lucie Bustreau from France.