April 30, 2008 (Page 31)
FOLLOWING the non attainment of a settlement between parties at the pre-trial conference under commercial court rules between a Ghanaian businessman, Mr Richmond Aggrey, and Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba (now MTN), Investment Consortium Holdings, SA (Investcom), the majority shareholders of MTN, and Grandview Management over a shareholding dispute, the parties have been referred for trial.
Consequently, Mr Aggrey began testifying in the case at the Commercial Court in Accra yesterday and stated that he pulled out of the company and nominated his cousin to hold his shares because his continued stay in the company at the time was seen as a risk to its growth.
Mr Aggrey and the defendants went into pre-trial conference following another court’s ruling on Thursday, December 6, 2007 which restrained Investcom from seeking arbitration in the matter.
Investcom was seeking arbitration in the London Court of Arbitration but counsel for Mr Aggrey, Mr Yonni Kulendi, filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining Investcom from further proceeding with the arbitration.
The court held that the issues in controversy before it were not issues that could be determined by arbitration, adding that the issues could be heard by a Ghanaian court of competent jurisdiction.
It, accordingly, upheld submissions by counsel for Mr Aggrey that he could not be called to go on arbitration, which was normally between shareholders, because, as it stood now, Investcom was challenging Mr Aggrey’s claim of 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited.
Following the court’s ruling and the fact that none of the parties had filed a new application, a pre-trial conference between the parties was held at the Commercial Court complex in Accra.
The new Commercial Court rules require that there should be a pre-trial conference to offer parties an opportunity to settle their differences within 30 days after they had filed their pleadings, which they had so far done.
At the pre-trial conference, heard in camera and presided over by another judge, the parties were not able to resolve the matter within the 30-day period so it was referred for trial.
After the collapse of the talks at the pre-trial conference, Investcom filed another application to stay execution of the court’s decision to stop it from going ahead with arbitration in London but that application was also thrown out on April 4, 2008.
At the Commercial Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Aggrey, in his evidence-in-chief, informed the court that he joined Scancom in the mid 1990s and acquired 20 per cent shares, making him the second largest shareholder at the time.
He said he was made the Vice-Chairman of the company after acquiring 20 per cent shares in the company.
Led by his counsel, Mr Aggrey said he was informed by an unknown Lebanese who told him that Scancom would be in jeopardy if he (Mr Aggrey) did not pull out of the company.
He said he called the Minister of Communications at the time, who confirmed what the Lebanese had told him.
Following that development, Mr Aggrey said he left for Nigeria and, accordingly, nominated his cousin, Mr Chris Wilmot, to hold his shares.
He continues with his evidence-in-chief on May 7, 2008.
In November 2006, Scancom, operators of MTN (then Areeba), filed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court’s dismissal of its application to strike out Mr Aggrey’s suit.
The applicant had prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the lower court’s ruling and accordingly strike out the plaintiff’s writ of summons for non-compliance with a section of the new High Court procedure rules but the Court of Appeal dismissed the application and accordingly upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Scancom filed another application praying the Commercial Court to stay proceedings in the substantive matter pending the outcome of the appeal but that application was also dismissed.
The Commercial Court in Accra, on October 20, 2006, dismissed a motion filed by Scancom which prayed the court to strike out a writ of summons filed by Mr Aggrey against Scancom and the two other defendants for non-compliance with the High Court’s rules.
The plaintiff sued Investcom, the majority shareholder in Scancom, and Grandview Management Limited when Scancom decided to engage in a merger deal with MTN Incorporated of South Africa.
The deal has, however, been concluded, following the transfer of all shares in Scancom to MTN.
That was after a High Court order on July 14, 2006 which restrained Scancom and other respondents from "continuing, progressing and or concluding the merger with and/or acquisition of Investment Consortium Holdings by MTN Company of South Africa without taking into account and/or providing for the plaintiff's 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited".
The closure of the acquisition, according to Mr Aggrey, would occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of the MTN Group as a third party.
Mr Aggrey's contention was that his name had been removed from the shareholders’ list of Scancom without any explanation, adding that the particulars of the directors and shareholders of Scancom obtained from the Registrar General's Department, dated June 2, 2006, and signed by Mr K.A. Ohene-Obeng, a Chief State Attorney, for the Registrar of Companies, showed that Mr Aggrey's name was not included in the shareholders’ list.
It said the onus was on the company to explain how Mr Aggrey ceased to be a shareholder.
In his substantive writ, Mr Aggrey was claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, an order directed to Scancom to pay him his true dividends declared from the 2000 to 2005 financial years.
He also sought the rectification of the membership of Scancom Ltd to include his name and restore him to his position as a shareholder and director of the company.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
GCB to decide fate of Greenland Hotel May 2
April 29, 2008 (Page 3)
THE management of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) will, by Friday, May 2, 2008, decide whether or not to open Greenland Hotel Limited which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the bank.
Counsel for the bank, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to give her up to Friday, May 2, 2008 to enable her to consult with her client on whether or not it was willing to re-open the hotel while the hotel made arrangements to pay its debt.
This latest development was necessitated by the court’s decision to allow parties in the matter to negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the court processes could go on while the management of the bank allowed the hotel to operate.
He said there was no need for the hotel to be closed down because the bank could go ahead and sell it while it (hotel) still operated.
Mr Justice Marful-Sau said the bank could go ahead and put a representative at the hotel to collect money on its behalf while the hotel operated.
He said the livelihood of workers who also had dependants hung on the operations of the hotel and further urged the hotel to make efforts to pay back its loan.
He urged counsel to communicate the court’s views to the management of the bank for it to decide on the next line of action to take.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she needed a short adjournment to communicate the court’s views to her client.
She also urged the hotel to make efforts to pay its debt, adding that a letter from the hotel’s solicitors did not specify when it was going to start making payment.
Counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure.
He gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is praying the court for an order setting aside the execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
THE management of Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) will, by Friday, May 2, 2008, decide whether or not to open Greenland Hotel Limited which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the bank.
Counsel for the bank, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, prayed the Commercial Court in Accra to give her up to Friday, May 2, 2008 to enable her to consult with her client on whether or not it was willing to re-open the hotel while the hotel made arrangements to pay its debt.
This latest development was necessitated by the court’s decision to allow parties in the matter to negotiate, instead of relying on technicalities, following a motion by the management of the hotel praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel.
The trial judge, Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, an Appeal Court judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, said the court processes could go on while the management of the bank allowed the hotel to operate.
He said there was no need for the hotel to be closed down because the bank could go ahead and sell it while it (hotel) still operated.
Mr Justice Marful-Sau said the bank could go ahead and put a representative at the hotel to collect money on its behalf while the hotel operated.
He said the livelihood of workers who also had dependants hung on the operations of the hotel and further urged the hotel to make efforts to pay back its loan.
He urged counsel to communicate the court’s views to the management of the bank for it to decide on the next line of action to take.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah then informed the court that she needed a short adjournment to communicate the court’s views to her client.
She also urged the hotel to make efforts to pay its debt, adding that a letter from the hotel’s solicitors did not specify when it was going to start making payment.
Counsel for the hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the hotel was making huge losses as a result of the closure.
He gave the assurance that it would make efforts to pay its debt.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is praying the court for an order setting aside the execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Closure of Greenland Hotel case ••• GCB counsel angry with Daily Graphic
April 26, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
TWO lawyers of the Ghana Commercial Bank yesterday took a swipe at the Daily Graphic for allegedly reporting on a case between Greenland Hotel and the bank under the influence of counsel for the hotel.
The scene was at the Accra Commercial Court, presided over by Mr Justice Marful Sau. One of the lawyers, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, stated in open court that counsel for Greenland Hotel had “procured the services” of the Daily Graphic reporter to follow the case.
And to make matters worse, a male colleague of Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s whose name the Daily Graphic gathered is Mr Kwadwo Ntrakwa, fuelled the embarrassment of this reporter when he rudely asked her, after the court proceedings, what business she had in reporting a matter which was between two corporate bodies.
According to sources close to the Daily Graphic, Mr Ntrakwa is Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s brother.
It all started when Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah said she had seen counsel for Greenland Hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a chat with the reporter when she (reporter) entered the courtroom.
That, Mrs Ntrakwa-Yeboah said, was suggestive that Mr Dame had acquired the services of the reporter to publicise the case.
The whole courtroom virtually looked towards the direction of the reporter because counsel had her eyes fixed on where she (reporter) was seated while she (counsel) spoke.
However, Mr Dame quickly rebutted Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s claims and said he knew the Daily Graphic reporter as having been reporting from the courts regularly.
He also said the Daily Graphic had published the closure of the hotel in its April 18, 2008 edition and it was, therefore, only fair for the paper to publish the hotel's side of the story.
Mr Justice Sau, an Appeal Court judge who was sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, nevertheless, proceeded to bring the attention of counsel to the substantive issue.
But Mr Ntrakwa was unperturbed after the proceedings when the reporter approached his sister to clarify whether her surname was a compound name or not.
Probably out of ignorance, Mr Ntrakwa, who could not understand why the Daily Graphic should cover the proceedings of a case of public interest, also confronted the reporter and cast aspersions on her.
The substantive case was adjourned to April 28, 2008 to enable the GCB to reply to matters raised by the management of the hotel.
The management of the hotel has filed a motion praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel, which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the GCB.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is also praying the court for an order setting aside the unlawful execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah had earlier informed the court that her client was short served and, therefore, she needed enough time to appropriately respond to issues raised by Dr Eyiah.
Mr Dame said there was an urgency to the matter because the hotel had been closed down for more than a week and it was currently incurring heavy losses.
Mr Justice Sau advised parties in the matter to make efforts to negotiate.
TWO lawyers of the Ghana Commercial Bank yesterday took a swipe at the Daily Graphic for allegedly reporting on a case between Greenland Hotel and the bank under the influence of counsel for the hotel.
The scene was at the Accra Commercial Court, presided over by Mr Justice Marful Sau. One of the lawyers, Mrs Abena Ntrakwa-Mensah, stated in open court that counsel for Greenland Hotel had “procured the services” of the Daily Graphic reporter to follow the case.
And to make matters worse, a male colleague of Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s whose name the Daily Graphic gathered is Mr Kwadwo Ntrakwa, fuelled the embarrassment of this reporter when he rudely asked her, after the court proceedings, what business she had in reporting a matter which was between two corporate bodies.
According to sources close to the Daily Graphic, Mr Ntrakwa is Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s brother.
It all started when Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah said she had seen counsel for Greenland Hotel, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a chat with the reporter when she (reporter) entered the courtroom.
That, Mrs Ntrakwa-Yeboah said, was suggestive that Mr Dame had acquired the services of the reporter to publicise the case.
The whole courtroom virtually looked towards the direction of the reporter because counsel had her eyes fixed on where she (reporter) was seated while she (counsel) spoke.
However, Mr Dame quickly rebutted Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah’s claims and said he knew the Daily Graphic reporter as having been reporting from the courts regularly.
He also said the Daily Graphic had published the closure of the hotel in its April 18, 2008 edition and it was, therefore, only fair for the paper to publish the hotel's side of the story.
Mr Justice Sau, an Appeal Court judge who was sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, nevertheless, proceeded to bring the attention of counsel to the substantive issue.
But Mr Ntrakwa was unperturbed after the proceedings when the reporter approached his sister to clarify whether her surname was a compound name or not.
Probably out of ignorance, Mr Ntrakwa, who could not understand why the Daily Graphic should cover the proceedings of a case of public interest, also confronted the reporter and cast aspersions on her.
The substantive case was adjourned to April 28, 2008 to enable the GCB to reply to matters raised by the management of the hotel.
The management of the hotel has filed a motion praying the court to order the re-opening of the hotel, which was closed down as a result of its GH¢1.1 million indebtedness to the GCB.
The Chief Executive Officer of the hotel, Dr Alexander Eyiah, is also praying the court for an order setting aside the unlawful execution on April 16, 2008 of the judgement entered in default of appearance and for a further order prohibiting the registrar of the court from sealing off, closing down or in any way interfering with the defendant/applicant’s use or possession of Greenland Hotel Limited until a sale by public auction, if any, has been properly carried out on the orders of the court.
The hotel was closed down as a result of the inability of its management to repay the remaining GH¢1.1 million which is part of a loan it took from the GCB.
The GCB took action against the hotel on October 8, 2007 and a judgement dated October 31, 2007 was entered against it in default of appearance.
Mrs Ntrakwa-Mensah had earlier informed the court that her client was short served and, therefore, she needed enough time to appropriately respond to issues raised by Dr Eyiah.
Mr Dame said there was an urgency to the matter because the hotel had been closed down for more than a week and it was currently incurring heavy losses.
Mr Justice Sau advised parties in the matter to make efforts to negotiate.
Court sanctions repatriation of Liberian refugees (UNPUBLISHED)
April 24, 2008
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave its consent to the planned repatriation of 23 Liberians who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
According to the court, available records from the GIS, the Refugee Board of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Liberian Embassy indicated that none of the 23 Liberians was registered as a refugee.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, said the court was satisfied that the applicants were not refugees and did not qualify to be, adding that “the matter should not be seen as an emotional or gender issue but it should be seen as the law taking its course”.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is supreme. The removal of the applicants is lawful and does not contravene the laws of the country,” Mr Justice Gyaesayor held.
He further held that the Liberians had neither been granted refugee status nor had justified their continuous stay in the country and for that matter they were illegal immigrants.
It, accordingly, refused go grant an interim injunction which sought to stop their repatriation by the immigration authorities.
“The application to restrain the respondents from repatriating the applicants is refused. The children should accompany their parents,” the court ordered, in apparent reference to the seven minors who were party to the suit.
On April 14, 2008, Nana Oye Lithur, counsel for the 23 Liberians, argued before the court that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the UNHCR after several requests.
But a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, had countered the assertion, insisting that the 23 were illegal migrants who posed a security threat to the country.
Giving reasons for the court’s decision, Mr Justice Gyaesayor indicated that the documents the applicants had relied on as belonging to relatives they claimed were refugees proved otherwise.
The court held that the war in Liberia had ended, resulting in the conduct of elections and the subsequent installation of a new President.
It said the war brought about the influx of Liberians into the country and that now that it was over, it was only appropriate that they went back to their country because the refugee status, if any, had come to an end.
It further argued that the applicants had not justified their stay in the country.
It said it was true that the 1992 Constitution guaranteed the right to movement, among other rights, but added that those rights went with responsibilities, in accordance with the law.
According to the court, the detention of the Liberians by the GIS authorities did not violate or contravene the law, adding that under the law, the Director of the GIS had the power to repatriate a person whose stay was seen to be unlawful.
The court also held that persons could be arrested and detained while awaiting repatriation.
It did not award costs.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday gave its consent to the planned repatriation of 23 Liberians who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
According to the court, available records from the GIS, the Refugee Board of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Liberian Embassy indicated that none of the 23 Liberians was registered as a refugee.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, said the court was satisfied that the applicants were not refugees and did not qualify to be, adding that “the matter should not be seen as an emotional or gender issue but it should be seen as the law taking its course”.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is supreme. The removal of the applicants is lawful and does not contravene the laws of the country,” Mr Justice Gyaesayor held.
He further held that the Liberians had neither been granted refugee status nor had justified their continuous stay in the country and for that matter they were illegal immigrants.
It, accordingly, refused go grant an interim injunction which sought to stop their repatriation by the immigration authorities.
“The application to restrain the respondents from repatriating the applicants is refused. The children should accompany their parents,” the court ordered, in apparent reference to the seven minors who were party to the suit.
On April 14, 2008, Nana Oye Lithur, counsel for the 23 Liberians, argued before the court that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the UNHCR after several requests.
But a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, had countered the assertion, insisting that the 23 were illegal migrants who posed a security threat to the country.
Giving reasons for the court’s decision, Mr Justice Gyaesayor indicated that the documents the applicants had relied on as belonging to relatives they claimed were refugees proved otherwise.
The court held that the war in Liberia had ended, resulting in the conduct of elections and the subsequent installation of a new President.
It said the war brought about the influx of Liberians into the country and that now that it was over, it was only appropriate that they went back to their country because the refugee status, if any, had come to an end.
It further argued that the applicants had not justified their stay in the country.
It said it was true that the 1992 Constitution guaranteed the right to movement, among other rights, but added that those rights went with responsibilities, in accordance with the law.
According to the court, the detention of the Liberians by the GIS authorities did not violate or contravene the law, adding that under the law, the Director of the GIS had the power to repatriate a person whose stay was seen to be unlawful.
The court also held that persons could be arrested and detained while awaiting repatriation.
It did not award costs.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Case against AMA boss adjourned
April 23, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE contempt case filed against the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, by an Accra-based businessman has been adjourned to May 5, 2008.
The case was adjourned to enable the chief executive, who was out of the jurisdiction, to be served.
An Accra-based businessman instituted the action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison Mr Adjiri-Blankson for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said bailiffs had on different occasions not been successful in serving the chief executive.
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, informed the court that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was out of the jurisdiction.
She said there was no basis for the contempt matter to be put before Mr Justice Victor Ofoe because it was another judge who had passed the judgement which Mr Seraphim claimed had not been obeyed.
Mr Justice Ofoe, who is an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, advised counsel to make those submissions on a later date after Mr Adjiri-Blankson had been served.
On April 15, 2008, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served and that prompted the court to adjourn the case to yesterday.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers, adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
THE contempt case filed against the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, by an Accra-based businessman has been adjourned to May 5, 2008.
The case was adjourned to enable the chief executive, who was out of the jurisdiction, to be served.
An Accra-based businessman instituted the action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison Mr Adjiri-Blankson for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said bailiffs had on different occasions not been successful in serving the chief executive.
Replying, counsel for the AMA, Ms Selina Fenteng, informed the court that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was out of the jurisdiction.
She said there was no basis for the contempt matter to be put before Mr Justice Victor Ofoe because it was another judge who had passed the judgement which Mr Seraphim claimed had not been obeyed.
Mr Justice Ofoe, who is an Appeal Court judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court judge, advised counsel to make those submissions on a later date after Mr Adjiri-Blankson had been served.
On April 15, 2008, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served and that prompted the court to adjourn the case to yesterday.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers, adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
Course for non-law graduates soon
April 22, 2008 (Page 31)
THE Ghana School of Law will soon re-introduce a course for non-law graduates, which was scrapped some years back.
Launching the SRC Law Week celebrations of the Ghana School of Law in Accra yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, however, did not state the exact date for the re-introduction.
The theme for this year's law week celebration is "Fifty Years of Quality Professional Legal Education: The Changing Phase of Legal Practice".
Mrs Justice Wood said the General Legal Council had in the past made various decisions that included the introduction of the preliminary course for non-law graduates and the professional course for admittance to the Bar but the former was scrapped somewhere along the line.
She said the re-introduction of the course would further provide informed legal education to non-lawyers and for the good of the society.
Mrs Justice Wood appealed to lawyers to endeavour to provide free services to needy Ghanaians who seek their services.
"There is a lingering distrust among lay people about lawyers and the legal profession. One way of redeeming our image is by contributing to the public good," the Chief Justice advised.
Mrs Justice Wood said lawyers must be able to build a culture of public spiritedness.
"The legal profession has among its oldest fraternity great men and women, selfless and dedicated who have fought for and worked hard for the peace and stability of this nation at great cost to their lives," the Chief Justice said.
Mrs Justice Wood also urged the law students to use the training and education they had acquired to help build a just society.
She congratulated the law students on organising an outreach programme for the people of Akuapem South on the theme: "The rights of the child".
Touching on the poor infrastructure base of the Law School, she said it was unfortunate the school's infrastructure had not improved 50 years after its establishment.
She said the school had since 1958 produced more than 4000 lawyers and accordingly urged past students to assist in the development of the school.
Mrs Justice Wood urged past students of the school to position themselves to give back to their alma mater what it needed to plan for the future of the country.
She also appealed to the government and corporate bodies to go to the aid of the school.
The SRC President, Mr Dominic Otchere, urged the government to provide more infrastructure for the school.
THE Ghana School of Law will soon re-introduce a course for non-law graduates, which was scrapped some years back.
Launching the SRC Law Week celebrations of the Ghana School of Law in Accra yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, however, did not state the exact date for the re-introduction.
The theme for this year's law week celebration is "Fifty Years of Quality Professional Legal Education: The Changing Phase of Legal Practice".
Mrs Justice Wood said the General Legal Council had in the past made various decisions that included the introduction of the preliminary course for non-law graduates and the professional course for admittance to the Bar but the former was scrapped somewhere along the line.
She said the re-introduction of the course would further provide informed legal education to non-lawyers and for the good of the society.
Mrs Justice Wood appealed to lawyers to endeavour to provide free services to needy Ghanaians who seek their services.
"There is a lingering distrust among lay people about lawyers and the legal profession. One way of redeeming our image is by contributing to the public good," the Chief Justice advised.
Mrs Justice Wood said lawyers must be able to build a culture of public spiritedness.
"The legal profession has among its oldest fraternity great men and women, selfless and dedicated who have fought for and worked hard for the peace and stability of this nation at great cost to their lives," the Chief Justice said.
Mrs Justice Wood also urged the law students to use the training and education they had acquired to help build a just society.
She congratulated the law students on organising an outreach programme for the people of Akuapem South on the theme: "The rights of the child".
Touching on the poor infrastructure base of the Law School, she said it was unfortunate the school's infrastructure had not improved 50 years after its establishment.
She said the school had since 1958 produced more than 4000 lawyers and accordingly urged past students to assist in the development of the school.
Mrs Justice Wood urged past students of the school to position themselves to give back to their alma mater what it needed to plan for the future of the country.
She also appealed to the government and corporate bodies to go to the aid of the school.
The SRC President, Mr Dominic Otchere, urged the government to provide more infrastructure for the school.
Paint was used to mark accident scene • Police officer tells court
April 19, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
A POLICE officer attached to the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit of the Ghana Police Service told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that the police used paint to mark the accident scene that involved the President.
Answering questions under cross-examination in the case in which Thomas Osei is standing trial for ramming into the President’s vehicle, Sergeant Christian Koda said he was unaware that another police officer had already informed the court that a stone was used to mark the accident spot.
According to Sergeant Christian Koda, who tendered a sketch of the accident that occurred on November 14, 2007, the paint was taken from a painter across the street where the accident occurred.
Osei faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Akuffo: What do policemen at the MTTU take along when going to work?
Sgt. Koda: We usually take along pencils, notebooks, pens and reflective jackets when we go to work.
Mr Akuffo: Are you painters?
Sgt. Koda: We are not painters.
Mr Akuffo: Is it usual for the police to carry paint while at traffic intersection?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. When the accident happened there was a painter around so the police officer there collected paint to mark the scene. That is what my colleague told me.
Mr Akuffo: Did he tell you where he took the paint from?
Sgt. Koda: He did not tell me he took the paint from the painter.
Mr Akuffo: So you concocted he took the paint from the painter?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. The officer told me after the accident that he collected paint to mark the scene.
Mr Akuffo: Do you know you are telling the court untruths?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord.
Cross-examination of the witness continues on April 28, 2008.
The facts of the case were that around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei drove his Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car into the rear side of the President’s vehicle in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The President escaped unhurt.
A POLICE officer attached to the Motor Traffic and Transport Unit of the Ghana Police Service told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that the police used paint to mark the accident scene that involved the President.
Answering questions under cross-examination in the case in which Thomas Osei is standing trial for ramming into the President’s vehicle, Sergeant Christian Koda said he was unaware that another police officer had already informed the court that a stone was used to mark the accident spot.
According to Sergeant Christian Koda, who tendered a sketch of the accident that occurred on November 14, 2007, the paint was taken from a painter across the street where the accident occurred.
Osei faces seven counts of use of narcotic drugs, dangerous driving, negligently causing harm, driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to give way to a Presidential convoy and failing to effect change of ownership of vehicle, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Osei was first arraigned before the Motor Court on November 16, 2007 and remanded.
He was discharged by the court on Thursday, December 20, 2007 after the prosecution had filed a nolle prosequi (unwilling to prosecute) but he was re-arrested when he stepped out of the court and put before the Fast Track High Court.
Mr Akuffo: What do policemen at the MTTU take along when going to work?
Sgt. Koda: We usually take along pencils, notebooks, pens and reflective jackets when we go to work.
Mr Akuffo: Are you painters?
Sgt. Koda: We are not painters.
Mr Akuffo: Is it usual for the police to carry paint while at traffic intersection?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. When the accident happened there was a painter around so the police officer there collected paint to mark the scene. That is what my colleague told me.
Mr Akuffo: Did he tell you where he took the paint from?
Sgt. Koda: He did not tell me he took the paint from the painter.
Mr Akuffo: So you concocted he took the paint from the painter?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord. The officer told me after the accident that he collected paint to mark the scene.
Mr Akuffo: Do you know you are telling the court untruths?
Sgt. Koda: No my Lord.
Cross-examination of the witness continues on April 28, 2008.
The facts of the case were that around 11.30 a.m. on November 14, 2007, Osei drove his Mercedes Benz SE 500 saloon car into the rear side of the President’s vehicle in the inner lane along the Liberation Link from the direction of Aviance towards the 37 Military Hospital, in spite of the fact that other motorists had been stopped to allow the President’s convoy to pass.
The President escaped unhurt.
Court discharges Barclays Boss
April 17, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday discharged the Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Ms Margaret Mwanakatwe, and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Ms Laureen Lokko, on contempt charges.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees, who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank, following their dismissal by the bank, in spite of the fact that they had filed a motion at the court for an injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo and Matthew Kotoku.
Discharging the two, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, held that “from the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the respondents are in contempt of court”.
“I, therefore, do not find them liable for contempt and discharge them accordingly,” Mr Justice Ofoe added.
According to the court, the law imposed the duty on the employees to prove the guilt of the two beyond reasonable doubt.
It also held that the employees failed to prove that their salaries had been withheld, as well as prove that they had not received their salaries for January and February.
The court did not award costs against the employees.
The bank is expected to file its response to the substantive case by Monday, April 21, 2008 in order for a date to be fixed for hearing.
At the court’s sitting on March 12, 2008, counsel for the employees, Mr Albert Adaare, said Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko were in contempt of the court because had prevented the affected workers from going to work, thereby violating provisions in their collective agreement.
He said the respondents had been aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko, Mr Charles Hayibor, had described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the employees were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the employees had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008.
The disagreement between the employees and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the employees in support of the motion for contempt said on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the employees, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers who were trade union leaders within the bank.
The employees said on February 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank, seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner were personally aware that the application for injunction was pending.
In spite of their knowledge, the employees said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded it and treated it with disdain, which was a sacred process of the court.
They said for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances which, they said, the bank described as monthly salaries.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday discharged the Managing Director of Barclays Bank Limited, Ms Margaret Mwanakatwe, and the Head of Human Resources Business Partner, Ms Laureen Lokko, on contempt charges.
The two were dragged to the court by eight employees, who are executives of the local Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) of the bank, following their dismissal by the bank, in spite of the fact that they had filed a motion at the court for an injunction against the bank’s decision to summarily dismiss them.
The eight employees are Opare Yeboah, Samuel A. Anarwat, Angela Deku, Esther Asiedu Larbi, Gariba Adam Andan, Edward Boakye, Thomas Benjamin Quainoo and Matthew Kotoku.
Discharging the two, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, held that “from the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the respondents are in contempt of court”.
“I, therefore, do not find them liable for contempt and discharge them accordingly,” Mr Justice Ofoe added.
According to the court, the law imposed the duty on the employees to prove the guilt of the two beyond reasonable doubt.
It also held that the employees failed to prove that their salaries had been withheld, as well as prove that they had not received their salaries for January and February.
The court did not award costs against the employees.
The bank is expected to file its response to the substantive case by Monday, April 21, 2008 in order for a date to be fixed for hearing.
At the court’s sitting on March 12, 2008, counsel for the employees, Mr Albert Adaare, said Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko were in contempt of the court because had prevented the affected workers from going to work, thereby violating provisions in their collective agreement.
He said the respondents had been aware of the contempt application and knew its purpose but went ahead to restrain the applicants from entering their offices.
However, counsel for Ms Mwanakatwe and Ms Lokko, Mr Charles Hayibor, had described the application as misconceived because there was no proof that the employees were either prevented from entering their offices or had not been paid their salaries.
According to him, the employees had been paid their salaries for January and February 2008.
The disagreement between the employees and the bank stemmed from the bank’s decision to dismiss the entire executive of the ICU.
An affidavit deposed by Opare Yeboah on behalf of the rest of the employees in support of the motion for contempt said on the true and proper interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement between the ICU and the bank, the letters issued to them on January 11, 2008 purportedly dismissing them summarily were illegal and in contravention of the Labour Act, 2003 (ACT 651).
According to the employees, that action was unconstitutional, null and void and ought to be quashed by the court because it was victimisation of the workers who were trade union leaders within the bank.
The employees said on February 8, 2008, they filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the bank, seeking to restrain it from preventing them from entering their offices and continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities as employees of the bank.
They said the said application was served on the bank on February 22, 2008 and that the Managing Director and Human Resources Business Partner were personally aware that the application for injunction was pending.
In spite of their knowledge, the employees said, the respondents wilfully and intentionally disregarded it and treated it with disdain, which was a sacred process of the court.
They said for the month of February 2008, the bank withheld their monthly salaries and paid them pittances which, they said, the bank described as monthly salaries.
Jail Adjiri-Blankson - Businessman prays High Court
April 16, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
AN Accra-based businessman has instituted an action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served.
Counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that his outfit ensured that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was personally served.
That notwithstanding, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, adjourned the matter to April 22, 2008 to ensure that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was served.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers,
adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
AN Accra-based businessman has instituted an action at the Accra Fast Track High Court praying the court to imprison the Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, for contempt of court.
Mr Labib C. Seraphim is also praying the court to impose a heavy fine on the AMA as an entity for refusing to carry out the judgement of the court, two years after it had been ordered to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue in the Central Business District of Accra.
The High Court, on April 10, 2006, ordered the defendants to evict hawkers on the Knutsford Avenue because their occupation was unlawful and hampered the business activities of the plaintiff and other shop owners.
It further restrained the assembly from converting the Knutsford Avenue into a market for hawkers.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the AMA but declined to award damages on the grounds that “the amount to be paid as damages could be used to mobilise resources to carry out the eviction order”.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, it emerged that the AMA had been served as an entity but there was no record to prove that its chief executive had been served.
Counsel for Mr Seraphim, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, informed the court that his outfit ensured that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was personally served.
That notwithstanding, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Victor Ofoe, adjourned the matter to April 22, 2008 to ensure that Mr Adjiri-Blankson was served.
In his application, Mr Seraphim claimed that the AMA had flouted the court’s orders by refusing to evict the hawkers,
adding that the hawkers continued to exercise absolute dominion over the Knutsford Avenue, with the active connivance and complicity of the respondents.
“The respondents’ wilful violation of the orders of this court, contained in its judgement, is infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed property rights of myself and other property owners on the Knutsford Avenue,” Mr Seraphim averred.
According to him, the situation was gravely hampering his lawful business activities and those of other property owners.
He further averred that in spite of the court’s clear order for the provision of vehicular accessibility to him and other property owners, there were still in place certain pillars erected by the AMA which should have been removed as part of the process of executing the court order.
According to him, he had, on numerous occasions, through his solicitor, brought the situation to the attention of the AMA but it had refused to remedy the situation.
He said the refusal to carry out the orders of the court was calculated at interfering with and obstructing the due administration of justice and in the event undermine the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr Seraphim said the respondents’ blatant display of disregard for the authority of the court made them liable for attachment for contempt of court in order to vindicate the undoubted authority of the court to preserve public confidence in the due process of the law.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Court to decide on repatriation of 23 Liberians
April 15, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 24, 2008 decide whether or not to order the repatriation of 23 Liberian nationals who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
While counsel for the Liberians, Nana Oye Lithur, argued that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) after several requests, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, insisted that the 23 were illegal immigrants who posed a security threat to the country.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, fixed the date for ruling on the matter after parties had argued their cases at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday.
The 23 Liberians, who include seven minors, sought an interim injunction from the court on April 8, 2008 to stop their repatriation by the Immigration authorities.
Arguing her case, Nana Oye Lithur denied an assertion from the immigration authorities that the Liberians were illegal immigrants and stated that there were no records to prove they had been granted refugee status or otherwise.
She said the applicants had neither committed any offence nor was there any proof that they posed security threat to the country.
Nana Oye Lithur argued that the Liberians had relatives who had been given refugee status and that automatically affected them as enshrined in the law.
She further argued that it was the duty of the Director of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to check the status of the 23 applicants before deciding to repatriate them. For instance, she stated that 17 of the applicants entered Ghana in 1997, 1999 and 2001 while two entered the country in 1990.
Nana Oye Lithur said she had now been allowed to have access to the 23 "after a long struggle".
Citing authorities, Nana Oye Lithur said the Minister of the Interior and the Director of GIS could not exercise their discretionary powers without following the due process of the law.
She, therefore, described as null and void the March 31, 2008 order that directed that the 23 Liberians should be repatriated and accordingly prayed the court to order the release of her clients from custody forthwith.
Replying, Mrs Obuobisah said there were laws that regulated the stay of refugees within any country and added that the applicants could not claim to be covered by their relatives because those relatives were no longer recognised as refugees.
She said there was currently peace in Liberia and therefore the refugee status of all Liberians ceased in 2003.
Mrs Obuobisah said the order issued by the Director of GIS was for repatriation as was stipulated under the law and explained that other Liberian nationals were currently being repatriated to Liberia.
She said because the applicants were illegal immigrants, they had been put in a detention facility and arrangements had been made to repatriate them until the court ordered otherwise.
The Principal State Attorney said the rights of the Liberians had not been flouted, arguing that the Director of GIS had every right to cause the repatriation of the applicants.
She, therefore, described the motion by the Liberians as unfounded and so the Director of the GIS should be allowed to do her work.
She added that the order for injunction filed by the counsel for the refugees was not properly laid before the court.
THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 24, 2008 decide whether or not to order the repatriation of 23 Liberian nationals who have been described as illegal immigrants by the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS).
While counsel for the Liberians, Nana Oye Lithur, argued that her clients were refugees who had not been documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) after several requests, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisah, insisted that the 23 were illegal immigrants who posed a security threat to the country.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Gyaesayor, fixed the date for ruling on the matter after parties had argued their cases at the court's sitting in Accra yesterday.
The 23 Liberians, who include seven minors, sought an interim injunction from the court on April 8, 2008 to stop their repatriation by the Immigration authorities.
Arguing her case, Nana Oye Lithur denied an assertion from the immigration authorities that the Liberians were illegal immigrants and stated that there were no records to prove they had been granted refugee status or otherwise.
She said the applicants had neither committed any offence nor was there any proof that they posed security threat to the country.
Nana Oye Lithur argued that the Liberians had relatives who had been given refugee status and that automatically affected them as enshrined in the law.
She further argued that it was the duty of the Director of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) to check the status of the 23 applicants before deciding to repatriate them. For instance, she stated that 17 of the applicants entered Ghana in 1997, 1999 and 2001 while two entered the country in 1990.
Nana Oye Lithur said she had now been allowed to have access to the 23 "after a long struggle".
Citing authorities, Nana Oye Lithur said the Minister of the Interior and the Director of GIS could not exercise their discretionary powers without following the due process of the law.
She, therefore, described as null and void the March 31, 2008 order that directed that the 23 Liberians should be repatriated and accordingly prayed the court to order the release of her clients from custody forthwith.
Replying, Mrs Obuobisah said there were laws that regulated the stay of refugees within any country and added that the applicants could not claim to be covered by their relatives because those relatives were no longer recognised as refugees.
She said there was currently peace in Liberia and therefore the refugee status of all Liberians ceased in 2003.
Mrs Obuobisah said the order issued by the Director of GIS was for repatriation as was stipulated under the law and explained that other Liberian nationals were currently being repatriated to Liberia.
She said because the applicants were illegal immigrants, they had been put in a detention facility and arrangements had been made to repatriate them until the court ordered otherwise.
The Principal State Attorney said the rights of the Liberians had not been flouted, arguing that the Director of GIS had every right to cause the repatriation of the applicants.
She, therefore, described the motion by the Liberians as unfounded and so the Director of the GIS should be allowed to do her work.
She added that the order for injunction filed by the counsel for the refugees was not properly laid before the court.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Kosmos Partners (energy) 07/02/08
GHANA will earn $836 million annually from oil revenue when initial production begins at the fields of Cape Three Points.
Making the announcement at a press briefing in Accra, the Managing Director of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, said the amount would be earned from Ghana’s share of 38,209 barrels of crude oil a day out of the total 100,000 barrels per day to be produced.
The rest of the production would go to the country’s foreign partners in the exploration.
Ghana’s share was calculated on an assumed long term price of $US60 a barrel amounting to US$2,292,540.00 per day which would translate to US$836,777,100.00 per annum’.
Mr Boateng was reacting to a publication in an Accra-based newspaper which said Ghana would earn $584 billion annually from the oil discovery at Cape Three Points.
He said a daily production of 200,000 barrels of crude was achievable within five years after commencement of production and that could give the state a total revenue of approximately US$1.6 billion per annum.
‘In addition to the revenue due to the state from the fiscal arrangements in the petroleum agreement, petroleum operations especially development and production operations have the potential of transforming the economy through the participation of indigenous businesses.
For instance, he explained that the petroleum agreements provides for the use of Ghanaian goods and services in all phases of petroleum operations in so far as they were of quality and quantity comparable to industry standards and were priced competitively.
That he stated was popularly known in the oil industry as ‘local contents’ which could be defined as the quantum of composite value added or created in the Ghanaian economy through the utilisation of Ghanaian human and material resources for the provision of goods and services to the petroleum industry within acceptable quality, health, safety and environmental standards in order to stimulate the development of indigenous capabilities.
Touching more on the discovery, Mr Boateng said that the production of the oil would be done in phases.
Asked when Ghana would see the first oil, he said there was not a definite answer to that question because more wells would have to be drilled in addition to the Mahogany and Hyedua wells which were all drilled last year.
He said it took two to three months to drill a well adding that it also took time to acquire equipment for production because one had to join a queue in placing an order for equipment on the international market.
Mr Boateng further stated that it took 18 months to construct a gas pipeline adding that there was the need to construct one because the oil discovered had high gas content which could be of immense benefit to the country.
He said everything was on course and assured Ghanaians that Kosmos Energy and its partners were working earnestly to make it possible for early production of oil.
He further explained that exploration was a very risky business with a success rate of one out of 10.
Mr Boateng pointed out that the drilling of a single well cost between $60 million to $100 million and said most companies have had to invest thrice or more of such huge amounts only to find nothing.
In view of the high cost involved in exploration activities, Mr Boateng said the government could not afford to invest in such sector adding that ‘that is why we are encouraging more companies to invest in our oil industry’.
He said the government benefited from about 38 per cent in taxes and royalties among others from the activities of Kosmos Energy and other oil companies operating in the country.
Mr Boateng said that the oil discovery was a good thing for Ghana adding that ‘we can make it a blessing instead of a curse.’
Kosmos Energy (Ghana) Limited, the discoverer of the oil at Cape Three Points and its partners would need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners would develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, Sabre Oil, UK, E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Explaining the role of the GNPC further, the Director of Exploration, Mr Thomas Manu, gave the assurance that the GNPC was playing its supervisory role to the letter.
For instance, he said GNPC required oil companies to undergo competitive bidding anytime it needed to acquire new equipment.
He said the GNPC also took part in tender processes and the award of contracts as well as the responsibility of scrutinising, approving or rejecting annual budgets of oil companies operating in the country.
GHANA will earn $836 million annually from oil revenue when initial production begins at the fields of Cape Three Points.
Making the announcement at a press briefing in Accra, the Managing Director of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Mr Moses Oduro Boateng, said the amount would be earned from Ghana’s share of 38,209 barrels of crude oil a day out of the total 100,000 barrels per day to be produced.
The rest of the production would go to the country’s foreign partners in the exploration.
Ghana’s share was calculated on an assumed long term price of $US60 a barrel amounting to US$2,292,540.00 per day which would translate to US$836,777,100.00 per annum’.
Mr Boateng was reacting to a publication in an Accra-based newspaper which said Ghana would earn $584 billion annually from the oil discovery at Cape Three Points.
He said a daily production of 200,000 barrels of crude was achievable within five years after commencement of production and that could give the state a total revenue of approximately US$1.6 billion per annum.
‘In addition to the revenue due to the state from the fiscal arrangements in the petroleum agreement, petroleum operations especially development and production operations have the potential of transforming the economy through the participation of indigenous businesses.
For instance, he explained that the petroleum agreements provides for the use of Ghanaian goods and services in all phases of petroleum operations in so far as they were of quality and quantity comparable to industry standards and were priced competitively.
That he stated was popularly known in the oil industry as ‘local contents’ which could be defined as the quantum of composite value added or created in the Ghanaian economy through the utilisation of Ghanaian human and material resources for the provision of goods and services to the petroleum industry within acceptable quality, health, safety and environmental standards in order to stimulate the development of indigenous capabilities.
Touching more on the discovery, Mr Boateng said that the production of the oil would be done in phases.
Asked when Ghana would see the first oil, he said there was not a definite answer to that question because more wells would have to be drilled in addition to the Mahogany and Hyedua wells which were all drilled last year.
He said it took two to three months to drill a well adding that it also took time to acquire equipment for production because one had to join a queue in placing an order for equipment on the international market.
Mr Boateng further stated that it took 18 months to construct a gas pipeline adding that there was the need to construct one because the oil discovered had high gas content which could be of immense benefit to the country.
He said everything was on course and assured Ghanaians that Kosmos Energy and its partners were working earnestly to make it possible for early production of oil.
He further explained that exploration was a very risky business with a success rate of one out of 10.
Mr Boateng pointed out that the drilling of a single well cost between $60 million to $100 million and said most companies have had to invest thrice or more of such huge amounts only to find nothing.
In view of the high cost involved in exploration activities, Mr Boateng said the government could not afford to invest in such sector adding that ‘that is why we are encouraging more companies to invest in our oil industry’.
He said the government benefited from about 38 per cent in taxes and royalties among others from the activities of Kosmos Energy and other oil companies operating in the country.
Mr Boateng said that the oil discovery was a good thing for Ghana adding that ‘we can make it a blessing instead of a curse.’
Kosmos Energy (Ghana) Limited, the discoverer of the oil at Cape Three Points and its partners would need about $5 billion to fully develop the fields to pave the way for production of oil.
Due to the cost involved in drilling and the time frame needed for the acquisition of equipment, Kosmos Energy and its partners would develop the discovered oil fields in phases.
The company’s partners are Tullow Oil, UK, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Texas, Sabre Oil, UK, E.O. Group, Ghana and the GNPC.
Explaining the role of the GNPC further, the Director of Exploration, Mr Thomas Manu, gave the assurance that the GNPC was playing its supervisory role to the letter.
For instance, he said GNPC required oil companies to undergo competitive bidding anytime it needed to acquire new equipment.
He said the GNPC also took part in tender processes and the award of contracts as well as the responsibility of scrutinising, approving or rejecting annual budgets of oil companies operating in the country.
Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court
February 1, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.
THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Man 37, arrested over payslips deal
February 4, 2008 (Page 39)
LUCK ran out for a 37-year-old barber who attempted to steal payslips of public servants to further his alleged dubious deals with Hire Purchase Companies.
Sylvester Appiah was caught in possession of the payslips at the premises of the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) last Wednesday.
Appiah, who is suspected to be in league with some hire purchase companies, is said to have earlier approached a worker at the CAGD to assist him to lay hands on the payslips.
The worker reported the matter to her superiors who urged her to feign interest and hand over some payslips to Appiah.
After collecting the payslips, Appiah gave GH ¢100 to the worker but he was arrested shortly after handing over the money.
A search on him revealed that he was in possession of more than 50 payslips of public servants.
Following the arrest of Appiah, the CAGD would be holding an emergency meeting with hire purchase companies on Monday, February 4, 2008 to re-emphasise the rules under which hire purchase companies could deal with the CAGD.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, after his arrest, the Head of Payroll of the CAGD, Mr Seidu Kotomah, said his outfit had received complaints from more than 127 public servants who claimed their salaries were being deducted for items they had not purchased.
He said seven complaints were received from public servants in August 2007, 26 in September 2007, 36 in October 2007, 30 in November 2007, while 19 and 16 complaints were received in December 2007 and January 2008 respectively.
According to Mr Kotomah, two public servants had even dragged the CAGD to court over the same issue, adding that “the issue is becoming a big problem”.
He said some unscrupulous elements laid hands on payslips, manoeuvred to meet other conditions with assistance from hire purchase companies and eventually succeeded in getting the salaries of affected public servants deducted for items they (public servants) had not purchased.
Mr Kotomah, therefore, appealed to public servants to “jealously guard” their payslips so that they would not fall in the wrong hands.
He said most public servants showed little or no interest in their payslips and said until they did so, the menace would prevail.
“People should have interest in their payslips and question any abnormality in order to nip this problem in the bud once and for all,” Mr Kotomah added, and accordingly urged Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to treat payslips with caution.
LUCK ran out for a 37-year-old barber who attempted to steal payslips of public servants to further his alleged dubious deals with Hire Purchase Companies.
Sylvester Appiah was caught in possession of the payslips at the premises of the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) last Wednesday.
Appiah, who is suspected to be in league with some hire purchase companies, is said to have earlier approached a worker at the CAGD to assist him to lay hands on the payslips.
The worker reported the matter to her superiors who urged her to feign interest and hand over some payslips to Appiah.
After collecting the payslips, Appiah gave GH ¢100 to the worker but he was arrested shortly after handing over the money.
A search on him revealed that he was in possession of more than 50 payslips of public servants.
Following the arrest of Appiah, the CAGD would be holding an emergency meeting with hire purchase companies on Monday, February 4, 2008 to re-emphasise the rules under which hire purchase companies could deal with the CAGD.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, after his arrest, the Head of Payroll of the CAGD, Mr Seidu Kotomah, said his outfit had received complaints from more than 127 public servants who claimed their salaries were being deducted for items they had not purchased.
He said seven complaints were received from public servants in August 2007, 26 in September 2007, 36 in October 2007, 30 in November 2007, while 19 and 16 complaints were received in December 2007 and January 2008 respectively.
According to Mr Kotomah, two public servants had even dragged the CAGD to court over the same issue, adding that “the issue is becoming a big problem”.
He said some unscrupulous elements laid hands on payslips, manoeuvred to meet other conditions with assistance from hire purchase companies and eventually succeeded in getting the salaries of affected public servants deducted for items they (public servants) had not purchased.
Mr Kotomah, therefore, appealed to public servants to “jealously guard” their payslips so that they would not fall in the wrong hands.
He said most public servants showed little or no interest in their payslips and said until they did so, the menace would prevail.
“People should have interest in their payslips and question any abnormality in order to nip this problem in the bud once and for all,” Mr Kotomah added, and accordingly urged Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to treat payslips with caution.
Inefficiency didn't drive me out of VRA - Dr Wereko-Brobby tells court
February 1, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.
THE former Chief Executive Officer of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Dr Charles Wereko-Brobby, yesterday told the Fast Track High Court that he did not leave the VRA because of inefficiency.
He said he left because the President asked him and his deputy, Mr Amissah Arthur, to resign in the best interest and future of the VRA.
Testifying in a GH¢220,000 suit he instituted against the authority, Dr Wereko-Brobby said “my conduct at the VRA was exemplary”.
Dr Wereko-Brobby is demanding payment of GH¢220,000 being his entitlements from the VRA.
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, Dr Wereko-Brobby told the court that he was nominated by the President and given a letter of appointment by the Chairman of the VRA Board.
Mr Yeboah then suggested to Dr Wereko-Brobby that he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) had vacated his post because he did not resign from the VRA but the witness denied that assertion.
The following transpired between the counsel for the VRA, Mr F. K. Yeboah, and Dr Wereko-Brobby:
Mr Yeboah: You have not sent a letter of resignation to the defendant (VRA).
Dr Wereko-Brobby: The defendant accepted my resignation letter.
Mr Yeboah: From September 13, 2003 you have not gone to work. You can be declared to have vacated your post. Sanctions of vacation of post can be applied to you.
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I have not vacated my post. I did not give any notice but did not flout any rules.
He said he did not give six months’ notice as was required before resigning because he was not allowed to do so.
Dr Wereko-Brobby denied an assertion from counsel for the VRA that the reliefs he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) was seeking were wrong.
He also denied an assertion that the circumstances surrounding his resignation were caused by himself, adding that the allegations made against him were later found to be false by an independent committee established to investigate those allegations.
Dr Wereko-Brobby said the fact that he was the Chairman of the VRA Board before he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA was not a demotion.
He also disagreed with an assertion from the defence counsel that he forced the then Chief Executive out of office because he (Dr Wereko-Brobby) viewed the position of the Chief Executive as “very attractive”.
He said all that he required the court to do was to order the VRA to pay his entitlements as former Chief Executive of VRA as stipulated by a separation letter from the VRA Board and nothing else.
“My separation benefits were clearly spelt out and I have not been told up till now that the decisions have been reversed,” Dr Wereko-Brobby informed the court.
He said he took away his official vehicle and furniture from his official residence in compliance with the terms of a letter spelling out his entitlements.
Mr Yeboah: The counter claims are valid. (He was referring to counter claims from the VRA which was requesting the court to order Dr Wereko-Brobby to hand over an official vehicle and furniture)
Dr Wereko-Brobby: I do not share your view. They are without merit.
He has since completed with his evidence and the VRA is expected to open its defence on February 19, 2008.
Apart from the GH¢220,000 being sought for, Dr Wereko-Brobby is asking for interest from April 2004 and also an order to be issued to the VRA to transfer to him ownership of a Volvo saloon car, with registration number GW 2505 T, which was officially assigned to him when he was appointed Chief Executive of the VRA.
In his statement of claim, Dr Wereko-Brobby said he got separated from the VRA on September 17, 2003 but it took the VRA a considerable time, amid demands from him, before it eventually wrote to him on April 1, 2004 to formally notify him of the separation entitlements.
He said in that letter, cash equivalent of 43 days’ earned leave up to the time of the resignation, totalling GH¢6100 six months’ salary in the sum of GH¢18,700, gratuity of five years’ salary of GH¢180,000 being the cedi equivalent of fuel allocation from March 31, 2004, and transfer of ownership of the saloon car which was in his possession were discussed.
The VRA, he further argued, in its letter of April 1, 2004, agreed to pay 70 per cent of the entitlements by mid April 2004 and the rest when he vacated its premises on or before the end of May the same year.
Dr Wereko-Brobby contended that because the VRA could not pay the entitlements as agreed on, he could also not vacate the premises on the agreed date.
He further averred that the delay in the payment persisted into 2005, when he decided to vacate the premises but the defendant had not honoured its obligation, adding that unless compelled by the court, he would not be paid his entitlements.
Dr Wereko-Brobby was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the VRA on August 24, 2001. He officially assumed office in September that year but resigned on September 17, 2003.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I saw 5 boats offload 'fish'
January 31, 2008 (Page 3)
ONE of the crew members on board the MV Benjamin, the vessel which was allegedly used to cart 77 parcels of cocaine, told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that he saw five boats offloading cartons of “fish” into the vessel in Liberian waters in April 2006.
Isaac Arhin, the crew member, said the Captain of the MV Benjamin, wielding a gun, ordered him (Isaac) and other crew members to go into their cabins before the “fish” was offloaded.
Isaac was giving his evidence in-chief in the case in which he, his brother, Philip Bruce Arhin, Joseph Kojo Dawson, the owner of the vessel, as well as Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, have been accused of playing various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
He said he witnessed the offloading of the cartons from a small window in his cabin.
The accused persons have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by his counsel, Mr Osei Wusu, Isaac informed the court that one of the boats kept surveillance, while the remaining five offloaded the cartons of “fish”, which later turned out to be cocaine, into the MV Benjamin.
The accused person said after the boats had offloaded the cartons of “fish”, the next thing he realised was that the vessel had arrived at the shores of Tema.
On arriving in Tema, Isaac said, a man called Mr Pak, the Captain and another person he called Killer disembarked from the vessel after another boat had arrived to collect the “fish” from the MV Benjamin.
Arhin further stated that the next day after the arrival of the vessel, a naval ship docked close to it and a former official of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), Mr Ben Ndego, and other security officials searched the ship and found a carton which was later found to contain cocaine.
The accused person said the vessel developed a fault and for that matter Mr Pak and Killer arrived in Takoradi to see to its repair.
He said the crew members were asked to try the vessel on the high seas after repair works had been carried out and it was during the trial that he realised the vessel was sailing opposite its designation.
Upon realising that the vessel was not heading towards Tema, as planned, Isaac said he decided to question the captain where the vessel was heading towards but that question infuriated the captain, who went inside his (captain’s) cabin for a gun.
Isaac said at that point, Mr Pak pleaded with the captain to calm down but the captain then ordered him (Isaac) and the other crew members to go into their cabins.
According to Isaac, he and the other crew members stayed in their cabins throughout the offloading of the cartons.
The accused person is expected to be cross-examined by the prosecution on February 6, 2008.
ONE of the crew members on board the MV Benjamin, the vessel which was allegedly used to cart 77 parcels of cocaine, told the Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday that he saw five boats offloading cartons of “fish” into the vessel in Liberian waters in April 2006.
Isaac Arhin, the crew member, said the Captain of the MV Benjamin, wielding a gun, ordered him (Isaac) and other crew members to go into their cabins before the “fish” was offloaded.
Isaac was giving his evidence in-chief in the case in which he, his brother, Philip Bruce Arhin, Joseph Kojo Dawson, the owner of the vessel, as well as Cui Xian Li and Luo Yin Xing, both Chinese, have been accused of playing various roles in the importation of the cocaine.
He said he witnessed the offloading of the cartons from a small window in his cabin.
The accused persons have been charged with various counts of using property for narcotic offences, engaging in prohibited business relating to narcotics and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority.
Each of them has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and has been remanded in prison custody.
Led in evidence by his counsel, Mr Osei Wusu, Isaac informed the court that one of the boats kept surveillance, while the remaining five offloaded the cartons of “fish”, which later turned out to be cocaine, into the MV Benjamin.
The accused person said after the boats had offloaded the cartons of “fish”, the next thing he realised was that the vessel had arrived at the shores of Tema.
On arriving in Tema, Isaac said, a man called Mr Pak, the Captain and another person he called Killer disembarked from the vessel after another boat had arrived to collect the “fish” from the MV Benjamin.
Arhin further stated that the next day after the arrival of the vessel, a naval ship docked close to it and a former official of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB), Mr Ben Ndego, and other security officials searched the ship and found a carton which was later found to contain cocaine.
The accused person said the vessel developed a fault and for that matter Mr Pak and Killer arrived in Takoradi to see to its repair.
He said the crew members were asked to try the vessel on the high seas after repair works had been carried out and it was during the trial that he realised the vessel was sailing opposite its designation.
Upon realising that the vessel was not heading towards Tema, as planned, Isaac said he decided to question the captain where the vessel was heading towards but that question infuriated the captain, who went inside his (captain’s) cabin for a gun.
Isaac said at that point, Mr Pak pleaded with the captain to calm down but the captain then ordered him (Isaac) and the other crew members to go into their cabins.
According to Isaac, he and the other crew members stayed in their cabins throughout the offloading of the cartons.
The accused person is expected to be cross-examined by the prosecution on February 6, 2008.
Tsatsu's case adjourned sine die
January 31, 2008 (Page 3)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned sine die the appeal application brought before it by Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company.
Mr Justice William Atuguba, presiding over the five-member panel announced this when the matter was mentioned for hearing.
According to Mr Justice Atuguba, the indefinite adjournment had become necessary because Mr Justice Richard Twum Aninakwa, one of the panel members, had reached retiring age.
The Presiding Judge stated that the retiring judge would have to be replaced before the matter could be listed for hearing.
Tsatsu who had been put before a Fast Track Court in Accra for wilfully causing financial loss to the State pleaded not guilty, and was on a self-recognizance bail.
After prosecution rested its case, the court ruled that the Country Director of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) was immune to giving evidence in the matter.
Tsatsu, therefore appealed against the court's decision at the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling of the lower court.
Not satisfied with the decision of the two courts, Tsatsu took the matter to the highest court of the land.
At its last sitting on November 28, 2007, the Supreme Court granted Tsatsu's motion for the Director of the IFC to be heard on the issue of its immunity from process.
Consequently, the court ordered its registrar to serve the record of appeal on the IFC to advise itself as to whether or not to be heard on the appeal.
The court gave the IFC 21 days within which to respond by filing its submissions if it wanted to be heard on the matter.
On December 27, the record of appeal and counsels' submissions were served on the IFC, which had without prejudice to its right to invoke its immunity submitted a written submission to the court.
At today's sitting, Tsatsu told the court that his senior counsel, Professor Emmanuel Victor Oware Dankwa, was indisposed, while his other counsel was dead.
- GNA
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned sine die the appeal application brought before it by Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Company.
Mr Justice William Atuguba, presiding over the five-member panel announced this when the matter was mentioned for hearing.
According to Mr Justice Atuguba, the indefinite adjournment had become necessary because Mr Justice Richard Twum Aninakwa, one of the panel members, had reached retiring age.
The Presiding Judge stated that the retiring judge would have to be replaced before the matter could be listed for hearing.
Tsatsu who had been put before a Fast Track Court in Accra for wilfully causing financial loss to the State pleaded not guilty, and was on a self-recognizance bail.
After prosecution rested its case, the court ruled that the Country Director of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) was immune to giving evidence in the matter.
Tsatsu, therefore appealed against the court's decision at the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling of the lower court.
Not satisfied with the decision of the two courts, Tsatsu took the matter to the highest court of the land.
At its last sitting on November 28, 2007, the Supreme Court granted Tsatsu's motion for the Director of the IFC to be heard on the issue of its immunity from process.
Consequently, the court ordered its registrar to serve the record of appeal on the IFC to advise itself as to whether or not to be heard on the appeal.
The court gave the IFC 21 days within which to respond by filing its submissions if it wanted to be heard on the matter.
On December 27, the record of appeal and counsels' submissions were served on the IFC, which had without prejudice to its right to invoke its immunity submitted a written submission to the court.
At today's sitting, Tsatsu told the court that his senior counsel, Professor Emmanuel Victor Oware Dankwa, was indisposed, while his other counsel was dead.
- GNA
Judgement in British paedophile case fixed
January 28, 2008 (Page 44)
JUDGEMENT in the case in which a 57-year-old Briton has been accused of indecently assaulting a three-year-old girl has been fixed for February 19, 2008.
The Accra Circuit Court fixed the date after counsel for Thomas Tichler, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, informed it that the accused person had closed his defence.
The trial judge, Mrs Georgina Datsa-Mensah, then ordered both the prosecution to file their written addresses on or before February 4, 2008 to enable the court to deliver its judgement on February 19, 2008.
Tichler, who is alleged to have inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of causing harm and indecent assault.
He has been refused bail.
A total of seven prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents, the victim’s two siblings, a medical doctor and the investigator in the case testified against the accused person.
Tichler testified and denied any wrongdoing. Two defence witnesses were also called to testify.
The accused person was alleged to have committed the offence at the residence of the victim on October 13, 2007, barely a week after he had arrived in the country for a three-month attachment.
According to the prosecution, Tichler visited the victim’s father at North Legon, near Redco Flats, on October 13, 2007 and on reaching there, the victim’s father left the victim and her two siblings in the care of Tichler in order to purchase some items from town.
Tichler engaged the victim and her two siblings, aged eight and six, at the sitting room but later managed to engage the victim alone and succeeded in inserting his fingers into her vagina.
Not quiet long after the incident, the victim’s mother arrived from town and just as she entered the kitchen, Tichler followed her and requested for water to wash his hands.
Later, the victim went to her mother and said she wanted to urinate and while helping her, the mother noticed that the victim’s panties had blood stains.
The victim mentioned the accused person as the one who inserted his fingers into her vagina when she was questioned by her mother.
Tichler was arrested and handed over to the Legon police.
The victim was later taken to hospital where she was examined, treated and discharged.
JUDGEMENT in the case in which a 57-year-old Briton has been accused of indecently assaulting a three-year-old girl has been fixed for February 19, 2008.
The Accra Circuit Court fixed the date after counsel for Thomas Tichler, Mr Ellis Owusu Fordjour, informed it that the accused person had closed his defence.
The trial judge, Mrs Georgina Datsa-Mensah, then ordered both the prosecution to file their written addresses on or before February 4, 2008 to enable the court to deliver its judgement on February 19, 2008.
Tichler, who is alleged to have inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of causing harm and indecent assault.
He has been refused bail.
A total of seven prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents, the victim’s two siblings, a medical doctor and the investigator in the case testified against the accused person.
Tichler testified and denied any wrongdoing. Two defence witnesses were also called to testify.
The accused person was alleged to have committed the offence at the residence of the victim on October 13, 2007, barely a week after he had arrived in the country for a three-month attachment.
According to the prosecution, Tichler visited the victim’s father at North Legon, near Redco Flats, on October 13, 2007 and on reaching there, the victim’s father left the victim and her two siblings in the care of Tichler in order to purchase some items from town.
Tichler engaged the victim and her two siblings, aged eight and six, at the sitting room but later managed to engage the victim alone and succeeded in inserting his fingers into her vagina.
Not quiet long after the incident, the victim’s mother arrived from town and just as she entered the kitchen, Tichler followed her and requested for water to wash his hands.
Later, the victim went to her mother and said she wanted to urinate and while helping her, the mother noticed that the victim’s panties had blood stains.
The victim mentioned the accused person as the one who inserted his fingers into her vagina when she was questioned by her mother.
Tichler was arrested and handed over to the Legon police.
The victim was later taken to hospital where she was examined, treated and discharged.
SSNIT not for CAP 30 pensions — Domelevo
January 28, 2008 (Page 47)
THE Director in charge of Pensions at the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) has advised pensioners who want to be on CAP 30, instead of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), to voice their concerns through the appropriate quarters for redress.
Mr Daniel Domelevo said “people who are SSNIT beneficiaries think it is a matter of pleading and winning sympathy that will make them be paid under CAP 30. What they should know is that once there is a legal provision, one cannot amend it administratively. It must go through the same legal process”.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, Mr Domelevo said gratuity and monthly payments under CAP 30 were far higher than gratuity and monthly payments under SSNIT and for that matter pensioners preferred being paid under CAP 30.
He explained that the Pensions Unit was inundated with hundreds of applications from pensioners, all pleading to be placed under CAP 30.
Mr Domelevo, who is also in charge of Public Financial Management Reforms and Payroll, said the applicants later turned out to be beneficiaries of SSNIT pension.
Quoting the law to defend the CAGD’s rejection of applications, Mr Domelevo said Section 15 (3) of the Financial Administration Act states that “the Controller and Accountant-General shall reject a requisition if he is of the opinion that payments on it will not be a lawful charge against appropriation.”
Mr Domelevo reminded workers and pensioners who wanted to be placed under CAP 30 that there was nothing the CAGD could do to that effect and explained that the department was acting in accordance with the law.
He further stated that the CAGD was responsible for CAP 30 pensions and had nothing to do with SSNIT pension, “except to ensure that anyone benefiting from CAP 30 does not collect SSNIT pension”.
According to him, in the past some pensioners had succeeded in collecting their pension benefits under the CAP 30 and SSNIT.
“Now there is an arrangement with SSNIT by which we obtain clearance and vice versa before payments are made,” Mr Domelevo pointed out, adding that “even with that some pensioners attempt to cheat but we normally show them records indicating that they have been paid by SSNIT”.
Giving the background to CAP 30, Mr Domelevo said it was the first pension for all public servants, according to the Pension Act of 1950, until the Pensions and SSNIT Amendment Act 1975 came into effect.
He explained that the essence of the act was to put public servants on SSNIT pension, instead of CAP 30, because CAP 30 was no longer deemed sustainable.
Mr Domelevo explained that there were too many dependants under CAP 30, which was a non-contributory pension.
“From January 1, 1972 any person employed in the Civil Service, the GES and other services, except the security services and the Judicial Service, was to benefit from SSNIT,” Mr Domelevo said.
However, he stated that civil servants, GES staff, among others, who were in employment before January 1, 1972 and occupied a pensionable position also enjoyed CAP 30.
Nonetheless, workers were given the option to either opt for CAP 30 or SSNIT within 12 months from January 1, 1972, “after which if you do not opt the law will automatically deem you to be under SSNIT, not CAP 30,” Mr Domelevo added.
He said the CAGD had decided to consolidate all the laws on pensions so that people would know whether or not they qualified for pensions.
THE Director in charge of Pensions at the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department (CAGD) has advised pensioners who want to be on CAP 30, instead of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), to voice their concerns through the appropriate quarters for redress.
Mr Daniel Domelevo said “people who are SSNIT beneficiaries think it is a matter of pleading and winning sympathy that will make them be paid under CAP 30. What they should know is that once there is a legal provision, one cannot amend it administratively. It must go through the same legal process”.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic, Mr Domelevo said gratuity and monthly payments under CAP 30 were far higher than gratuity and monthly payments under SSNIT and for that matter pensioners preferred being paid under CAP 30.
He explained that the Pensions Unit was inundated with hundreds of applications from pensioners, all pleading to be placed under CAP 30.
Mr Domelevo, who is also in charge of Public Financial Management Reforms and Payroll, said the applicants later turned out to be beneficiaries of SSNIT pension.
Quoting the law to defend the CAGD’s rejection of applications, Mr Domelevo said Section 15 (3) of the Financial Administration Act states that “the Controller and Accountant-General shall reject a requisition if he is of the opinion that payments on it will not be a lawful charge against appropriation.”
Mr Domelevo reminded workers and pensioners who wanted to be placed under CAP 30 that there was nothing the CAGD could do to that effect and explained that the department was acting in accordance with the law.
He further stated that the CAGD was responsible for CAP 30 pensions and had nothing to do with SSNIT pension, “except to ensure that anyone benefiting from CAP 30 does not collect SSNIT pension”.
According to him, in the past some pensioners had succeeded in collecting their pension benefits under the CAP 30 and SSNIT.
“Now there is an arrangement with SSNIT by which we obtain clearance and vice versa before payments are made,” Mr Domelevo pointed out, adding that “even with that some pensioners attempt to cheat but we normally show them records indicating that they have been paid by SSNIT”.
Giving the background to CAP 30, Mr Domelevo said it was the first pension for all public servants, according to the Pension Act of 1950, until the Pensions and SSNIT Amendment Act 1975 came into effect.
He explained that the essence of the act was to put public servants on SSNIT pension, instead of CAP 30, because CAP 30 was no longer deemed sustainable.
Mr Domelevo explained that there were too many dependants under CAP 30, which was a non-contributory pension.
“From January 1, 1972 any person employed in the Civil Service, the GES and other services, except the security services and the Judicial Service, was to benefit from SSNIT,” Mr Domelevo said.
However, he stated that civil servants, GES staff, among others, who were in employment before January 1, 1972 and occupied a pensionable position also enjoyed CAP 30.
Nonetheless, workers were given the option to either opt for CAP 30 or SSNIT within 12 months from January 1, 1972, “after which if you do not opt the law will automatically deem you to be under SSNIT, not CAP 30,” Mr Domelevo added.
He said the CAGD had decided to consolidate all the laws on pensions so that people would know whether or not they qualified for pensions.
2 British coke girls jailed 1 year each
January 24, 2008 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Juvenile Court in Accra yesterday sentenced two British juveniles to one year imprisonment each for possessing six kilogrammes of cocaine.
Yasemin Vatasever and Yetunde Diya, both 16, are to begin serving their sentences from July 18, 2007, the day on which they were remanded in custody by the court.
Yasemin and Yetunde, whose faces were covered with cloths to shield them from anxious foreign and local media, were whisked away to begin their sentences, a greater part of which has already been served.
According to sources close to the case, which was heard in camera, the juvenile convicts would serve their sentences at the Mamobi Juvenile Detention Centre in Accra, after which they would be sent to Britain.
The two were convicted by the court on November 21, 2007 after they had been found guilty of conspiracy and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority, but sentencing was deferred to December 5, 2007.
On December 5, 2008, the court had to defer sentencing again because it had not received the social services report on the girls. It then deferred sentencing to Wednesday, January 9, 2008.
At the court’s sitting in Accra on January 9, 2008, it emerged that the Department of Social Welfare had received the report on the girls on Monday, January 7, and an official of the department, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn the case for two weeks to enable the department to thoroughly study the report before advising the court appropriately.
The trial judge then warned that the court would not countenance any excuses on the next adjourned date.
The report was expected to give a profile and background on the juveniles from the British authorities.
A third accused person, Florina Rotario, 20, who was arrested along with the girls, is, however, standing trial in a separate court because she is not a juvenile.
Florina, who is currently on remand, is standing trial at the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
The trial was heard in camera because the law does not permit cases involving juveniles to be heard in open court. That did not, however, take away its intense public attention.
In all, seven prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were said to have testified in the trial which lasted about four months.
The girls pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and maintained that they were lured into Ghana by two men who left them to their fate.
They were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on July 2, 2007 by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB).
Each had in her possession three kilogrammes of cocaine hidden in her laptop bag.
At the last sitting of the court, lawyers of the girls declared their intention to appeal against the convictions.
THE Juvenile Court in Accra yesterday sentenced two British juveniles to one year imprisonment each for possessing six kilogrammes of cocaine.
Yasemin Vatasever and Yetunde Diya, both 16, are to begin serving their sentences from July 18, 2007, the day on which they were remanded in custody by the court.
Yasemin and Yetunde, whose faces were covered with cloths to shield them from anxious foreign and local media, were whisked away to begin their sentences, a greater part of which has already been served.
According to sources close to the case, which was heard in camera, the juvenile convicts would serve their sentences at the Mamobi Juvenile Detention Centre in Accra, after which they would be sent to Britain.
The two were convicted by the court on November 21, 2007 after they had been found guilty of conspiracy and possessing narcotic drugs without lawful authority, but sentencing was deferred to December 5, 2007.
On December 5, 2008, the court had to defer sentencing again because it had not received the social services report on the girls. It then deferred sentencing to Wednesday, January 9, 2008.
At the court’s sitting in Accra on January 9, 2008, it emerged that the Department of Social Welfare had received the report on the girls on Monday, January 7, and an official of the department, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn the case for two weeks to enable the department to thoroughly study the report before advising the court appropriately.
The trial judge then warned that the court would not countenance any excuses on the next adjourned date.
The report was expected to give a profile and background on the juveniles from the British authorities.
A third accused person, Florina Rotario, 20, who was arrested along with the girls, is, however, standing trial in a separate court because she is not a juvenile.
Florina, who is currently on remand, is standing trial at the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
The trial was heard in camera because the law does not permit cases involving juveniles to be heard in open court. That did not, however, take away its intense public attention.
In all, seven prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were said to have testified in the trial which lasted about four months.
The girls pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy and possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority and maintained that they were lured into Ghana by two men who left them to their fate.
They were arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on July 2, 2007 by officials of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB).
Each had in her possession three kilogrammes of cocaine hidden in her laptop bag.
At the last sitting of the court, lawyers of the girls declared their intention to appeal against the convictions.
Ghanaian Scientist honoured in USA
January 24, 2008 (Page 3)
A US-based Ghanaian scientist, Dr Fred McBagonluri, has been named the Black Engineer of the Year (Most Promising Scientist category) in the US.
Dr McBagonluri, the Director of Engineering at Siemens Hearing Instruments, will receive the award at the 22nd Annual Black Engineer of the Year Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, in February 2008.
The award recognises an engineer or scientist in the early years of his or her career who demonstrates tremendous potential for future technical contributions.
Commenting on the award in an interview with the Daily Graphic, Dr McBagonluri, 37, said, “Being the first Ghanaian to win this award enhances the global image of our country as a nation that produces excellence for the global stage.”
“It gives me the validation required to initiate and win the audience required to begin a national dialogue on what our education, scientific and technological road map ought to be,” Dr McBagonluri noted.
He further intimated that the award was a sign that Ghana’s educational products were globally competitive.
Dr McBagonluri thanked his colleagues at Siemens for their support and recognition and gave the assurance that he would do more to further project the company’s name.
The nominee’s unique contributions to the organisation, his leadership abilities, professional and technical achievements and potential for advancement were all considered before the award was given.
The awards were sponsored by the Council of Engineering Deans of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Lockheed Martin Corp, Career Communications Group, USBE and Information Technology magazine.
Dr McBagonluri, who joined Siemens in 2001, was cited for being the driving force behind revolutionising the technology in the hearing instrument market.
His work enabled great efficiency and quality gains in the manufacturing of hearing instruments and his leadership of the team combining 3D image processing, artificial intelligence, materials engineering and rapid prototyping into production were the main reasons for his recognition.
Since joining Siemens as a research engineer for 3D virtual modelling and manufacturing of in-the-ear-hearing-instruments, he has been promoted twice and now directs requirements engineering, software engineering and manufacturing engineering for a team that includes three managers responsible for 30 engineers.
Dr Gerhard Roehrlein, Executive Director, Product Lifecycle Management, Siemens Medical Instruments, commenting on Dr McBagonluri’s achievements, said, “His outstanding technological capabilities, together with his high work standards and dedication to be successful, captured my attention right from the beginning. Very soon, I recognised his natural leadership capability. He earned the respect of his colleagues easily through his competence, friendliness, foresight and communication skills.”
Dr McBagonluri who hails from the Upper West Region Schools attended
Nandom Secondary School and then proceeded to the St Augustine's College for his Advanced Level Certificated.
He then proceeded to Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio in 1991 and completed in 1996 with BS (Highest Distinction) in Manufacturing Engineering.
He is also an alumnus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where he attained his masters in Engineering Mechanics as well as the University of Dayton, Dayton Ohio where he obtained PhD in Materials Engineering (Aeronautics
and Astronautics structural Systems)
Dr McBagonluri is married with two children.
A US-based Ghanaian scientist, Dr Fred McBagonluri, has been named the Black Engineer of the Year (Most Promising Scientist category) in the US.
Dr McBagonluri, the Director of Engineering at Siemens Hearing Instruments, will receive the award at the 22nd Annual Black Engineer of the Year Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, in February 2008.
The award recognises an engineer or scientist in the early years of his or her career who demonstrates tremendous potential for future technical contributions.
Commenting on the award in an interview with the Daily Graphic, Dr McBagonluri, 37, said, “Being the first Ghanaian to win this award enhances the global image of our country as a nation that produces excellence for the global stage.”
“It gives me the validation required to initiate and win the audience required to begin a national dialogue on what our education, scientific and technological road map ought to be,” Dr McBagonluri noted.
He further intimated that the award was a sign that Ghana’s educational products were globally competitive.
Dr McBagonluri thanked his colleagues at Siemens for their support and recognition and gave the assurance that he would do more to further project the company’s name.
The nominee’s unique contributions to the organisation, his leadership abilities, professional and technical achievements and potential for advancement were all considered before the award was given.
The awards were sponsored by the Council of Engineering Deans of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Lockheed Martin Corp, Career Communications Group, USBE and Information Technology magazine.
Dr McBagonluri, who joined Siemens in 2001, was cited for being the driving force behind revolutionising the technology in the hearing instrument market.
His work enabled great efficiency and quality gains in the manufacturing of hearing instruments and his leadership of the team combining 3D image processing, artificial intelligence, materials engineering and rapid prototyping into production were the main reasons for his recognition.
Since joining Siemens as a research engineer for 3D virtual modelling and manufacturing of in-the-ear-hearing-instruments, he has been promoted twice and now directs requirements engineering, software engineering and manufacturing engineering for a team that includes three managers responsible for 30 engineers.
Dr Gerhard Roehrlein, Executive Director, Product Lifecycle Management, Siemens Medical Instruments, commenting on Dr McBagonluri’s achievements, said, “His outstanding technological capabilities, together with his high work standards and dedication to be successful, captured my attention right from the beginning. Very soon, I recognised his natural leadership capability. He earned the respect of his colleagues easily through his competence, friendliness, foresight and communication skills.”
Dr McBagonluri who hails from the Upper West Region Schools attended
Nandom Secondary School and then proceeded to the St Augustine's College for his Advanced Level Certificated.
He then proceeded to Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio in 1991 and completed in 1996 with BS (Highest Distinction) in Manufacturing Engineering.
He is also an alumnus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where he attained his masters in Engineering Mechanics as well as the University of Dayton, Dayton Ohio where he obtained PhD in Materials Engineering (Aeronautics
and Astronautics structural Systems)
Dr McBagonluri is married with two children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)