The Criminal Division 4 of the High Court in Accra, presided over by Her Ladyship Audrey Kocuvie-Tay, has heard the testimony of a former Board Member of the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF), Kofi Boakye, who insisted that the Board never approved the Accra Sky Train Project.
Mr. Boakye, appearing as the second prosecution witness (PW2), told the court that during his tenure on the GIIF Board from 2017 to 2021, the project did not receive board approval despite being discussed at meetings.
Captured in his witness statement, Mr. Boakye stated, “During my tenure as a member of the Board, we approved several projects; however, the Board did not approve the Sky Train Project.”
He further rejected claims that the Board sanctioned a payment of US$2 million for the acquisition of shares related to the project. “Additionally, the Board did not approve the $2,000,000.00 payment for the acquisition of shares in relation to the Sky Project,” he told the court.
Mr. Boakye explained that the project was introduced to the Board by the then Chief Executive Officer of GIIF, Solomon Asamoah, who informed members that he had travelled to South Africa as part of a government delegation to a summit where presentations were made on the Sky Train concept.
According to the witness, Mr. Asamoah indicated that the government delegation had decided that GIIF should participate in the project, after which the Board also expressed interest. A presentation was subsequently made to GIIF’s Investment and Financing Committee.
However, Mr. Boakye maintained that although the project came up for discussion, it was never formally approved by the Board. He added that all relevant discussions and decisions concerning the project were captured in the Board’s minutes.
The case involves two accused persons: former GIIF Chief Executive Officer, Solomon Asamoah (A1), and former GIIF Board Chairman, Professor Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi (A2).
At the hearing, Sefakor Batse appeared for the prosecution, while Victoria Barth represented the first accused. Godfred Gyimah Okyere held the brief of Yaw Acheampong Boafo for the second accused.
Cross examination
Q; Mention your full name to the court?
A: Kofi Boakye
Q: You filed a witness statement in respect of this case?
A: That is so my lady
Q: Kindly take a look, identify and confirm whether this is the witness statement?
A: Yes my lady
Q; What would you like to do with it?
A; I want it used as my evidence-in-chief.
Court: Adopted as evidence- in-chief without objection
Cross-examination by Victoria Barth counsel for A1
Q. You are a lawyer of about 25 years standing, right?
A. That is so.
Q. You run a law firm by name Regal Manna Chambers?
A. That is so.
Q. Harriet Abban who is the current secretary of GIIF isolated as one of the lawyers in your chambers, is that correct?
A. That was some time in the past.
Q. At the time she was engaged by GIIF. She was a member of your firm, is that not so?
A. I would have to confirm that.
Q. In your practice as a lawyer you handle matters involving company law, is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. From 2017 when you became a member of the GIIF board to sometime in 2019, you also doubled as the board secretary. Is that not so?
A. That is correct, my Lady.
Q. What was your role as board secretary?
A. I was limited to recording of board minutes and minutes of sub committees of the board.
Q. You were also a member of the investment and finance committee of the GIIF board?
A. That is correct.
Q. You also sometimes acted as counsel for GIIF in litigation of court case brought against it. Is that correct?
A. There was only one case that was referred to me and the matter was settled…
Q. This was the case of Jowak Enterprise Limited v. The Attorney General and GIIF. Is that not so?
A. That is correct. If I just add I was not paid for services rendered in that matter.
Q. Between March and May 2025 you were invited by the NIB for questioning on the Sky Train project. Is that correct?
A. My lady that is correct.
Q. Were you a suspect in an investigation regarding stealing and causing financial loss. As a result of GIIF’s participation in the sky trial project?
A. Together with my colleagues, when we were invited by the NIB, we were told them that we had engaged in an activity that required cabinet approval, parliamentary approval and other approvals arising out of we approving GIIF’s participation in the sky train project. We informed the investigators that GIIF or the board for that matter never approved the sky train project. The trend of the investigations, therefore, changed from there.
Q. Just for clarity, were you accused of being involved in stealing and causing financial loss to the state regarding the sky train project?
A. Yes, All of us.
Q. You have two written statements to the NIB, one on 11/3/25 and the second on 23/5/25. Do you recall?
A. I’m not certain as to the dates but yes I have two statements to the investigators.
Q. Take a look at the two statements you wrote dated 11/3/25 and 23/5/25 with your signature and your personal data and confirm those are copies of the statements you gave to the NIB?
A. These are my signatures.
Barth: We wish to tender the statements in evidence as exhibits 33 and 34.
Q: During your tenure as the director of the board of GIIF you were also a member of the investment committee. Is that correct?
A. I was a member of two committees of the board. Investment and finance, and HR and legal.
Q. You served as the secretary to those committees. Is that correct?
A. Yes, my Lady
A. In your role as board secretary and secretly of Investment Committee and Human Resource and Legal, you had to be present at all meeting and record minutes of their meetings. Is that not so?
A. That was supposed to be the case. But in some instances where I could not attend meetings Mr. Steve Nartey performed that function of recording all that transpired at the meeting. Mr. Steve Nattey was the Deputy CEO
Q. Where Mr. Steve Nartey recorded minutes that were subsequently adopted by the board sub committees who would sign off those minutes.
A: I was present at those meetings and those minutes were signed off by me. In respect of the committee meetings we abandoned the practice of approving minutes so though draft minutes of committee meetings were sometimes circulated, they were never I believe confirmed or singed off by my side and the chairs of the committees.
What normally transpired was that after a committee meeting, the chair of that committee at the subsequent board meeting would report to the board all that the committee had done. And these reports you would find captured in the board minutes.
Q. When you circulated draft minutes of either board or committee minutes the members of the board or committees had the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of those minutes if they so wished. Is that not so?
A. As I stated earlier in respect of committee meetings, we do not have the records of members considering and approving minutes of the committee meetings. However, in the case of board meetings minutes were circulated by me and reviewed by the board. I must say some times the consideration of these board minutes did not take place at the next board meeting for various reasons, including the minutes not being ready.
Q. You will agree with me that you were responsible for making the minutes ready?
A. That is very much the case and blunt board chair and CEO chastised me for the delay in submitting the minutes in the instances where at a sitting we consider and approve a number of minutes at a go.
Q. So you will agree with me that not all minutes of board meetings that took place during your tenure as board secretary were presented to the board for consideration and approval.
A. If I understand the question, it means there are some minutes which were never approved by the board because they were never supported for consideration and approval. My answer to your earlier question was that minutes of meetings were not necessarily approved at the next meeting of the board. But sometimes we lump them together and considered all and approved them.
Q. Is it your evidence that you submitted minutes for every board meeting of GIIF held during your tenure as the board secretary
A. That is so.
Q. You were shown some minutes of the GIIF board covering the year 2018 to 2020 when you were interrogated a the NIB. Is that not so?
A. That is correct.
Q. Take a look at exhibits 3 to 10 and confirm if they whether or not these exhibits were shown to you at the NIB
A. To the best of recollection exhibit 3 that is the meeting of September 5,2018 and exhibit 4 the meeting of October 24, 2018 were either shown to us or I gave it to them, but they were matters before the NIB and exhibit 6, dated November 19, 2019. The rest I’ve not seen them.
Q. The rest of the minutes that you are not sure of they were shown to you, can you confirm whether they were minutes prepared by you and signed off by you and the GIIf board chair?
A. Exhibits 3 and 4 were signed off by the board chair and myself. Exhibit 5, the meeting of June 25, 2019, exhibit 6, November 19, 2019, exhibit 7, February 8, 2019 and exhibits 8, December 9, 2019 were all signed off by Ms Harriet Alban and the board chair.
Q. By the processes of the GIIF board minutes signed by the board secretary and the board chairman or the company secretary and the board chairman were the final record of what transpired at the meetings in respect of which those signed minutes were prepared. Is that not so?
A. Generally, the answer is yes. But that does not mean an error will still remain in the record though approved. For example, you may have a name spelled wrongly…
Q. You will agree with me that for a third party reviewing signed minutes of the GIIf board, those signed minutes would represent conclusive evidence of what transpired at the meetings in respect of which they were prepared?
A. I believe generally, a third party is not entitled to those minutes.
Q. You have been off the GIIf board for about four years before you were questioned by the NIB?
A. That is correct.
Q. Prior to presenting yourself for questioning on 11/3/25 did you review your personal copies of the board’s minutes covering the years 2018 to 2020?
A. I tried to refresh my memory with the copies that I have.
Q. And so when you gave your statements on 11/3/25 and 23/5/25 you had refreshed your memory with the content of the minutes in exhibits 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, is that not so?
A. Even before we were invited to the NIB, I’m not sure about the exact date, but the public accounts committee had raised an issue that related to the Sky train project so the company secretary together with the chief accountant called me and I told them that the Sky train project was never approved by the board. It was around that time that Ms. Abban drew my attention to the minute of 24 October 2018 that’s exhibit 4 that there was a sentence in there that states that the board had approved the project. I reiterated to her that the board never approved the project.
When we appear before the NIB, I restated this position that the sentence contained in exhibit 4 does not and did not constitute an approval of the sky train project by the board.
The CEO resisted that exhibit 4 was the record that showed that the sky train project had been approved. At this meeting all the board members of GIIF were present. The board chair, the CEO, myself, Yvonne Sowah, Tweneboah Fokuo, Yaw Darkwa and Afua Ababio were present.
The board chair then asked the investigators whether they had any document showing him a recourse for payment was made, the answer was yes. Since it was quite late in the day we were all asked to come back on the next day or so. But at our next meeting with the NIB the investigators asked the CEO…. The meeting of 24 October 2018 consisted the record that the sky train project was approved and his answer was yes.
The investigators then showed us the transfer instructions which was dated May 2018. When the CEO was asked whether he still stood by his statement that the approval was in October he refused to answer any further question. And if I may add, all the board members were represented by counsel.
Q. When you made your statements on 11/3/25 and 23/5/25 had you refreshed your memory with the content of the minutes in exhibits 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10?
Q. My answer was that in respect of exhibits 3 and 4, yes.
Q. So you will agree with me that in making your statement to the NIB you did not refresh your memory with exhibits 5,6,7,8,9,10.
A. No my lady. If my lady would have a look at my witness statement, I stated in there that the sky train matter was a matter that was mentioned at several board meetings so it would not be out of place if one were to find that in the minutes.
Q. You have not stated anywhere in your witness statements, now your evidence in chief that the sky train project was mentioned at several board meetings. So please confirm if that is what you now wish to state?
A. At paragraph 12 of my witness statements “in addition all relevant information on the project have been captured in the board minutes. This is repeated in my statements to the NIB.
Q. It is also not correct that the NIB investigators showed the CEO transfer request in respect of the sky train project dated May, 2018 because no instruction exists?
A. What I meant to say was the memo generated by the principal investment officer okayed by the chief investment officer at the request of the CEO, not the transfer request. And it was actually the chairman who made that request.
Q. It is also not correct that any memo exists that was prepared in May, 2018 to request payment in respect of the sky train project?
A. That memo exists and we all saw it at the office of NIB. And to repeat, it was at that stage that the CEO refused to answer any further questions in respect of Sky train project because he was asked to confirm whether he still stood by his decision that the meeting of October 2018 constituted approval by the board when he superintended the preparation of a memo for the payment of $2 million based on approval by the board.
It is for this reason that you will find the minute of September 2018 in the record because we had to show to the investigators that there was no approval by the board in September 2018.
The opening line to the memo says “following the approval by the board in 2018,”… those words are in the memo.
Q. I’m going to show you a copy of a memo with the opening line “we refer to the GIIf board approval in September 2018 for the $2 million GIIF investment in the sky train project development company.” This is a memo from the prosecution’s disclosures. Please confirm if that is the memo you are referring to?
A. Yes it is.
Q. What is the date of that memo?
A. 25/2/2019
Barth. We wish to tender the memo sent by Seth Osei through the chief finance officer and the principal investment officer in evidence.
Court: No objection. Evidence tendered
Q. You will agree with me that there was no memo requesting payment for the sky train project dated May, 2018 as you had stated?
A. Like I was earlier on corrected by counsel, when I said transfer instruction when I was actually referring to a memo the correct date is found on the memo saying that there was an approval in September 2018 when the meeting of September 2018 never approved the sky train project.
Q. You will agree with me that just as you got the date of the memo wrong it is possible that the date of the board approval captured as September 2018 in exhibit 35 was an error. Is it not possible?
A. I can speak to my own errors. This memo had about 4 senior officers involved and the CEO himself. They can speak to this content of exhibit 35, which is signed by the CEO because at all material times during the investigation the CEO was insistent that the approval was in October of 2018.
Q. You will agree with me that exhibit 35 came into existence months after the board meeting of 24 October 2018?
A. Per the date on exhibit 35, the answer to that question is yes.
Q. According to your own testimony this morning, but for your independent explanation or clarification to Ms. Abban and the chief accountant about four years after exhibit 4 (minute of 24 October 2018,) were signed, Ms. Abban and the Chief accountant had understood that there was a sentence in exhibit 4 that indicated the board approval of the sky train project.
A. My evidence this morning was that Ms Aban called me that at all time I made her understand that the sky train project was not approved. Then she drew my attention to exhibit 4 and my response was that sentence did not constitute an approval of the board…. This happened when the management team of GIIF appeared before the public account committee.
Q. You see your answer just now contains embellishment that were not in your earlier testimony regarding what Miss Abbas told you when she drew your attention to the fact that there was something in exhibit 4 that shows that the board approved the Sky train project?
A. Apart from testifying to matters that never happened, the question that was posed by counsel was that Ms Abban “understood the words echoed in exhibit 4 to constitute an approval.” That was a question I was asked so it is important to state the fact as they are.
Q. Is it not correct that Ms Aban told you that the CEO had referred to the minutes of 24 October 2018 as the record for the board approval. No such conversation ever occurred?
A. What exactly transpired in my conversation with Ms Abban and repeated in my presence and other members of the board the CEO insisted that the minutes of 24 October, 2018 that is exhibit 4 constituted the record that showed that the board had approved off the sky train project. He even went further to say that there was a comma in that paragraph and I was misreading it. This was a matter that transpired in my presence.
Q. You will agree with me that Ms Abban was not present at the NIB when in your presence and that of other board members that the CEO insisted that the minute of 24 October, 2018 captured the board approval of the sky train project?
A. No she was not. As earlier on stated, present at this meeting were all the board members of the board. Those were the only persons in attendance with their lawyers.
Q. You also agree with me that the CEO has the right to remain silent especially after having given information about the source of the approval for the sky train project.
A. My lady he did.
Case adjourned to Feb 17 at 10am.
