Ambulance trial: Investigator did not conduct proper investigation –Accused

Richard Anthounma Jakpa, Executive Chairman of Jakpa at Business Limited (JBL) – a local representative of Big Sea – has raised serious concerns about the investigation work carried out by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) in the €2.37 million ambulance case.

He said the lead Investigator, Rockson Gyimah, who testified as fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) failed to get down to the nitty gritty of the investigation, thereby, misleading the Attorney-General (A-G) to go on a wild goose chase.

Mr. Jakpa told the Accra High Court, presided over Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe yesterday, that “It is clear that he [PW5] as an Investigator did not properly investigate the history of JBL and examine the registration documents of JBL. In fact, [PW5] did not pay attention to details as required of an Investigator.”

As such, the Attorney-General was in error when he relied on the testimony of PW5 that JBL was registered in the year 2014 in his submission to the court, that a case had been made out against him, which “required me to open my defence.”

He explained that PW5 had misled the A-G in his claim that JBL was incorporated in 2014, whereas it was rather 2005, as a Sole Proprietorship, and subsequently registered as a Limited Liability company on August 7, 2008.

According to him, the Registry of Companies directed that all registered companies be re-registered, which in 2014, JBL followed suit.

Therefore, based on these explanations, the Investigator’s testimony that JBL was registered in the year 2014 was clearly incorrect.

He also added that whilst being led in evidence by Thaddeus Sory that before the third registration, JBL started engaging the government, regarding the purchase of the ambulances sometime in the year 2010, as it was a duly and properly registered business entity, with capacity to enter into any business.

He also said JBL saw the decision to purchase the ambulances as a business opportunity.

He finds it hard to believe why he is not treated differently from JBL.

The Businessman is being tried together with the Minority Leader in Parliament, Cassiel Ato Forson, in the purchase of some 200 defunct ambulances, causing the country to lose €2.37 million.

Part of his evidence 

The following is part of the testimony before the court;

JBL was initially registered under the Registration Business Names Act, 1962 (Act 151) as a sole proprietorship. I was its sole proprietor. It was registered as sole proprietorship in the year 2005. I have attached to my present statement a copy of one of the renewals of Jakpa at Business [then a sole proprietorship] which I have marked as A3-1. It is dated the 20th day of April, 2006.

6. Subsequently, the sole proprietorship Jakpa at Business was registered as a limited liability company [JBL].

It (JBL] was registered on the 7th day of August 2008 to take over the business of the sole proprietorship as a going concern. This is confirmed by its Certificate of Incorporation which I have attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A3-2. It is numbered CA-48,578.

7. After its registration in the year 2008, the Registry of companies directed that all registered companies be re-registered. JBL followed this directive. Certificates of Incorporation and to Commence Business were, therefore, re-issued to JBL after JBL complied with the directive to re-register. I have attached hereto the reissued Certificates of Incorporation and to Commence Business of JBL dated 29th July 2014 and marked them A3-3 and A3-4 respectively.
8. Although the documents I have attached and marked A3-3 and A3-4 respectively are dated July 2014, a reading of the top right corner of each of the documents will reveal that they each;
9. Bear the same registration number that JBL had when it was registered in August 2008.
10. Reflect the incorporation date of JBL, which is August 2008.
11. I refer to the particulars of the company which I have also attached to my present statement and marked A3-5 it is clear from a reading of JBL’s business objects that as a limited liability company, JBL is a successor to JBL the sole proprietorship.

It also confirms that as a business, JBL provides consultancy services in investment and manufacturing and carries on the business of imports and exports of general goods.

Testimony of PW5 and Attorney-General’s submission on JBL

10. Having regard to the facts I have just stated and the documents I have referred to, PW5’s testimony that JBL was registered in the year 2014 is clearly incorrect.

It is clear that he [PW5] as an investigator did not properly investigate the history of JBL and examine the registration documents of JBL. In fact [PW5] did not pay attention to details as required of an investigator.

11. It is also clear from my narration so far that the Attorney-General was in error when he relied on the testimony of PW5 that JBL was registered in the year 2014 in his submission to the court that a case had been made out against me and which required me to open my defence.
12. The reason for my statements above made is that at the time JBL started engaging the government regarding the purchase of the ambulances sometime in the year 2010 JBL was a duly and properly registered business entity with capacity to enter into any business

Il. Transaction as if it were a natural person with capacity to contract.

PROCUREMENT OF THE AMBULANCES. JBL’s role

13. During my testimony in chief on 19th March 2024 I testified that JBL acted on the State of the Nation Address delivered by the late President of the Republic of Ghana His Excellency Prof. Evans Atta Mills in January 2009. In that address the then President announced the government’s intention to procure ambulances for Ghana.

14 As a business entity, JBL saw the decision to purchase the ambulances as a business opportunity. JBL, therefore, decided to source the business for the purchase of the ambulances from the government. JBL’s efforts to source the ambulance purchase business started with the presentation of a business proposal to the government. This proposal has been tendered in evidence already by the prosecution. It is marked exhibit K.

15. JBL’s proposal for the purchase of the ambulances was presented to government [through the Ministry of Health (MOH)] with a financial scheme. This scheme explained the method for financing the purchase of the ambulances. It indicated Stanbic Bank [the bank as the banking institution] to provide financing for the purchase of the ambulances.
16. The bank set out the terms for financing the purchase of the ambulances in a term sheet which has also been tendered in evidence and marked K1.

This was done sometime in September 2010. After receiving the proposal, the MOH [government] commenced its internal engagements in preparation for the purchase of the ambulances.

I state here that JBL was not party or privy to, nor involved in, these engagements. JBL also had no way of influencing the said engagements. When Exhibit K1 was sent to MOF, the then Chief Director of MOF, Mr. Enoch H. Cobbinah, requested a legal opinion on the Draft Term Loan Agreement between the government, acting through the MOF and Stanbic Bank.

The claim by the prosecution in its statement of facts that the exhibit K1 was a hoax is incorrect because the Attorney General issued a legal opinion paving the way for the loan agreement to proceed to Cabinet and Parliament for approval. I have attached a copy of a letter dated the 16th day of August 2011 written by the then Chief Director of MOF Mr. Enoch H. Cobbinah requesting a legal opinion on the Draft Term Loan Agreement.

17. After considering JBL’s proposal, the MOH wrote back and expressed interest in purchasing the ambulances. This letter written by the MOH was tendered in evidence by the prosecution. It is marked exhibit L.

A reading of exhibit L will confirm that in exhibit L, the MOH stated that;

1. the Ministry [MOH] would lend its support in accessing funding for the purchase of the ambulances depending on its credibility and Government’s acceptance of the terms and the conditions of the offer, and
2. That the MOH would be most grateful fi the Ministry of Finance could kindly review the proposal and advice if the MOH should proceed to seek other regulatory approvals including Cabinet, Parliamentary and the Public Procurement Board approvals.
3. At this point of the engagement, government [the MOHI was considering the purchase of the ambulances using the financing model contained in the term sheet (Exhibit K1) on which the bank had proposed to finance the purchase of the ambulances.
4. In the term sheet, the bank required government to satisfy some preliminary compliance requirements before the bank will proceed to finance the purchase of the ambulances. These are referred to as conditions precedent. The conditions precedent required that government obtain three approvals from:
5. Cabinet.
6. Parliament and

iii. The Public Procurement Authority. JBL is not involved in the approval matters.

20. The approvals required by the bank’s term sheet [exhibit KIl are clearly matters that are in the exclusive domain of government. JBL plays no role whatsoever, necessary or required for obtaining cabinet, parliamentary or Public Procurement approval. JBL is not even required to be consulted in the process.

JBL was therefore not involved in the approval process.

21. As a business, JBL only gets to know about the process when government informs the necessary parties that all such approvals have been obtained. In my present statement, I refer to exhibits N, O and U respectively. These documents confirm that the government procured the cabinet, parliamentary and Public Procurement Authority approvals required by the bank to finance the purchase of the ambulances. JBL is appointed agent.
22. The Court’s attention is drawn to the fact that before the required approvals were obtained, the MOH [government] copied JBL in MOH’s correspondence. The reason, as I have already stated is that JBL only provides consultancy services in investment, imports and exports of general goods and manufacturing, among others. JBL, therefore, contacted Big Sea General Trading L.L.C [Big Sea] through a third party and engaged with Big Sea for the supply and delivery of the ambulances.
23. I must say here that before engaging with Big Sea, JBL did its due diligence. JBL satisfied itself that Big Sea is a well-known company in the Middle East, Africa and Middle Asia which provides high quality and cost-effective medical equipment along with efficient after sales services. Big Sea also trades in among others mobile clinics and provides ambulance conversion services. I attach hereto a printed profile to confirm the pedigree of Big Sea as I have stated here.
24. JBL was, therefore, particular about the ability of its partner to deliver on the ambulances to be purchased by government after its proposal found favour with government. In JBL’s view, Big Sea satisfied its criteria for selecting a partner to deliver on the purchase of the ambulances.

25 In engaging with Big Sea, its [Big Sea] Chief Executive, Hamed Sardashti, flew down to Ghana and after holding discussions with JBL, an exclusive agency agreement was signed between Big Sea, as principal and JBL, as an exclusive agent. Under this exclusive agency agreement, JBL was appointed Big Sea’s agent for the whole of West Africa in 2011 excluding Nigeria because Big Sea had an Agent in Nigeria already. The agency agreement was tendered inevidence by the prosecution.

26. I must emphasise the following points. A reading of the agency agreement will reveal three key things:
27. it is dated 24th May, 2011 when JBL had long been a registered business entity.
28. the parties to the agreement are Big Sea on the one hand, and JBL (not me personally] on the other.

iii. the representatives of Big Sea and JBL are Hamed Sardashti and JBL’s Acting Managing Director at the time known as Mr. Lawrence Sackey [not me].

27. The importance of the points I have just made in paragraph 26 above is that contrary to the impression that I am synonymous with JBL, it is clear, at the very least that JBL operated as a business entity and had other officials. It is for this reason that although I played a key role in JBL as one of its directors and only shareholder JBL did not operate as if it was a sole proprietorship. It is also for this reason that Mr. Lawrence Sackey signed for and on behalf of JBL instead of me. JBL transitioned from a sole proprietorship only because it wanted to operate at the higher corporate level. It is, therefore, not right to suggest that there is no difference between JBL and me.
28. It is also important to add that government was not a party to the agency agreement  between Big Sea and JBL. JBL’s obligations in exhibit AN required JBL among others to secure licenses, approvals and other things relative to Big Sea’s operations in the country. These obligations were owed to Big Sea by JBL but not to government.
29. Further, a reading of the agency agreement between JBL and Big Sea will reveal that it was not specific to the contract for the sale and purchase of the ambulances. JBL’s duties in the agency agreement were quite general in nature.
30. I, therefore, emphasise that a reading of exhibit AN will leave the court in no doubt whatsoever that none of its provisions requires
31. JBL to deliver the ambulances purchased by government, which I will soon show were purchased by government from Big Sea directly but not through JBL. I further state that nowhere is it stated in the agency agreement that JBL is responsible for arranging for the shipment of ambulances or products from Big Sea to government. Even if there was such a provision in the agency agreement, it will be an obligation owed to Big Sea but not to government. Government cannot therefore, assert any rights under it even if JBL breached it.

The reason is that the contract for the supply of the ambulances was between the government of Ghana and Big Sea and not JBL.

32. As agent for Big Sea, JBL dropped out of the transaction for the purchase of the ambulances as soon as its principal [Big Sea] signed the contract with government for the supply and delivery of the ambulances.

The court will therefore observe, as I have already stated that before the contract was signed, government involved JBL each time it communicated regarding the ambulances. This is clear from exhibit L.

This exhibit confirms the government’s interest in the purchase of the ambulances. At this time, no contract had been signed between Big Sea and the government, nor between Big Sea and JBL.

Contract for the purchase of the ambulances

33. By an agreement dated 19th December 2012 made between Big Sea and the government of Ghana, government contracted Big Sea to supply two hundred [200] ambulances and other accessories to government. This contract was tendered in evidence by the prosecution.
34. The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that a cursory reading of the said contract will reveal that, JBL was never a party to the contract. JBL, therefore, did not sign as the supplier of the contract. The contract made no provision for JBL to undertake any obligations in respect of the 200 ambulance vehicles delivery arrangement. The contract also did not make any provision for the payment to JBL of any funds arising out of the transaction involving the 200 ambulances by government from Big Sea. These facts are undisputed.
35. As a result of the facts above recounted, JBL owed no responsibility to government regarding the delivery of the ambulances to government by Big Sea whether in terms of quantity or quality. If Big Sea had any obligations related to the contract for the 200 ambulance vehicles, such an obligation will only arise in the context of JBL’s obligations to Big Sea’s agent. Such an obligation will also, only be referable to the agency agreement between Big Sea and JBL but not to the contract for the purchase of the 200 ambulances which is between Big Sea and government. Government ceased dealings with JBL after signing the contract with Big Sea.
36. Consistent with the nature of the agreements signed between Big Sea and JBL on the one hand and that signed between Big Sea and government on the other hand and the respective rights and obligations created in the said agreements, government immediately ceased its dealings with JBL right after government signed the contract with Big Sea.