Before Alhaji Collins Dauda and Dr. Kwaku Agyeman-Mensah were respectively appointed as Minister for Works and Housing, an amount of US$80 million had already been invested into the Saglemi housing project.
Mr Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, Counsel for Agyeman-Mansah, told an Accra High Court, presided over by Justice Ernest Owusu-Dapaa, on Tuesday.
He said the amount was paid way back, before the two accused persons became ministers, under the erstwhile Mahatma Administration.
According to him, his client, who succeeded Alhaji Collins Dauda in the year 2015, has been charged before the court, even though he was not one of the project consultants.
The counsel informed the court that raising certificates for disbursement of funds under the project were done by the contractors and same was sent to the consultants, who also copied the minister.
He said the certificates are those voluminous documents, capturing project milestones and demand for payment.
The counsel then put a question to the 1st prosecution witness (PW1), Rev. Stephen Yaw Osei whether he has seen those reports on the project, and the answer was negative. PW1 is the new Chief Director at the Ministry of Housing.
He added that he saw one of such reports that was tendered in evidence during cross examination by Thaddeus Sorry, Counsel for Alhaji Collins Dauda, first Accused (A1).
The witness also admitted that not all the documents involved in the transaction have come to his personal notice, but all the documents on the release of funds are in the custody of the ministry.
PW1 added that he is not testifying from his personally involvement, but relying solely on the documents available to the court.
Further cross examination of PW1
Q. On the last trial day, you requested to read two exhibits and the court allowed you the same. Have you done that?
A. Yes
That would be all for the witness. End of Cross examination by Counsel for A1.
Counsel for A2
Q. You have testified earlier before this court that you are currently the acting chief director of the ministry of works and housing?
A. Correct. But I have now been confirmed.
Q. Congratulations.
A. Thank you
Q. This confirmation came when you were testifying in this matter
A. Yes
Q. Now you testified in this particular case by reason of the fact that you are the Chief Director and not because you were personally involved in the execution of this project?
A. Yes
Q. In fact, I will be correct to say that you were not the project coordinator as far as the Saglemi housing project is concerned. Correct!?
A. Yes, I was not the project coordinator.
Q. In fact, there were two name consultants to this project. Correct?
A. AESL is the first consultant appointed and later submitted part of their assignment to VHM.
Q. Now, I would also be correct to say that you did not until 2016, work with these two consulting firms. Correct?
A. I have working relationships with AESL, since I came to the ministry in the year 2004.
Q. So these working relationships with AESL was in relation to other projects undertaken by the ministry of works and housing and not the Saglemi housing project. Correct?
A. Yes
Q. Now, do you know who the project coordinator was for the Saglemi housing project until 2016?
A. No
Q. And are you aware that the project coordinator for the Saglemi housing project was specifically invited by the CID, during the investigations. Are you aware?
A. What I am aware is that some officials of AESL and some officials of the ministry were invited by the CID, but I cannot pinpoint if the project coordinator was invited.
Q. Until 2016, as a staff of the ministry you never found out who the project coordinator was? Is that the case?
A. If I was not invited to participate on the implementation of the project, there was no way I could have forced myself.
Q. Do you know any official by name Eric Victor Aryeetey Ansah. Do you know any body at the ministry whether present or past?
A. The only Ansah I know is the Deputy Director for AESL, but not from the ministry.
Q. Curiously in paragraph 9 of your witness statements. Reading: “…” do you still stand by this testimony?
A. Yes. I want to add that it is like the document Mr. Sory showed to me.
Q. You see Reverend, I will be correct to also say, you were never the project quantity surveyor?
A. Yes
Q. You were also not the project architect?
A. Yes
Q. The day to day management of the project until 2016, did not involve you personally?
A. Yes
Q. Do you know one Louise Satthormo Atongo?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the court who he was?
A. He was the former Managing Director VHM.
Q. And he was the Managing Director of AESL, as the principal consultant for the housing project at the time up to 2016?
A. Yes. His tenure transcended from 2015.
Q. In the course of the investigation by the CID, can you tell the court when you were invited to give a statement to the CID?
A. I was asked to present statements. I cannot recollect the date but I was asked to present a statement, which I did.
Q. Did you present this statement on the police form and signed under it?
A. I don’t remember if I signed.
Q. So I will be correct to say that you never gave a statement to the police whether an ordinary statement, a cautioned statement in your own handwriting on a police form to the CID?
A. What I recollect is that I was given a statement form to fill. However, in the statement form I indicated that my statement form will be in a typed form.
Q. Do you per chance know when this case was first brought to court?
A. I can’t recollect.
Q. You see I am putting it to you that this case first came to court on August 4, 2021?
A. I got to know that from the court register.
Q. The only statement that you gave to the police is the one that you signed on every page typed, which happens to be what you reproduced as your witness statement dated Friday 25th March 2022, almost a year after the case started?
A. I only presented my statement when I was asked to submit to the CID.
Q. You see, Reverend throughout the investigation, you never gave a statement to the police until they came to court?
A. I’m not a prosecutor, I was only asked to present a statement and that is what I did.
Q. Reverend, will I be correct to suggest to you that this statement dated Friday March 25, 2022 was typed for you to sign?
Prosecution: objection
The question that counsel has just put to the witness that the statement he brought to court as his statement was typed for him to sign. I think this particular statement of question impugned the integrity of the prosecution, police as well as the witness himself.
The witness was asked the question earlier and he said he was asked to write a statement and he did so by typing same and so for counsel to suggest that his statement was typed for him to sign, questions the integrity of the prosecution and the police and we strongly oppose such suggestion from him and on the basis of that we ask that this question should be struck down.
Counsel: The method objection is wholly unfounded. My lord will note that the prosecution did not say that this question offends the rule of law of procedure or that the question is irrelevant. This question goes to the very foundation of his testimony. How can I impugn the testimony?
I refer you to section 80(1) of the evidence act …read “…The rest of the work is left for you to make an evaluation. He had not said he can’t answer this question. This witness has demonstrated the capacity to answer questions…..Please answer the question..
Prosecution:
Point to section 86; He has not shown anything that the statement was written for him to sign.
Counsel has not shown in any way that he has evidence to suggest that the statements for the Witness was written for him to sign to the effect that he has not been able to show that is what happened. He cannot be making such suggestion to him and any such suggestion impugned the integrity of the witness.
By Court: Objection overruled
Q. Rev. will I be correct to suggest to you that this statement dated Friday 25th March, 2022 was typed for you to sign?
A.I typed and signed myself.
Q. This statement to the police dated March 25, 2022, you stated at page 5 among others that the role of the project consultants was to verify and certify milestone reports and ensure that payments for specific milestone are done for the purposes for which they were applied?
A. Yes. This is not my statement, but it came from the Escrow management agreement…
Q. And from your previous testimony, the project consultant whose responsibility, according to the statement typed and signed by you, is not one of the accused persons here?
A. I am not the prosecutor and I don’t determine who comes to the court.
Q. In fact I’m putting it to you that from your own statement to the police the 2nd accused is not the main project consultant. Correct?
A. He was not the project consultant. He was the minister.
Q. Now have a look at this document. Is that your signature on the various pages?
A. Yes we have various signatures.
The statements given to the police by PW1 dated Feb 28, 2022 is admitted and tendered as….
Q. The escrow management accounts, which bank is it domicile or which bank holds escrow management accounts?
A. Bank of Ghana.
Q. As the newly confirmed Chief Director of the ministry do you know the mandate on the accounts?
A. It is clearly stated in escrow management agreement.
Q. So can any funds be disbursed from the escrow management accounts without the express approval of the finance minister?
A. No. However the Finance Minister depends on the instructions he received form works and housing. Once certificates have been certified that the milestones has been achieved in these on with the management agreement then the minister for work and housing, the sector minister will request for release of funds to minister for finance and then funds would be released.
Q. So you see, Reverend as far as disbursement is concerned, the person who has the final say is the ministry of finance. Is that not so?
A. I have stated here before that a contractor cannot fix windows of building without foundation of the building. The escrow management agreement stated, clearly the processes that parties will go through before payments are made and it starts from the contractor raising certificates through the consultant copies to the ministry stating in clear terms milestones achieved in order words percentage of work done and it corresponding… And the consultant will than forward the application for release of funds to the ministry after the necessary validations have been made.
My lord, the copy that is sent to the ministry is to be worked on where project monitory team will cross check milestones stated in the certificate to validate amount raised or otherwise and submit reports to the minster through the Chief Director. So after, the validation processes are completed then the minister forward same to the minister of finance and these are all stated in the management of escrow accounts.
Q. Back to my question. I understand you to say that when all these things are done what you called validation processes are done, the finance ministry just doesn’t pay like a conveyor belt but will verify the claims?
A. The processes have been clearly stated in the escrow management agreement and that must be followed when payment are to be made.
Q. In your earlier testimony you have indicated that the finance ministry relies on these processes on the request before payment is authorized?
A. Yes.
Q. You have also testified that when the consultant is done preparing the certification the ministry is copied?
A. No. I said when certificate are raised first by the contractor the ministry is copied and the consultant is also notified of the certificate. My lord, from the documents that I have seen from
AESL and VHM, I don’t see them as certificates. They are just statements on a sheet of paper because interim payments certificates should contain a lot of details.
The total contract sum, if there has been mobilisation, you will see less mobilisation.
Items like percentage of retention is subtracted, percentage of work done and a lot of these, however all the documents I have peruse at AESL and VHM are all statements stating amount of monies to be paid to contractors and consultant without given details of Milestone achieves and percentage of work done
Q. All these that you have tabulated, in your statement to the police are the work of the project consultant, exhibit 2D1?
A. Yes. And the duty of the ministry to cross check to ensure value for money is
Q. So you see, at the ministry, there are main officers whose responsibility is to assist the sector minister to ensure that these responsibilities are carried out?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, as you testify your current sector minister relies on you as the Chief Director in the performance of his functions?
A. Correct
Q. I should describe you ordinarily as a very competent person. Correct?
A. Of course.
Q. At your ministry (work and housing) you have a department in charge of monitors and evaluations
A. Yes PPBME (Policy Planning Budget Mobilization and Evaluation)
Q. Do you know in the course of the project there were regular meetings between the project consultants and a team comprising Mr Eric Ansah, Bassel Akushey, Kojo Manphey and Zak Napadow, all from AESL?
A. I wouldn’t know if they were meeting or not. I don’t work at AESL.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the interim payment certificates always came as voluminous documents with progress photographs which the prosecution has admitted that they exist except that they are too bulky?
A. It’s not true.
Q. You see, Reverend, you do not know this because you were not personally involved in the project execution, correct?
A: I’m here testifying for the ministry and I am not saying things off my heard, but documents that I have found at the ministry is what I’m testifying on and basing my fact on and so I’m not testifying as whether I am involved or not.
Q. And so it is possible that as you testify that it is not all the documents involving this transaction that has come to your person notice?
A: It is true. However, regarding the payment all the documents on the release of funds are in the custody of the ministry.
Q. You see, are you aware that in a letter dated September 30, 2020 signed by Architect Isaac Agyei Marfo, Managing Director of AESL to assistant Commissioner of Police attention Charles Nyarko he submitted 12 different monthly report to the police CID?
A. I was told that such reports went to the CID. However, such reports have also been on the custody of the ministry and the developer of the project.
Q. So as you testify now, have you as the Chief Director of the Ministry requested for these 12 monthly reports on the housing project to be submitted to the ministry before coming to testify?
A. No, however, I have one of such reports that was tendered in evidence during cross examination by Counsel for A1.
Q. And this, one that you have seen is bulky?
A. It’s bulky but it doesn’t answer anything regarding what the escrow management agreement prescribes.
Q. Now you have testified here that an advanced mobilisation of US$80 million was paid on the execution of the PTC contract before A1 & A2 assumed office?
A. Yes.
Case adjourned to January 30 at 1:30pm
