The cross examination of the Prosecution Witness (PW) in the Saglemi Housing Project, where Alhaji Collins Dauda, a former minister of Works and Housing and others are standing trial, traversed into quotations from the Holy Bible by both the Defence Counsel and the Prosecution Witness.
It all started when Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, counsel for Dr. Kwaku Agyeman-Mensah, also a former Minister for Works and Housing, in concluding his cross examination of the witness, Reverend Stephen Yaw Osei, Chief Director of the same ministry, asked the latter to read Proverbs 18:17 to the hearing of the court.
The said verse, according to the New International Version of the Bible reads: “In a lawsuit, the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”
The Prosecution Witness, who is a minister of Gospel, read the above quotation as ordered.
Rev Stephen Yaw Osei, founder and head pastor of Lift Up God Church International, then went ahead to also quote Proverbs 11:1 which says: “A false balance is abomination to the LORD; but a just weight is his delight.”
Counsel Tamakloe earlier established through the cross-examination of PW1 that no committee was set up by the ministry to inquire into the workings of Architectural & Engineering Services Limited (AESL), in respect of the Saglemi Housing project, despite Rev. Osei’s claim that the state owned enterprise did not perform its duties as expected.
Mr Tamakloe also added that even though AESL is to be blamed for the shortfalls in the housing project, it has not been charged before the court, yet his client had been accused for only being copied an Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) in the correspondence by AESL.
The witness admitted that it was true that AESL, through one Surveyor Atongo, forwarded certificates raised by the contractor to the ministry, but to him those certificates forwarded by AESL did not constitute what a normal certificate looks like.
Dr Agyeman-Mensah is the 2nd accused (A2) in the US$200 million Saglemi Housing project case. He is standing trial with Alhaji Collins Dauda (A2) and they are both former ministers.
The others are Alhaji Ziblim Yakubo, a former Chief Director of the same Ministry and Novi Tetteh Angelo (A5), the Chief Executive Officer and owner of Ridge Management Solutions Ghana Limited.
They are facing 70 charges of wilfully causing financial loss to the state, issuing false certificate contrary to Sections 1 and 2 of the Government Contracts (Protection) Act, 1979, AFRCD 58 and dishonestly causing loss to public property contrary to Section 2 (1) of the Public Protection Act 1977 (SMCD) 140 and intentionally misapplying public property.
Cross-examination
Q. As you testify today, the ministry that you are the Chief Director of, has not set up any committee to inquire into the activities of the principal consultant, AESL, as far as the Saglemi Hosing project is concerned beyond the criminal investigation. Correct?
A. It is not true.
Q. So it is your case that you set up a committee to look into the activities of the principal consultant, AESL?
A. A committee was set up by the ministry to look into the entire Saglemi Housing project.
Q. In specific reference to AESL, was a committee set up?
A. No. not AESL alone, but other consultants.
Q. In fact, as you testify now, the Ministry of Works and Housing, on whose behalf you testified, has not in any official report made any adverse findings against AESL?
A. It’s not true.
Q. Now, where from Exhibit A, the last exhibit attached to your Witness Statement. Are there any adverse findings against AESL?
A: The Witness Statement I presented to the court I, testified that the Consultant, AESL, did not do the work as supposed to be done and the ministry’s committee’s report, which was tendered in court, as well as the Ghana Institute of Surveyors investigation revealed that AESL did not do the work as expected.
In the certification of job done, which was agreed between the parties based on Escrow Management Account (EMA) was not followed by the consultant and I have said in several occasions because we are in this situation because the consultant slept on duty.
Q. And the consultant is not one of the accused persons?
A. I have said several times that I am not the prosecutor and I don’t determine who comes to court.
Q. In your testimony, you have informed this court that AESL, the main consultant, slept on their duties, which is to certify work done. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, with your experience at the ministry, work done is evidence by the IPCs (Interim Payment Certificates), correct?
A. Yes, however, there are internal procedures that are followed to validate certificates raised and I have told this court that there is a project monitoring team that goes to site to cross check the figures presented by the consultant and after that, a memo is raised by the director of budget and presented to the honourable minister through the Chief Director, before such payments are made.
Q. In fact, if you look at the process of raising the IPCs, the minister is only copied in the correspondence with respect to Saglemi Project?
A. Yes, according to the EMA that the contractor raised, a certificate sent to the contractor and copied to the Ministry of Works and Housing.
Q. And you will notice that in the specific case of your ministry, you have a Director of Housing, whose immediate responsibility is to check the various housing projects being undertaken by the ministry, including the Saglemi project?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to testifying in this court, have you had the opportunity to look at the specific charges against the 2nd accused?
A. No, I didn’t charge the alleged offenders.
Q. If you go through the various IPCs, for which reason the 2nd accused is charged, Surveyor Luiz Sachemore Atongo, the then Managing Director of AESL, only forwarded the already prepared IPCs to 2nd Accused?
A. Yes, AESL, through Surveyor Atongo, forwarded certificates raised by the contractor to the ministry. I have said, having gone through the certificates forwarded by AESL, did not constitute what a normal certificate look like. And my lord, per the EMA, the duty of the consultant is to cross check and ensure that milestone achieved by the contractor corresponded with the money raised by the contractor.
And my lord, under a normal IPC, there will be a contract sum example less advance mobilisation money, less retention and retention are made if a contractor is executing a job there is something…
As I said we have the contract sum, less advance mobilisation, less retention or ….and if other task could be deducted and finally you have money available.
However, if you look at the certificate that AESL presented, it had nothing of such description made.
It’s only the money that is available to the contractor that is found in the IPCs. That is why I said, if the internal processes had worked and the….internal monitoring team …evaluate the milestones of work and per cent age of work done.
Q. If you look at the EMA who is the account holder?
A: The Ministry as well as the developer. The ministry is the account holder.
Q. And, in fact, you will notice that the project milestones and actual work done are the duties to be undertaken by the consultant as you alluded to?
A. It is not correct. The EMA states that milestones achieved should be agreed by the parties, not just a party, including a consultant, the contractor and ministry.
Q. Prior to you testifying in this court, did you become aware that Starr Assurance provided the insurance in relation to the performance bond?
A. No, I know an issuance cover was secured for the project.
Q. I’m suggesting to you that this issuance cover came from Starr Assurance?
A. He is telling me.
Q. These were steps taken to under ride any potential risk in the execution of the project?
A. It is not the wholly true. Insurance cover can only be redeeming when a party has fulfilled all its responsibilities to a limit that is beyond the party’s ability.
If the contractor had completed the 5000 homes and after building, there is force majeure, then the insurance company would have come in to pay the insurance bond. In this Saglemi project, the project could not be delivered as expected. There were a lot of shortfalls, which do not allow the ministry to retrieve anything against the insurance company
Q. What was called for was a performance bond. It was not a general…but specific performance bond?
A. It was not a specific bond. However, it is whether the contractor performs to the expectation of the agreement signed between the ministry and the contractor.
Q. In fact, as you testify now, has the ministry made any attempt to officially claim the insurance for a non-performance?
A. Insurance cover comes with obligations. The ministry, as far as I’m concerned, had not made any attempt to claim any insurance. Insurance cover comes with obligations of both parties – the insurer and the insured. There are duties that insurer must perform as well as expectations from the insured.
From this Saglemi project, the insured did not perform … to expectations….
Q. Rev. As you testified you have not even seen the insurance contract?
A. No.
Q: Let me have the Bible. Kindly have a look at Proverb 18:17, and read to the hearing of the Court.
A. Reading: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”
Counsel: That’s all for the witness
Witness: I want to read Proverbs 11:1
Reads: “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.”
