The Ashanti regional branch of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has questioned the rationale behind the re-commissioning and renaming component of AMERI Power Plant, following its location to the Ashanti region.
The party’s communication bureau has expressed worry about the development, which the NDC claims is yet another deception on the part of a dishonest and incompetent Akufo-Addo/Bawumia Government.
The facility, which has already been commissioned, has been christened Kumasi 1 Thermal Power Plant (K1TPP) and scheduled to be re-commissioned today, Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at Anwomaso in the Ashanti Region.
Abass Nurudeen Esq, the Regional Communication officer of the NDC, at a press conference yesterday, explained that the Ameri Power Plant was one of the many bold interventions by the erstwhile Mahama administration to decisively solve the dumsor conundrum that had plagued the country since the days of President Kufuor.
According to him, the Ameri Power Plant was procured in 2015 under a Build, Own, Operate and Transfer arrangement to produce a total of 250 megawatts of power to shore up Ghana’s energy generation capacity, and ensure adequate and sustainable power supply.
He noted that under the said arrangement, Ghana was to take full ownership of the 250 megawatt capacity power plant, after paying $510 million within a five year period.
He noted that at the time the deal was negotiated and concluded, the New Patriotic Party, led by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo and Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, were all over the place claiming that the Ameri deal was fraught with corruption and that a future NPP government would review and possibly abrogate the deal.
He stressed that in a dramatic turn of events and contrary to their promise whilst in opposition, President Akufo-Addo and Vice President Bawumia in 2018 ended up inflating the deal to the tune of $800 million and extended the contract duration from 5 to 15 years, much to the disadvantage of the good people Ghana.
He said when that daylight robbery was exposed through the vigilance of NDC Minority in Parliament, President Akufo-Addo openly admitted that he had been misled and caused the resignation of the then Energy Minister, Mr. Boakye Agyarko, to cover up his (Nana Akufo-Addo) guilt.
According to him, having failed in all their endeavors to bastardise the Ameri deal, engineered by the visionary and Nation Builder John Mahama to end the age-old dumsor menace, President Akufo-Addo and Dr. Bawumia are now seeking to obliterate his enduring legacies in the energy sector.
One of such move is the scheduled re-commissioning and renaming of the Ameri Power Plant planned for Wednesday,17th April, 2024 at Anwomaso in the Oforikrom Municipality, in the Ashanti Region.
The Ashanti Regional communication officer indicated that some questions many Ghanaians want an answer are; why the Akufo-Addo/Bawumia government would waste scarce resources to re-commission a power plant that had already been commissioned in 2015 and
why the government intends to change the name of the power plant from Ameri to K1TPP.
The NDC also queried how a mere re-commissioning and renaming of the power plant from Ameri to K1TPP could help resolve the financial crisis that is identified to be the main cause of the dumsor that Ghanaians are presently experiencing.
He also questioned how the mere relocation of the Ameri Power plant from Aboadze in the Western Region to Kumasi cost $35million, which is over three times more than the $10 million Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the Asantehene, is soliciting to renovate the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital.
Nurudeen Abass claimed the NPP was only seeking to rebrand and take credit for most of the projects initiated by the visionary John Mahama, just to create a false sense of performance.
According to the NDC executive, when dumsor was collapsing businesses of inhabitants of the Ashanti Region and beyond, it was the bold and decisive step of John Mahama to bring in the Ameri Power plant to save the situation and that, this intervention continues to sustain the energy sector.
He urged the good people of Ashanti Region to keep faith with President John Mahama in the upcoming elections, as he represents the safest and most experienced pair of hands to lead Ghana “out of the current economic quagmire we have been plunged into by the clueless, dishonest and incompetent Akufo-Addo and Bawumia government.”
The Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURC) has issued some orders on the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) for non-compliance with some directives.According to the PURC, the orders issued on Monday, April 15, 2024 were in respect of Sections 3, 11 and 24 of the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission Act, 1997 (Act 538) and Regulations 39 and 45 of the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (Consumer Service) Regulations, 2020 (L.I. 2413).
Upon the failure of the ECG and its board to comply with the orders, the PURC has imposed sanctions directed at the ECG and the board members of the ECG for the period August 1, 2023, to March 18, 2024.
The PURC issued sanctions because the ECG, in particular, did not comply with the Cash Waterfall Mechanism and the board failed to inform consumers ahead of planned power outages.
The document by the PURC to the ECG, which we have sighted, fined the latter after the deadline for the directives on March 18, 2024 was not complied with. The PURC gave ECG from March 25 to April 2, 2024 to comply with specific directives.
On the Cash Waterfall Mechanism compliance, the ECG was to pay the allocated tariff revenue as prescribed and allocated by the Cash Waterfall Mechanism Committee. However, PURC said by the expiry date of March 25, 2024 ECG had not complied.
The regulator said ECG “partially” complied with the Cash Waterfall Mechanism by making payments for March 2024. It added that ECG is yet to pay the shortfalls from August 2023 to February 2024.
The PURC ordered the ECG to submit copies of all publications informing the general public of power outages from January 1, 2024, to date, but the publications ECG submitted fell short of the period under review.
The PURC said ECG did not submit any document on the load management timetable corresponding to the timelines and durations for each transformer injection.
The non-compliance with the above directives has called for sanction from the regulator, PURC. In the document we have referenced, the PURC has imposed a fine on members of the ECG board who served between January 1 and March 18, 2024.
The regulatory body has imposed a fine of 3,000 penalty units on the ECG for each violation outlined in the letter sent to the ECG. The members of the board are to pay the fine for failing to notify consumers beforehand of any power interruptions.
The measures taken by the PURC are geared towards ensuring that the ECG serves the consumer well, whereas the ECG also has its peculiar problems.
Recently, the ECG embarked on nationwide revenue mobilisation, where it was compelled to disconnect power to electricity consumers that were indebted to the power distribution house.
The ECG cannot be blamed, as they need to settle their obligations to power generation companies like GRIDCO, VRA, and others. During this exercise, even the legislative chamber was not spared as it suffered a blackout during proceedings over unpaid arrears.
Amidst the disconnection of the lines of debtors were the incessant power outages across the country, raising agitations that the monster, Dumsor, had resurfaced.
The effects of unexpected power outages on industries, businesses and productivity as a whole cannot be quantified.
Without holding brief for any of these two agencies,as they provide their respective services to Ghanaians, we hold the view that the ECG should not hesitate to engage with the regulator.
The Chronicle commends the two entities for doing their jobs in the interest of serving Ghanaians, whose economy and lives rely heavily on electricity supply.
We acknowledge that the PURC arrived at those sanctions after reviewing the data the ECG submitted.
It is our hope that going forward, these institutions will operate within the confines of the law so as to not trigger any flexing of muscles.
The Dehyena Royal family of Agyendam, led by Nana Benyin XIII, has sponsored the construction of a new road from Agyendam Adawuram (Brebia), which is under his reign to Miensa.
This great initiative from the chief would ensure that for the first time in the history of the two farming communities, an access road has been created to enable vehicles to move from one town to the other.
Hitherto, inhabitants always had to cover the about five kilometres distance on foot because there was no vehicular access road, which created a challenge for those with walking difficulties and the aged.
Additionally, those who needed to move from Brebia to Miensa and vice versa at all costs, but could not walk, first had to pick a car from their destination to Amosima, which always overburdened them.
Rationale
Speaking to The Chronicle, Nana Benyin XIII explained that the people in the two communities have been deprived of a common access road to link them up for a very long time and this, he said, affected their movements.
“The Dehyena Royal Family therefore decided to do this as a means to ensure that inhabitants of the two communities can easily commute so that they could easily trade among themselves and engage in a lot of social events and other activities that bond them together.
The construction of the road will definitely open the area to business as far as trading of their produce is concerned, as cars can now pass through one town to the other without any impediment, like it was previously”, he stated.
Grading of other town roads
The Dehyena Royal Family has also paid for the grading of local roads that network the Agyendam community and other local communities around for ease of movements. The Dehyena Royal and Nana Benyin XIII, on their own initiative, graded the feeder roads from Asebu to Mframandwe, Agyendam Ahenkrom through to Ebu Junction.
This has made the roads usable and drivers are happy to ply on it daily, a situation that hitherto, was a major challenge to commuters and drivers as well.
According to the chief, “this initiative was taken to solve basic societal problems because we anxiously could not keep relying on government to come especially since we know the plights of our people.
I vowed to serve my people and whatever I am doing today is geared towards that promise and I will not renege but will continue to do things that will improve the livelihood of the people”. He added.
Last year, Nana Benyin XIII officially cut sod to construct an ultramodern school for the Agyendam Community as part of his vision to improve the standard of education in the town.
The facility would consist of a six-unit classroom block for Basic Stage One, BS1 to Basic Stage Six BS6 with staff common room for teachers, a library and an office for the head teacher of the school
Nana Benyin XIII has already instituted a day-care centre with teachers he paid from his own resources to take care of the pre-school children in the community.
The purpose has been to ensure that mothers, mostly farmers, could leave their children safely at the centre to go to their farms and pick them up when they return.
I read from a www.adomonline.com post that the NDC has decided to withdraw from the Ejisu by-election, scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
The reasons given by its General-Secretary Hon. Fiavi Fifi Kwetey, as stated:“…. We have already set into motion processes leading to December 7,…….We want to continue those processes and ensure that come December 7, we are prepared to combat in all the constituencies and Ejisu will be one of them.
So, for this particular by-election, NDC will not be part of it. We are very confident about the processes we have in place. We just want to make sure we have the time to implement them fully. And between now and December 7, we will be in the position to make sure we are deploying everything that we have done so that really will be the way we want to go.”
The NDC is saying that it has set into motion processes leading to December 7 General Elections, which it is very confident in and want to make sure it has time to implement them fully.
Which processes is the NDC talking about? An NDC guru, met me in a funeral some months ago and thinking I am one of them, advised me that, “we must do all we can to target Ashanti and Eastern regions and make sure that the votes there are reduced.” I smiled and said to him, “Well, said!” Then I said to myself, “Why did he not add votes in Volta Region?”
May I ask the NDC to come out clean and share with all Ghanaians what processes it is implementing towards the General Elections? If indeed the processes are legal, moral and good, Ghanaians want to know.
Because apart from normal door-to-door campaigns, holding open rallies, holding townhall meetings and news conferences to convince the electorates that it is the only choice for 2024, I do not see any reason to hide these processes.Unless, something sinister is being laid in motion.
When government was busily constructing rail tracks through NDC strongholds, we all saw what happened. Some miscreants could go and remove the rails and cut them into pieces and sell them as scraps. I never heard the NDC as a party condemning these acts.
When government is busily constructing good roads, we all saw what used to happen. There was a video clip where someone accosted some youths in an NDC stronghold, scraping off gravels on the new roads, loading them on aboboya, to be taken away and sold. The NDC never came out to condemn these acts.
Today, as Ghana is battling with electricity outages, there are scenes of destruction of ECG transmission plants, pulling down of electric poles and stealing of cables, among others to make sure power remains down. May, I humbly ask, is this included in the NDC processes to win the 2024 General Elections, since the NDC has not come out to condemn these acts?
In truth, the excuse given by the NDC for withdrawing from the Ejisu by-elections does not hold water.
Assuming there is by-election today in Ketu-South, will the NDC withdraw? Or let us add Keta constituency or Ada or Shai-Osudoku or Ningo-Prampram, sorry Ningo-Prampram is not included. I do not want my fine son to go just yet. I love him and wish him long years in Parliament, that is Hon Sam George. He is the only Dangbe MP in Parliament who is making Dangbes proud and giving them international recognition, as well. God bless you, Sam.
Yes, supposing there is a by-election in any of the NDC strongholds today, will the NDC withdraw?
Let us face facts here. The NDC knows for a fact that it is not strong on the groundtoday, as it was last year. And with the noise it is making now, any by-election will expose its unpopularity, especially in the Ashanti region where it keeps telling Ghanaians that it will win. If it is indeed sure of that, this by-election should be like a mock-elections for it to test the grounds in Ashanti and do the necessary corrections beforecontesting, Elections 2024.
Top soccer nations, preparing for the World Cup, will take up trial matches to test their preparedness. So, the NDC should have entered into this by-election to access whether the processes it is laying in place are working.
There can be no good excuse, for the NDC, to withdraw from the April 30 event in Ejisu, unless the processes it is putting in place are illegal, immoral and unacceptable.
This could possibly happen in Ejisu on April 30. With the NDC contesting, and putting out George Kwame Huze again as candidate, the Independent candidate, Owusu Aduomi and the NPP candidate,Kwabena Boateng will be far ahead with 90% of valid votes cast between them at 46%-44%, ever which way. George Huze will have to be content with 10% of valid votes cast, which will be over seven percentage points less than he had in 2020.
Such a result will not auger well and will surely make the electorate have noconfidence in the NDC to vote for it in December 2024.
The NDC knows it is losing grounds and so cannot risk damaging the situation by contesting in an election that it knows it will lose miserably.
Hon Daniel Dugan
Editor’s note: Views expressed in this article do not represent that of The Chronicle
The Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), in collaboration with the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), has initiated moves with other stakeholders with the focus on developing a policy framework for distance education (DE) regulation in Ghana.
One of such moves was a one-day workshop organised by GTEC with all the other stakeholders and was aimed at shaping the future of education in the country through a constructive dialogue that will pave the way for a robust and inclusive policy framework.
Speaking at the workshop in Accra, the Director General of GTEC, Prof. Ahmed Jinapor Abdulai stated that, “Distance education presents a unique opportunity to address the challenges of access and equity in education, particularly in a country as diverse and geographically dispersed as Ghana”.
“It is equally important to recognize that in providing a robust DE, its quality, integrity and effectiveness rely on the bedrock of an effective regulator system. As we navigate the complexities of distance education, it becomes increasingly imperative to establish a robust regulatory framework that ensures accountability, safeguards standards and fosters innovation”, he said.
The workshop, with the theme: ‘The development of a policy framework for distance education in Ghana’, among other things, was to help shape distance education to perfection.
It brought together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds such as policymakers, educators and industry experts who were dedicated to crafting regulations that reflect the needs and aspirations of all those impacted by distance education in Ghana.
A team from the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), who for the past two and half years, under the Partnership Education Blended Learning Project (PEBL), has been supporting GTEC in its activities and also joined online.
The members participated in this important dialogue with their expertise, insights and commitment which are invaluable towards the development of a policy framework for distance education regulation in Ghana.
Purging of the system
The Director General stressed on the need for stakeholders within the distance educational delivery architecture to purge themselves of the culture of crisscrossing the country on the excuse of providing distance education. This he referred to as distancing education.
The GTEC Director General indicated that the development of a policy framework for distance education regulation necessitates a thorough examination of the opportunities and challenges inherent in this evolving landscape, adding that distance education offers unprecedented flexibility and accessibility and also poses unique risks related to quality assurance, accreditation, and learner support.
“Central to our discussions today should be the principle of balance. We must strike a delicate equilibrium between promoting innovation and safeguarding against potential risks and abuses. Our regulatory framework for DE should foster a culture of innovation and experimentation, while also providing clear guidelines and mechanisms for oversight and accountability”. Prof. Jinapor said.
He explained that by doing so, they could create an environment that encourages the responsible use of technology and pedagogical practices to enhance learning outcomes and expand access to education for all Ghanaians.
Need for uniformity
Mr Dadzie Mensah, a Director at the GTEC said the lack of a policy regulating distance learning has led to several institutions operating distance education with no internal distance learning policies and those with DE policies, the policies are often insufficient or lacking in effectiveness.
He stated that only twelve (12) institutions in the country representing approximately four per cent of institutions in Ghana currently run DE programmes and almost all of them were into technology-mediated learning aspects which present themselves as distance education component of their regular face-to-face delivery of academic instruction
Mr Mensah mentioned that of the few into DE, about 67 per cent of them had DE policies of varying degrees of satisfaction based on the mode of delivery and level of student support required.
The Director said a new policy framework for the country would bring about a uniform regulation to regulate the space in the country properly.
Following the emergency security meeting convened by Governor Abdullahi Sule on Monday, the Nasarawa State government has proscribed all ethnic vigilante groups operating in the state.
A statement obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, said the state government has equally directed ethnic vigilante groups affected by the order, to hand over their uniforms and weapons to the state commissioner of police within two weeks.
Citing the powers vested in him via Section 97A of the Penal Code, as well as other relevant laws, Governor Sule, said he acted on the advice of the state security council, and has banned the Fulani ethnic vigilante group known as the Kungiyar Zaman Lafiya, Bassa vigilante group, as well as the Eggon vigilante group.
Through Executive Order No. 1 of 2024, signed by the governor and issued, other associations, movements, organisations or societies affiliated with the group operating under the guise of ethnic vigilante, have also been proscribed.
The statement read, “Similar Organisations includes any association, movement or group of persons or society in whatever name called or form, with the aim and objectives of providing security amongst particular ethnic groups within Nasarawa State through the use of force or arms etc,” part of the Executive Order No. 1 of 2024 reads.
“Accordingly, the Kungiyar Zaman Lafiya nomad vigilante, Bassa vigilante, Eggon vigilante and other similar organisations are henceforth proscribed, and declared unlawful societies that are inimical to good governance in the state”.
The State Government then directed, that members of the Kungiwar Zaman Lafiya nomad Vigilante, Bassa Vigilante, Eggon Vigilante and other similar organisations, hand over all weapons or arms in their possession, along with uniforms to the commissioner of police Nasarawa State, within two weeks from the date of issuance of the order.
The major opposition party in JIgawa State, Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has distanced itself from the Inter-Party Advisory Council, IPAC, decision requesting an extension of the local government council election by one year.
PDP chairman in the Dutse local government, Alhaji Sa’adu Barwa disclosed this while reacting to the IPAC decision.
He said the IPAC decision was not a popular idea but a decision of a few individuals.
DAILY POST reported that the IPAC had called for an amendment to the state’s electoral law to give political parties notice of 360 days to prepare for elections.
According to him, “the tenure of any elected position is clearly stated by the law. The JIgawa State Government Council’s tenure is expiring by July this year.
“The state Independent Electoral Commission should therefore ensure it organizes credible elections in all the 27 local government areas and 287 political wards in the state without any delay or extension.
“We will not accept any attempt to manipulate or disenfranchise us.
“The People Democratic Party (PDP) has a strong belief and optimism of winning the local government council election when considering the present sufferings and economic difficulty experienced in the state and county,” he said.
He noted that APC was afraid of losing the election.
The Niger State Ministry for Minerals Resources has disclosed the arrest of over 30 illegal miners at various locations, despite the ban on illegal mining in the state.
It also debunked the alleged killing of one person at an illegal mining site in Minna during a clash between restive youth groups last Friday.
The state Commissioner for Minerals Resources, Garba Yahaya Sabo, said the arrests were made from January to date across various mining sites in the state.
He explained that the Ministry has been given the mandate to protect, arrest and stop all illegal mining activities by miners, adding that those interested in mining must register with the state government so as to create employment as well as boost revenue generation.
Sabo, who lamented the lack of adequate manpower to help monitor activities of the illegal miners at mining sites, however, said desk officers will be stationed to keep an eye on mining locations across the 25 LGAs in order to keep the Ministry abreast with every development in the sector.
“Many of these illegal miners are criminals and their activities can pose serious security threat to the people of the state.
“Whenever, we chase them out of the mining sites during the day, these illegal miners usually gather again during the night under the pretense of mining gold and during such periods, launch out to commit various crimes in the state,” he revealed.
The commissioner also denied reports that a youth was killed at Maitumbi illegal mining site along Julius Berger Quarry site.
According to him, “The incident did not actually happen at the illegal mining site, but opposite the site at night. Nobody was killed during the youth clash on Friday.
The Public Utility Regulatory Commission (PURC) has ordered the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) to pay GHS446,283,706.29 before or by April 30, 2024 to ‘Category B’ beneficiaries under the cash waterfall mechanism.
The Category B beneficiaries include the Volta River Authority (VRA), Bui Power Authority, BXC Solar, Meinergy, Safisana, Early Power, GNGC (Ghana Gas) and the Ghana Grid Company (GRIDCo), as well as some regulatory levies.
The amount represents actual revenue collected and declared by ECG and approved by the cash waterfall mechanism Standing Committee for payment from August 2023 to February 2024, which remained unpaid.
In a regulatory order to ECG on Monday, April 15, the Commission stated that:“In the event of failure to pay by the said date [before or by April 30], the Board Members and Management of ECG shall be held liable.”
Meanwhile, the Commission has imposed a regulatory charge of 3,000 penalty units (GHS36,000) on ECG for failure to submit details of all bank accounts to the Commission by a stated date.
The said amount is to be paid by ECG to the Commission on or before 22 April 2024.
“Thereafter, for every working day that the requested details remain outstanding, ECG shall pay an additional regulatory charge of 3,000 penalty units, calculated daily until the date of compliance,” PURC stated.
Dr Francis Baah, Director of Research at the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), says letters emanating from the board to the Public Procurement Authority PPA (PPA) to purchase agrochemicals are not written by its Chief Executives.
Therefore, Dr Stephen Kwabena Opuni, former Chief Executive of COCOBOD did not write letters when he was in office, but only signed after they had been certified by the various departments of the Board, namely Procurement, Finance, Codapec/Hitect and Audit.
He agreed that these departments are the originators of the letters, which are copied to their heads of department for approval before the Chief Executive appends his signature.
Testifying under cross examination, Dr Baah who had served as office manager to Dr Opuni and his predecessor, Mr. Anthony Fofie, told the Accra High Court that the Chief Executive is not even responsible for the content of the procurement letters.
He said Dr. Opuni, likewise others who had served before him, or after him, are under the obligation to sign the procurement letters because the fertilisers are required to boost cocoa production.
The court, presided over by Justice Aboagye Tandoh, heard on Monday, this week, that although the letters signed by Dr. Opuni, referred to lithovit fertiliser as liquid fertiliser, that was not his creation, but the experts who prepared the document.
When asked by Dr. Opuni’s defence counsel, Samuel Codjoe that throughout the number of years he has worked with COCOBOD, whether foliar fertilisers are liquid, he answered in the affirmative.
The witness told the court that lithovit fertiliser is a liquid despite the prosecution’s contention that it is a powder. He also agreed to the question that if lithovit was anything other than liquid, the experts would have corrected it in the procurement letter before it got to the Chief Executive, then to PPA.
Law Courts Complex, Accra
In a procurement letter dated February 13, 2014 COCOBOD requested to purchase one million litres of liquid fertilisers and the only brand names that appeared on the list were lithovit and Sidalco.
The witness was subpoenaed to testify for and on behalf of second and third accused persons, Seidu Agongo and Agricult Ghana, who are standing trial with Dr Opuni.
Seidu Agongo and Agricult supplied the lithovit to COCOBOD for the use on mature cocoa trees.
The three are charged for supplying and purchasing lithovit, which is not fit for purpose, according to the prosecution.
The following is what transpired in court;
Q: Dr Francis Baah, at the last adjourned date, I referred you to Exhibit L, which is a letter dated 11th February 2014, which was written and according to you, which was written by procurement with input from Codape/Hitech divisions?
A: Yes my lord, they are not Divisions, but they are Departments of COCOBOD.
Q: Can you have a look at Exhibit M. Exhibit M is a letter dated 13th February, 2014 and which is addressed to the Hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning. Also, in the same application for approval to sole source fertiliser for cocoa Hitect programme 2013/14. You can confirm that this letter is an exact replica of Exhibit L?
A: Yes my lord, except that Exhibit L has attachment of a copy of a certificate, which Exhibit M does not have.
Q: You see this letter is just like Exhibit L, is copied to the procurement Manager. It is at from the bottom.
A: Yes my lord.
Q: The next person who is copied to this letter is the National Project Coordinator, Codape/Hitech?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: Then you have the Director of Audit who is also copied in this letter.
A: Yes my lord.
Q: The third person copied is the Director of Finance?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: The second persons copied are the three deputy Chief Executives of Finance and Administration, A&QC, and Operation?
A: Yes my lord.
Q: In your position as a staff of COCOBOD and also as the office manager of the CE, you are aware of the line of reporting in COCOBOD of individual office holders is that not?
A: Yes my lord as the office manager then…
Q: You are aware that the procurement manager report to the Director of Finance who intend report to the Deputy Chief Finance and Administration?
A: Yes my lord that is correct
Q. And you are also aware that the National Project Coordinator, Codapec/Hitech also report to the deputy chief executive A&QC?
A. Yes my lord, then and now.
Q. When, therefore, you have these office holders namely Director of Finance, Director of Audit, National Project Coordinator Codapec/Hitect and Procurement Manager who don’t report directly to the CE being copied this letter and the only reason for doing so is because the letter originated from these people for the Chief Executive to sign?
A. Yes my lord, that is so.
Q. So you see in this letter in paragraph 4 of Exhibit M once again lithovit is stated here as a liquid fertiliser that is so
A. Yes my lord it is so stated.
Q. And on the next page. That is the last page, the last but one item in the box talks about the total number of liquid namely sidalco and lithovit as 1 million liters. Isn’t it?
A. Yes my lord, so it is stated
Q. As the then office manager of the Chief Executive (A1), you are aware of the time the first accused assumed office after his predecessors left office?
A. Yes
Q. Can you tell us when the first accused assumed office as Chief Executive?
A. I can’t remember the exact date or day, but I know it was in January 2014.
Q. This letter, which is a technical letter with respect to fertilisers and in this case the entire fertilisers to be purchased for 2013/14 season could only have come from the technical people namely the procurement and with input from CodapeHitech together with finance, audit and also with the approval the Deputy Chief Executives?
A. Yes my lord that would be my expectation.
Q. In your position as the office manager, who served two chief executives, no chief executive having received this letter from these experts whose line of duty relate to the subject matter, would refuse to sign any such letter as Exhibit M?
A. Yes my Lord, the Chief Executive is expected to sign or endorse because we need the fertilizers to boost production, especially if there’s approved budget for it.
Q. If you look at the quantities of fertilizers to be purchased together with the cost stated there, this would have been a determination by the requisite people, namely procurement, CODAPEC/HITECH, Audit and Finance together with their deputy chief executives?
A. Yes my Lord that would be the reasonable expectation.
Q. And if lithovit is stated by the experts as liquid, the Chief Executive that is the first accused who would not see the fertiliser is bound to accept this as a proper description of the fertilizer.
A. That is so my Lord.
Q. In fact your good self Dr. Francis Baah, who has been in COCOBOD longer than the first accused has always been consistent that Lithovit is a liquid fertilizer is that not so?
A. Yes my Lord, that is what I know, I have not seen or been told of a foliar fertilizer that is other than liquid.
Q. In fact if any of the persons copied to this letter who are the requisite technical officials in COCOBOD who have knowledge in the type of fertilizers and specifically lithovit had any doubt about the nature of the fertilizer other than liquid, the description would have been corrected before the letter got to the chief executive for his signature, is that not so?
A. Yes my Lord, that would be the reasonable expectation.
Q. Does any Chief Executive to your knowledge, personally, write a letter such as Exhibit M and L whilst you were in office as the office manager?
A. Yes my Lord, this kind of letter will emanate from the appropriate departments and not from the chief executive’s office,
Q. Whilst you were there you saw similar letters being signed by the predecessor of the Chief Executive and these letters were never personally written by any Chief Executive, that is the position?
A. My Lord, that would be correct, they will come from the appropriate technical departments depending on the subject matter.
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit N. Exhibit N is the letter dated 19th of February 2014 to the Chief Executive of the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) seeking approval to sole source fertilizers for the cocoa HiTECH program for 2014 and it concerns the same letter which are the subjects of Exhibits M and N?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. You see, these letters, just like Exhibits L and M, though signed by the Chief Executive, did not originate from him, but from the experts and relevant departments who are copied by this letter?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. So you will agree with Mr Charles Tetteh Dodoo DW1 when, in his evidence in chief on the 6th December 2021 on page 2, stated that “The chief executive of COCOBOD from my personal knowledge does not write letters, and this particular one that I’m holding falls in the same vein”
A. My Lord that would be correct
Q. In exhibit N, in the last paragraph on page one, lithovit is described as a liquid fertilizer?
A. Yes my Lord it’s there
Q. And once again this Exhibit N is copied to the five persons who are the technical experts with respect to the subject matter?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Once again, if there was any description on the nature of lithovit as a liquid fertilizer, the experts who wrote the letter ie exhibit N for the signature of first accused would have corrected same before it got to the chief executive, ie, the chief executive for his signature
A. Yes my Lord that would be a very reasonable expectation
Q. In fact, if that wasn’t the position, that the fertilizer, lithovit is liquid, being in COCOBOD, it could not have escaped the five categories of officers or departments who wrote this letter for the chief executive to sign and they would have corrected it?
A. My Lord expectedly so, I agree with counsel
Q. In COCOBOD you are aware that all fertilizers are sole sourced because they are proprietary items
A. Yes my Lord that was the case
Q. During the time of the predecessor of the first accused, Mr. Fofie, when you became the office manager for the first time, these same experts – the persons copied on Exhibits L, M, and N -were the same people who wrote similar letters with respect to PPA approval of fertilizers for the signature of Mr. Fofie the then chief executive?
A. Yes my Lord, that would be correct, not the same people but the same office, when Mr.Fofie was in office the person at procurement at the time may not be the same person
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit P. Exhibit P is the PPA reply to Exhibit N and it is addressed only to the Chief Executive even though Exhibit N, which is referred to in this Exhibit P was copied to the five office holders in COCOBOD, that is normal with PPA
A. Yes my Lord, that is the case, PPA letters come to the chief executive
Q. This PPA letter calls for value for money, to show that the recommended price…?
A. That’s so my Lord
Q. Can you have a look at exhibit Q, which is the COCOBOD letter 25th February 2014 which is the reply to exhibit P?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. You can confirm that this reply to the letter which calls for value for money is now copied to four office holders and does not include CODAPEC HITECH which were copied in the previous Exhibits L, M, and N?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Having been in the office of the Chief Executive, you are aware that this exhibit Q was also written by the experts for the signature of the chief executive with respect to the value for money raised by the PPA in Exhibit P.
A. Yes my Lord, reasonable so. From my experience this will emanate from finance, looking at the language.
Q. The Finance Director, DW1 Charles Tetteh Dodoo in his evidence to this court on 6th of December 2021 explained that Exhibit P, which called for value for money analysis as much as it was addressed to the Chief Executive, it would be sent downwards down the ladder of the management hierarchy and when you look at the response that is Exhibit Q, the distribution list, the procurement manager is down the list. This tells that the letter was written by the procurement manager but signed by the chief executive “. You would agree with him?
A. Yes my Lord, the director of finance then, procurement was directly under him, and if he has said the letter emanated from procurement I’m not in a position my Lord to disagree.
Q. In paragraph 2 of this letter, Exhibit Q, the letter states that over the past three years COCOBOD has procured fertilizers from suppliers at prices which have been obtained over the period, and that the product are proprietory?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. The first accused who has been in office for less than three months could only have relied on the expertise of the relevant persons when he signed Exhibit Q, which was written for his signature as he was not personally in the employment of COCOBOD three years prior to 2014 when Exhibit Q was written?
A. My view is that, that would be a valid proposition.
Q. In the third paragraph of Exhibit Q, which is addressed to the Chief Executive, it refers to a meeting in 2008 between the Board of PPA with the management of COCOBOD, which advised that COCOBOD to state procurement methods is that not so?
A. My Lord that is yes, stated on paragraph 3 of Exhibit Q.
Q. In 2008, first accused was not in COCOBOD and could not have known of this. This would have come from the technical people who have knowledge on this?
A. Yes my Lord, that is the case.
Q. If this statement was not true, the PPA which was being written would naturally would have reacted, if this was a wrong statement of fact?
A. Yes my Lord that would have been the expectation.
Q. In the last paragraph of page one of Exhibit Q, the letter stated that “finally the board has had better value for money when it procured the fertilizers through the single source method…” Is that not so.
A. Yes my Lord that is so.
Q. Mr. Charles Tetteh Dodoo in his evidence in chief on 6th December 2021 said that it was wrongful when the prosecution stated that Exhibit Q was a misrepresentation with respect to the value for money analysis, and that this Exhibit Q, which is the response to the PPA query for value for money was not written by the first accused but by the experts?
A. My Lord I agree.
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Dodoo’s position?
A. My Lord I agree.
Q. Have a look at Exhibit V. It is the approval of the PPA to the purchase of the fertilizers for 2013/14 cocoa season including lithovit?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Even though this letter is addressed to only the Chief Executive, you would agree that the letter was minuted by the Chief Executive to the requisite officers as confirmed by the minutes on Exhibit V?
A. Yes my Lord that is the case. It is minuted to the Deputy Chief Executive F and A, then to the director of finance, the director of finance to the procurement manager.
Q. Once again, you will agree with what you just said with Charles Tetteh Dodoo when these PPA letters even though addressed to the Chief Executive he will minutes it down for action to be taken on it, is that not so?
A. My Lord that is so
Q. Can you have a look at Exhibit X. This is the letter which is a request for quotation and it is dated 25th February 2014, and it’s a letter which is signed by the first accused and copied to the Deputy Chief Executive Finance and Administration, Agronomy and Qualify Control, to the Director of Finance, Director of Audit and Procurement Manager
A. That is the case my Lord
Q. Once again, even though this letter is signed by the Chief Executive he did not write it, and this is evidence from the people who are copied in this letter?
A. Yes my Lord, when I look at the content this kind of letter will come from finance.
Q. The procurement manager reports to the Director of Finance who in turn reports to the Deputy Chief Executive Finance and Administration who also reports to the Chief Executive?
A. Yes my Lord, that is the organogram reporting line. That’s correct.
Q. And that the only reason why you have the other three office holders namely the Procurement Manager manager, Director of Audit and copied is because the letter originated from their end even though they don’t report to the chief executive?
A. Yes my Lord, additionally these are the reasons why offices are copied for checks and balances. So for instance, when the company being written to during the quotation is not on the list approved by PPA for the purposes of triangulation, that is information from different sources.
Q. In this letter, the requisite experts who wrote this letter that is Exhibit X for the signature of Chief Executive are clear that it is for lithovit liquid fertilizer, and specifically 700,000 litres of Lithovit?
A. My Lord evidently clear from exhibit X
Q. Give him Exhibit 76. Which is an identical letter which was written by the requisite experts in COCOBOD on the same date, 25th February 2014 for a quotation for one of the fertilizers which was approved together with lithovit by the PPA?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. This letter, also just like Exhibits X contain the same time limit within which Wienco, the suppliers of Asaasewura, just as lithovit are required to submit their document with respect to this fertilizer. That is so?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. You have in your hand Exhibit 77, which is a letter to Louis Dreyfus, who are the suppliers of cocoa master, which letter is also identical with Exhibit X and exhibit 77?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. These two fertilizers together with Exhibit 77, cocoa master, are all part of the fertilizers which were approved by the PPA for sole source?
A. Yes my Lord.
Q. Once again what is the date of this letter, that is Exhibit 77 and confirm if it is he same as Exhibit X and 76?
A. Yes My Lord, the date on exhibit 77 is 25th February 2014, and my lord it is the same date as Exhibit X and 76.
Q. You can confirm that but for the difference in name of the fertilizer and the quantity to be purchased, Exhibit 77 is exactly the same as Exhibit X and 76?
A. Yes my Lord the content are the same but for the name of the fertilizers and companies,
Q. You have Exhibit 78 and 79 ?
A. Yes my Lord
Q. Can you confirm that exhibit 78 and 79, apart from the types of fertilizers stated in namely Sidalco, 6.0.20 and Sidalco 10.10.10 have the same content as Exhibit X , Exhibit 76, abd Exhibit 77 and were written on the same date?
A. My Lord per the exhibits before me I can confirm that.
Q. And you can also confirm that even though these letters are all signed by the first accused who was the Chief Executive, he did not personally write these letters?
A. My Lord I can from experience and expectation that these letters would come from finance and procurement
Q. Can you have a look at exhibit 80. Exhibit 80 is a COCOBOD letter addressed to chemico, who are the suppliers of cocoa feed, can you confirm but for the bane of the company together with the quantity, the information contained on this letter, and specifically the entire content is the same as that contain in exhibit X, 76,77,78 and 79?
A. My Lord from the fore exhibits I can confirm what counsel has said.
Q. You would, therefore, agree with Mr. Dodoo during his evidence in chief to this court, stated that when the investigator in this case, PW7 , chief inspector Prempeh stated that there was no evidence that Exhibit X, which I have shown to you originated from COCOBOD, he, PW7, was not speaking the truth?
A. My Lord what I have been shown I confirm the signature of my former boss, this is a typical letter head of COCOBOD with the signature of the Chief chief Executive then with the file number, my Lord I can confirm that this is from COCOBOD
Q. And you can confirm that all these letters from the reference numbers, from Exhibits X, 78, 79, 80, 77 and 76 follow chronologically namely GCB/PU/RQ/V6..122 at the end to 127?
A. GCB is for Ghana Cocoa Board, and PU is for procurement unit, RQ is requested and the file volume if Volume 6 and the file number is 122.
Q. You would, therefore, agree that the Exhibits X to 80 were written by the same officials for the signature of the Chief Executive with respect to the same subject matter saved the individual differences in the name of the companies together with the quantities?
A. My Lord I can confirm that the Exhibits came from the same offices but the content are the same except for the name of the company the letter is addressed, the name of the fertilizers and quantity of fertilizers are the same but the content is the same.
Q. When, therefore, the investigator, PW7, stated that Exhibit X was written in pursuance of a conspiracy and or abetment by the first accused that could never be true
A. Yes my Lord, in the face of the Exhibits that have been shown to me, counsel’s statement appears to be the truth.
Q. It is right and a truism that Exhibit X was never written by first accused who only signed the letter written by the experts who are copied in the letter?
A. My Lord that is a reasonable conclusion
Q. The experts who wrote this letter, and which was signed by the first accused, did not do any favors to the first and third accused persons?
A. My Lord, I’m only privy to exhibit that have been shown to me here, on the basis of that I would not come to conclusion that the investigator did.
Q. Even as you stand here, in your statement that you wrote to the CID and at EOCO during the investigations you were emphatic that nobody influenced you with respect to your report that Lithovit was a liquid fertilizer?
A. Yes my Lord I stand by that statement.
Q. Exhibit T, which you have in your hand, is a response to Exhibit X from Agricult which is the third accused and signed by the second accused
A. Yes my Lord
Q. And you can confirm to this court that on Exhibit T, just as you stated by confirming Charles Tetteh Dodo’s evidence-in-chief that even though this letter is addressed to the Chief Executive, when he received it he minuted it to the originators of Exhibit X?
A. Yes my Lord, on the face of exhibit T, I can confirm, that the chief executive referred the letter to the deputy chief executive F and A, who also referred it to the director of finance and from director of finance to procurement unit, and finally the procurement manager to clerk to deal with it.
Q. You see this letter complied with the requirements in Exhibit X that there should be acceptance on or before 26th of February 2014?
A. Yes my Lord, I can see that Agricult responded on the deadline, 26th February 2014.
