(Continued from Friday, 24 November 2023, issue)
Q. So if you now take a look at Exhibit B, especially B1, which is a joint memorandum, submitted to Parliament,in the last but two paragraph, it confirms the first of the two approval sources, which is to approve the buyer’s credit.
A. My Lord, he was referring to the last but one paragraph. My Lord, I will want to read: “In view of the social economic benefit of this project to the economy of Ghana, Honourable members should consider and approve the buyer’s credit of US$200 million to finance the construction of the 5000 housing units,” and commend the same to parliament for approval.
Q. So I’m putting it to you that the approval requested is for the credit facility and not for the construction of the 5000 housing units?
A. It is stated clearly here, I want to read.
Q. Now look at Exhibit C, that is the parliamentary approval given to the joint memorandum in Exhibit C series. The second line of the first paragraph state clearly that parliament’s resolution approved the loan agreement for the construction of the housing units. Is that correct?
A. Yes, I want to read: “Parliament at its 7th sitting of the 3rd meeting held on Wednesday, 31/10/12 approved by resolution the loan agreement between the government of the Republic of Ghana and Con sweet internal, in the amount of US$200 million for the construction of 50000 housing units by consortium OAS.
Q. So if you read Exhibit D, the first paragraph it is also clear that the approval granted by parliament was for the waiver of various duties in respect of the materials and equipment of the project?
A. It is not wholly true. My Lord, from the document that we submitted, that is (Exhibit 7), the joint cabinet memorandum in the last paragraph started. A recommendation by parliament…import duties, levies, fees and other charges relating to the execution of the product. The exhibit d was referring to the portion?
Q. This afternoon, you actually also referred to exhibit for the value for money audit, which is Exhibit E, I’m referring you to page 4 of that exhibit under fact A. And I’m putting it to you that value for money audit confirmed that the US$200 million represents the initial cost of the project.
A. The US$200 million or the entire 5000 housing units?
Q. Please take a look at the first line under fact A and tell the court what it says?
A. Reading the initial project cost of US$200 million is hereby recommended for approval using an isolated concrete project technology with 2-and 3-bedroom design complete with other infrastructure like road, water and sewerage system, power plants and others.
If you look at the value for money audit documents it is says the provision for 5,0000 of OAS…the US$200m referred to the five thousand housing units
Q. Now this Exhibit E, was written by AESL, which is part of the Ministryof Housing and Water resources as it was then called, and it is clear from the Exhibit that US$200 million only represents the initial cost, that is clear?
A. From all the available documents that I pointed in my initial submission point to the US$200 million, it was for the construction of the 5000 affordable housing units.
Q. Going back to Exhibit 1D2, take a look at the second page, you will realize from the minister’s instructions to the Ghana Institute of Surveyors (GIS) that there is a rape of the nation?
A. I can’t say that my Lord, I have not seen it. Based on available evidence it is true that the nation was raped.
Q. If you read at the beginning of the sentence, where the minister informs the GIS about the rape of the nation, it says government is counting on them to audit the rape of the nation…?
A. My Lord, findings were made from the reports submitted to the ministry…whether somebody is guilty, lies in the bossom of the judge.
Q. I’m putting it you that the minister’s letter to the GIS literally instructed the Surveyors that there was a rape of the nation.
Rev., I’m referring to paragraph 7 of your Witness Statement (WS). In that paragraph, you testified that the minister also petitioned the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) of the Ghana Police Service to investigate the alleged misappropriations and misapplication of the funds meant for the project in June 2020. You still stand by that?
A. Yes
Q. From paragraph 97 of your Witness Statement, it is clear that the minister petitioned the CID within 2 months of the commissioning of the Ghana Institute of Surveyors to audit the Saglemi project. Isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in what time frame did the minister request the Ghana Institute of Surveyors to submit their report on the audit?
A. It was for four weeks.
Q. So, the minister didn’t even wait to receive the report from GIS before he petitioned the CID to also investigate the same project?
A. The CID investigation does not influence what the GIS was doing. These are two different assignments.
Q. That’s correct, but I’m putting it to you that he did not wait for the report from the Ghana Institute of Surveyors (GIS) before petitioning the CID?
A. Yes, they are two different assignments.
Q. Now, from paragraph 101 of your WS, you confirm to the court that the value of the projects as per the GIS report is fixed at US$64,982,900.77. Correct?
A. I said they are costs, not the value of projects.
Q. Will the value of the project defer from the cost of the project, as testified by you in your WS on paragraph 109?
A. Yes.
Q. So, what will be the value of the project as distinguished from the cost of the project?
A. From the report, I stated it as the cost.
Q. And so I agree with you; you stated the cost and now I am asking you what is the value of the project, since you say they are different?
A. I stated the cost, not the value.
Q. I agree with you that you stated the cost. And I am now asking you what is the value of the project
A. I am saying that from the report,it is the cost of the project I have stated
Q. In other words, you do not know the value of the project?
A. The cost of the project is stated there.
Q. Can you explain to the court what you mean when you say the cost of the project?
A. The cost is the aggregate of whatever work that was done.
Q. So, who does the project belong to?
A. Government of Ghana
Q. And so, from your testimony, the aggregate of whatever was to be done goes to the benefit ofthe Republic of Ghana. Is that so?
A. Provided it is beneficial to the people of Ghana.
Q. Now, I am putting it to you that from Exhibit 1D1, the value of that project exceeded US$64 million, as per paragraph 101 of your witness statement?
A. He was asking about the value, and I still maintain the cost.
Q. Exhibit ID1 that I showed you disagreed with the audit report of GIS, from where you picked your US$64,982,900.77, which you stated in your paragraph 101?
A. I disagree with him.
Q. So, your testimony in this court this morning is that Exhibit 1D1in terms of its findings agrees with the GIS audit report, which is the subject of your testimony in Paragraph 101. Correct?
AESL report and the GIS report is not the same as the report. The GOS report confirmed the housing units as 500 housing units for US$200 million. The AESL report stated that the housing units were 1,502 from the first stated and the amended agreement.
My Lord, I want to put it on record that the honourable minister who amended the first restated amended agreement had no locus to change or alter the first agreement without recourse to Parliament. Therefore, my Lord, in law, the first restated amended agreement, the second one and the subsequent agreement were all null and void and of no consequence in law.
Q. Now I am referring to paragraph 32 of your WS. In that paragraph,you testified that, as per exhibit H, 40% of the contract price was payable to the contractor as an advanced payment. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. This payment was a requirement of the contract sum of exhibit H. Correct?
A. There is no provision in it concerning the 40%.
Q. At the time, US$80 million out of the UD$200 million was paid; the first accused was not in office and was transferred to the contractor in January 2013.
A. Yes.
Q. At that time the US$80 million was paid, the first accused was not in office, correct?
A. He was in office.
Q. Take a look at your paragraph 35 of your WS, you said the first accused assumed office by way of a cabinet reshuffle and became the minister in February 2013.
A:That’s why I wanted to consult my WS to be sure of the date, and you said if it was about specific dates, you would have to allow me because there are many dates. It is clear from my WS that in paragraph 22 of my WS an amount of US$80 million…
Court: If you need to refresh your memory, tell your lawyer to inform the court to decide.
Witness: As I was saying, the transfer was done on January 27, 2013 and the advanced mobilisation and the first accused came to office on February 11, 2013. Because the dates are many, I cannot remember everything.
Q. The first accused left office in April 2015, correct?
A. He left on April 8, 2015.
Q. In paragraphs 93 to 96 of your WS, you testified that payments were made out of the contract sum up to July 2017. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. From May 2015 up to July 2017, when those payments were made, the first A1 was not in office as minister for works and housing. Correct?
A. Yes
Q. I am, therefore, putting it to you that the first accused is not responsible for all payments made from May 2015 to July 2017.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you make available to the court, since you testified in paragraph 9 of your WS that, as a Chief Director, details of all relevant documents and payments made by the ministry in respect of the project from May 2015 to July 2017?
Copies of the payments submitted to the court.
Kindly show him the charge sheet, and I am referring you to counts 5, 6 and 7. When you finish reading them, just indicate so that I can continue and ask you my questions.
A. Read.
Q. In those counts of the charge sheet, do they deal with payments to AESL?
A. Correct.
Q. Your previous testimony is that AESL is part of the ministry.
A. Yes.
Q. I’m putting it to you that the ministry took the benefit of the payments reflected in count 5 UD$800,000; count 6 UD$250,000 and count 7 UD$300,000?
A. AESL is an agency of the ministry; even though it’s solely owned by the government, they raise their own money and pay their own staff. It’s a limited liability company, so the ministry has nothing to do with their income or revenue.
Q. So as a limited liability company, when they make profit, where does the profit go?
A. When they make profit, they are to pay dividends to the government and here, the Ministry of Finance. But my Lord, AESL has been inundated with several legacy debts, so for so many years they don’t make profit.
Q. Show him Exhibit H. Go to Paragraph 3.1 page 11.
Witness: My Lord, he should continue with Count 8.
Court: You are under oath and you need to show respect to the court. What Counsel is doing—we are not joking. The fact that we laugh sometimes doesn’t mean you can take the court as your play ground.
DPP: Apologises, says he doesn’t understand
Q. Show him Exhibit H. Go to paragraph 3.1 on page 11, and when you have read it, I will just follow up with my questions.
A. Read
Q. That particular provision of Exhibit H provide for a performance guarantee to be executed by the contractor?
A. Yes.
Q. And the provision indicate that the value of the performance security should be 5% of the contract sum?
A. Correct
Q. 5% of the contract sum should be about US$10 million?
A. Yes
Q. I refer you to Paragraph 12(3) of Exhibit H. Page 18 of exhibit H
A. Reading
Q. That particular provision of Exhibit H gave the government the right to make a claim for that performance security.
A. Yes.
Q. Has the government made any claims under performance security?
A. I’m not aware of any such claims.
Q. I’m putting it to you that if the contractor failed to perform under the ABC and its various amendments, the government is entitled to at least US$10 million from the contractor.
A. Yes.
Q. I’m referring to your paragraph 31 of your Witness Statement and you testified that out of the UD$200 million credit facility that the government sourced, it is US$198,450,000 that was paid into the escrow management account of the BoG.
A. Yes, the US$200 million credit facility attracted bank charges, so the final sum that was released into the Escrow is GH¢198 million.
Q. From your own testimony, the government never had US$200 million to start with the project?
A. I don’t agree with what Counsel is saying. The records say that the credit facility was contracted from Swiss International, and the records show UD$200 million in charges. So, this money was a loan that was made to the government for the construction of 5,000 affordable housing.
Q. My question to you is: if the money the government contracted for, under the credit facility is US$200 million, was it equal to the amount the government received in its account at BoG?
A. The money was US$200 million less than the charges, which amounted to UD$198 million.
Q. Can you tell the court how much less in charges was taken from the whole of US$200 million?
A. My Lord, If I had the calculator, I can do the calculations.
Court: Use the calculator (leave granted).
A. The charges amount to UD$1,550,000.
Q. So, it is clear from your answer that you just gave to this court that the amount of money given to government to spend on the project right from its inception was not UD$200 million?
A. The amount was UD$200 million, and I want to state that just like individual and corporate bodies contract loans from banks, there is always committed fees and other charges, so the charges were part of the original money.
Q. Can you tell the court whether the first accused was responsible for the deduction of the bank charges?
Court: Question disallowed. Persuant to Section 69, I find immediately preceding questions from counsel for A1 as amounting to unnecessary embarrassment of PW1 and accordingly disallow
Q. I’m, therefore, putting it to you that, from your testimony this afternoon, the first accused is not responsible for misapplication or misappropriation of any US$200 million which was sourced for the housing project at Saglemi.
A. Per my Witness Statement and available evidence that I have presented to court, I have already stated that the first accused person had no business altering the initial contract. Anything that followed actions and inactions on the alleged misapplication and misappropriation of funds is being given to the court (my Lord) to judge.
