The trading of accusations and war of words between the ruling Government and the Minority in Parliament over judgement debts, continues unabashedly as barely twenty four hours after the Attorney � General and Minister of Justice, Mrs. Betty Mould�Iddrisu, held a press conference in Accra to respond to statements from the Minority that the huge judgement debts the Finance Minister lamented about in the 2010 Budget was largely incurred by the state during the P/NDC era, the Minority has hit back at her outfit saying, Mr. Mould-Iddrisu�s press statement contains factual inaccuracies and the conclusions arrived in their view is not supported by the facts.
According to the Minority, the press conference by the Attorney-General has not led them to change their position and they still maintain that the issue of judgement debts, whether in relation to how the matters that gave rise to judgement came about or how the debt was managed, cannot be blamed on the NPP.
Read Below the Full statement issued by the Minority in Parliament and signed by Hon Joe Ghartey, former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice.
CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL AND GOVERNANCE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE 2010 BUDGET STATEMENT � REPLY BY THE MINORITY IN PARLIAMENT � DECEMBER 23, 2009.
We reply to the press statement made by the Government of the NDC on 22nd December, 2009, in response to the statement on judgment debts and related matters made by the Minority in Parliament on December 16, 2009. The press statement by the Attorney�General, Mrs Betty Mould �Iddrisu contains some factual inaccuracies and the conclusions arrived in our view is not supported by the facts. In this reply, we will refer to some of the matters raised by government for emphasis. We however put on record that we still stand by our press statement of December 16th 2009 and nothing new was urged by government which leads us to change our conclusion.
The City and Country Waste Limited vrs AMA
In the statement by Government it was stated that � it is time to lay this matter to rest once and for all�. We beg to differ. Unfortunately the CCWL v AMA case cannot simply be swept under the carpet. In the case entitled CCWL v AMA, reported in the (2007 � 2008), Supreme Court of Ghana Law Report, page 409 at page 413, the Supreme Court held amongst other things as follows:
���In the instant case, applying the public policy purpose principle to the facts of the current case, the result should clearly be a declaration of the illegality of the contract executed by the parties since there was a clear public policy rationale against allowing district assemblies to evade the framework of accountability established in the statutory provisions on district tender boards.�
The Supreme Court went on to observe on the same page as follows:
�Per curiam. In the circumstances of this case, it is a necessary implication from the statutory provisions on district tender boards that contracts entered into in breach of them are illegal. The requirement in section 39(1) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), that each district assembly �shall have a district tender board that shall advise the Assembly on the award of contracts in the district� implies an obligation on the district assemblies to seek such advice. The combined effect of the statutory rules on district tender boards, when construed purposively, has to be that there is a prohibition on concluding contacts in disregard to them. To hold otherwise would be to defeat their purpose. Their purpose is to provide for transparency and accountability in the procurement process at the district assembly level. If the provisions could be ignored without any legal repercussions on the contracts entered into in breach of them, an effective sanction against them would have been lost�
It is for these reasons that we cannot wish this case away. Like the Supreme Court, we ask whether these provisions of the law can be ignored without any legal repercussions for the contracts entered into in breach of them. We ask further that will not an effective sanction against illegality be lost if there are no repercussions. We will continue to ask questions and state that in our view the money is not lost to the State and those who were responsible for the illegal contact should at the very least indemnify the State.
Calf Cocoa
On the Calf Cocoa case the questions we asked are yet to be answered. We ask as follows:
1. Why should a legal entity established by a wing of a political party, the 31st December Women�s Movement benefit from a concessionary loan when the NDC was in power?
2. By what process was Caridem which is owned by 31st December Women�s Movement, nominated by NDC to be one of the three companies to benefit from the concessionary loan given Ghana by China for joint � ventures between Ghanaian and Chinese companies, under the NDC government?
3. Was there abuse of office? Could a case of abuse of office be raised?
4. Was there conflict of interest? Could a case of conflict of interest be raised?
It is important that as a nation we answer these questions so that we can use the answers to guide our actions collectively as a nation in future.
Also, as we stated, the High Court judge stated categorically in her judgment as follows:
At this point let me debunk the allegation made by the plaintiff (Calf Cocoa) that the failure of the MOF to release the funds was out of political consideration.�
The judge then goes on to say that;
�It is curious logic that when the judge debunks political consideration then makes reference to public officials; it is interpreted by the Government that the reference to public officials is reference to NPP Ministers of Finance, who are political appointees. At the press conference, we made a copy of the judgement available to the press. The judgment is a public document and we invite the public to obtain copies and come to their own conclusions.
Rockshell�s case
With regard to the Rockshell case what is stated in the response to the Minority Press Statement is full of inaccuracies.
First of all it is incorrect for the Attorney-General to have stated, that nothing was done when the NPP was in power. The matter was litigated in court and this is a matter of public record. An application was filed to set aside the default judgement. Administrative disciplinary action was taken against the State Attorney whose inability to attend court at the correct time led to the default judgement being entered into against the Government. An application was filed to set aside the default judgement.
Indeed, we are sure that since the current administration has been in government there have been occasions that matters involving the State have been mentioned in court where the State Attorneys were not present. We will not place the blame at the doorstep of the current Attorney-General or the NDC administration in such situations. In the circumstances it appears far � fetched for anybody to attempt to blame the then Attorney General for such a development; which is the failure of a State Attorney to attend court on time.
Secondly, it was stated that no a pesewa was paid during the NPP administration. This is factually incorrect. We repeat that Rockshell was paid part of the judgement debt during the NPP Administration. The amount paid, being US$5 million is a matter of public record.
CP Case
The reference to lost profit claims in the Budget refers, to the best of our information and belief, to claims by CP for compensation for roads, CP did not build. These are Akim Oda Roads Project and the Assin Praso Road Project. If what is being settled to CP include claims for compensation for roads they did not build, posterity will judge all of us. If NPP government, based on the advice of government�s technical advisors on roads, the Ghana Highway Authority challenged contracts that we had cause to believe on advice was tainted with fraud, and the NPP are now being perceived by the NDC to have done something wrong, posterity should judge us.
CONCLUSION
The admission in the statement by the government in reference to the Rockshell matter, that � it is true the genesis of the matter was in the 1980�s. However, Rockshell sued when NPP came to power � speaks for itself. That is one of the major points we made in our press statement. Several of these judgement debts arose out of transactions that happened before NPP came to power.
If these issues, such as the Rockshell issue which arose in the 1980�s, were not resolved in the nineteen years NDC and its predecessor the PNDC were in power how can that be ignored and NPP�s eight years highlighted.
If the compensation relating to the construction of the Akosombo Dam was not paid during the nineteen years of the NDC and its predecessor the PNDC, and since the dam was built in the 1960�s how can the NPP be blamed for not managing debts prudently?
Judgement debts and compensation claims, relating to the potently vindictive acts of the NDC and its predecessor the PNDC, such as the seizure of private property belonging to Mr. B.A. Mensah (International Tobacco Company Ghana Ltd.) and the destruction of the hotel of Alhaji Yussif Ibrahim at the Airport Accra, are being paid. We are of the view that the matters that led to the liability in the first place cannot be ignored and the NPP cannot be blamed.
Unfortunately, the press conference by the government has not led us to change our position and we still maintain that the issue of judgement debts, whether in relation to how the matters that gave rise to judgement came about or how the debt was managed, cannot be blamed on the NPP.
The Spokesperson
Hon. Joe Ghartey
<<Print>>