2 LAWYERS QUERY S.F.O.

By William Yaw Owusu

Tuesday, 12 September 2006
TWO legal practitioners have questioned the propriety of the Serious Fraud Office’s freezing of the assets of 21 individuals and organizations.

They contend that the SFO’s action is arbitrary and could prejudice any legal action that has been initiated against some of the people.

The two, Fuseini Inusah, who is also Member of Parliament for Tamale Central and Gabriel Pwamang, counsel for Prince Tibu Darko, one of the affected, expressed these views in separate interviews with the Times.

Mr Pwamang said the SFO’s action was comparable to the Citizens Vetting Committee in the Provisional National Defence Council era, where a person could be called upon to justify whatever he or she had.

He said the SFO’s action was discriminatory, arguing that Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution does not permit a state institution such as the SFO to act in a discriminatory manner against a citizen. "But in this instance there is a clear abuse of procedures."

Mr Pwamang further said, "the SFO’s jurisdiction is to try matters where there is an economic loss to the state as a result of an individual’s business. But they have not indicated what crime or offence involving the loss that they are talking of.”

Mr Pwamang said since the SFO filed an ex-parte motion to get the assets frozen, his client could only wait until the 10-day period as permitted by the High Court rules elapses to contest the issue.

“We will file a motion after the 10 days to set aside the courts order in the High Court,” he added.

Mr Inusah, for his part, explained that the SFO’s action is likely to negatively colour the efforts and any recommendations to be made by the Justice Georgina Wood Committee.

He said while the legality of whether narcotics dealings are taxable in Ghana is in itself controversial, the reason advanced for the SFO’s action makes it an exercise that is better placed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

He explained that it would have been more acceptable if the IRS, which is a specialized state institutions charged with matters involving state revenue, including taxes, proceeded to investigate and institute the action instead of the SFO which is a more generalized agency for keeping a tab on activities that are likely to lead to financial loss to the state.

“We should allow the institutions that we have put in place to deal with law and order to do same without hindrance,” Mr Inusah said.

He also questioned the motive for “targeting” only the 21 named individuals and organizations, some of whom are not even on trial for alleged narcotics-related activities.

“As a country, we must apply the law equally,” he said.”

The SFO last Friday, announced the freeze of the bank accounts and assets of 21 individuals and companies.

The individuals include Alhaji Moro, Prince Tibu-Darko, currently standing trial on charges of dealing in drugs and Piene Wardini.

Others are Kwabena Amaning also known as Tagor, Alhaji Issah Abass, Kwabena Acheampong, Kwadwo Ababio and Victor Isseh, popularly called Yaw Billah, who are all standing trial for their involvement in the loss of cocaine from the MV Benjamin at the Tema Port.

The rest are Grace Asibi, star witness in the East Legon cocaine saga; Rojo Mettle Nunoo, David Gerardo Vasquez, the fugitive Venezuelan , drug baron; Mrs Rosita Dosoo, Mr Noble Dosoo and Joseph Nwabueze.

The companies include Koreana Hotel and its directors, P.T,. Ventures Limited and its directors, Wrangler Company Limited and its directors as well as Issadys Ventures and its directors.

The rest are Compinchex Limited, Kamoney Forex Bureau and Crystal Trend Investments Limited.

An official from the SFO was quoted by an Accra-based private radio station last Friday as saying that the anti-corruption body took the steps to check whether the affected individuals and the corporate bodies had been honouring their tax obligations to the state.

The SFO in a statement said they acted in accordance with Act 466 (13) (9) which says: “where the director is of the opinion that to facilitate investigation, it is necessary to have the assets and bank accounts of a person or organization being or about to be investigated, frozen, he may, in writing direct the freezing of such assets and bank account of the person or organization the director may determine.

“The director shall within seven days of the freezing of any assets and bank account under this section, apply to the High Court or Regional Tribunal for a confirmation of the freezing of the assets and bank account,” it added.