Friday, March 22, 2013

MORE LOOTING UNCOVERED


Seth Terkper - Minister of Finance & Economic Planning

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday March 22, 2013.

It has emerged that a whopping GH¢104,096,516.92 was released to the various ministries without sufficient documentation in 2011.

In a series of investigations into the mode of utilization of the Consolidated Fund (CF), CITY & BUSINESS GUIDE learnt how these ministries contravened Regulation 39 (2c) of the Financial Administration Regulation (FAR), 2004 (LI 1802) with impunity.

Sources say the trend of milking the CF in a fashion that suggests plunder is even widespread in the yet to be completed 2012 Auditor-General’s Report.

In the 2011 report, a table of content gives details of the date, release, account transfer, account receipt and the amount of payments in the form of direct debit to unnamed accounts that are not covered with relevant supporting document.

On September 6, an amount of GH¢1,503,200.00 was transferred to account 0240019194401 at Stanbic from Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning sub CF under the release code B159/1/11/Jd/GCD2.

On October 20, GH¢403,474.84 was transferred to 0100164001200 at SCB from Gov’t Machinery account under the release code B.05/Q1/2011/OP/FB/Vol.11, as well as an amount of GH¢201,175.23 released into the same account from Ministry of Defence sub CF with a release code B.05/Q3/2011/MOD/FB/Vol.1.

An amount of GH¢ 570.000.00 was transferred into 1000100954401 at NIB from MOFEP sub CF under the code B159/1/11/BS.4 on October 10 while another GH¢ 9,084,375.00 was transferred into account 1011130028863 at GCB from Ministry of Mines account 0121360066001 under the release code B.05/MOE/ECG/2011 on October 18.

A whopping GH¢38,119,023.95 was transferred into 2209014946 SCB London in the name of the Ministry of Youth and Sports under the reference code B159/1/11/JD/11 and on April 4, an amount of GH¢1,140,000.00  with reference code B159/1/11/BS.4 was transferred from MOFEP sub CF account into 1000100954401 NIB.

On June 14, an amount of GH¢6,316,515.18 was transferred from the Ministry of Mines account 0121360066001 under the release code B.05/MOEn/TOR/BBG/011/2 to 0120730001000 lodged at the Bank of Ghana while another transfer on November 5, an amount of GH¢111,098.51 was transferred into 0100164001200 SCB account from Gov’t Machinery account with reference code B50/Q/2011/OP/FB/VOL3.

Another GH¢13,650,000.00 was transferred into 0121360079001 from Ministry of Works & Housing sub CF with reference code B.150/4/2011/MWRWH/C on March 24 and another GH¢ 116,747.63 was transferred to 0100164001200 at SCB from an unidentified account 012136018001 with reference code B50/q/2011/OP/FB/VOL3 on July 4.

On March 21, an amount of GH¢181,832.54 was transferred into 0100164001200 at SCB from the Gov’t Machinery with B50/Q1/2011/OP/FB/VOL.2 as the reference code while on December 4, Ministry of Youth and Sports account transferred GH¢10,584,295.00 to Barclays Bank account 65534866.

Ministry of the Interior sub account with reference B50/Q1/2011/OP/FB/VOL.4 transferred GH¢344,614.50 to 1171130013514 at GCB on July 4 and another GH¢972,450.00 and GH¢ 504,900.00 with reference codes B50/Q1/2011/OP/FB/VOL.3 and B50/Q1/2011/OP/FB/VOL.2 into the same account on February 2 and February 22.

On February 16, Ministry of Transport sub CF account transferred GH¢149,500.00 into 0481204534 at Barclays Bank under reference code B.735/MOT/11/1 while on February 14, MOFEP sub CF account transferred GH¢5,130,000.00 into 1000100954401 at NIB with B.159/1/11/BS as the reference code.

Furthermore, on November 2, an amount of GH¢4,409,636.84 from the Ministry of Mines account 0121360066001 was transferred into 01200730001000 at the Bank of Ghana with B.05/MOEn/TOR/BBG/011/1 as the reference code while on February 14, an amount of GH¢ 3,809,717.18 from the Controller and Accountant-General’s sub CF was transferred into 106100430026 at ADB with the B.159/1/11/CAGD/.

On September 2, the Office of Gov’t Machinery again transferred GH¢685, 217.23 into 0100164001200 SCB with B.50/1Q/2011/OP/FB/VOL.1 while MOFEP sub account transferred GH¢107,173.27 into 10265683 at Citibank London with reference code B159/1/09/MOFEP/INT.3.

Finally, on April 2, an amount of GH¢5,050,000.02 with reference code B.159/1/11/JD.20 was transferred from MOFEP sub CF into 65534866 at Barclays Bank while on January 31 the Ministry of the Interior sub account transferred GH¢951,570.00 to 1171130013514 at GCB with B50/Q1/OP/FB/VOL.1 as the reference code.

The report said unlike the sub-CF account payments which are supported by sufficient documentation, documents attached to direct debit payments by the Controller and Accountant-General were mostly inadequate.

NANA VRS MAHAMA BACK IN COURT


The petitioners in court

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday March 22, 2013.

Report reaching DAILY GUIDE indicates that baring any hitch, the landmark election petition in which three opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) leaders are challenging the validity of the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President will resume early next week.

This follows the expiration of the 7 days order issued by the Supreme Court to the parties in the petition to sort out the memorandum of issues that would be set for the main trial.

Sources say after the parties failed to agree on almost all the major issues to be set for trial, the petitioners’ lawyers wrote to the court’s registry as directed, to ask the court to set a date as early as possible.

The letter signed by Akoto Ampaw of Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co. and addressed to the court on March 19, 2013, informed the Registrar that “this is formally to notify the Supreme Court that, following the order of the Court, Counsel for all the parties met in an attempt at reaching an agreement on the memorandum of issues as set out in the application for directions and further directions”.   

However, Mr. Ampaw said, “we, regret to inform the court that with the exception of the relatively few number of issues agreed on, we were unable to reach a substantial agreement on the issues.”

“We would, accordingly, be grateful if a short date could be fixed for the parties to appear in court to take directions as to the issues and the mode of trial in order to expedite trial of the petition.”

He said “we will, at the hearing, give notice to the court with respect to the issues we managed to reach agreement on.”

The letter was copied to Tony Lithur, Counsel for 1st Respondent, President John Mahama, James Quahsie-Idun, Counsel for 2nd Respondent, the Electoral Commission and Samuel Codjoe, Counsel for 3rd Respondent, the NDC.

Once the court date is fixed, the parties as indicated by the petitioners’ counsel would disclose to the court the issues agreed on and the court would determine those that were not agreed upon as part of the memorandum of issues after which the court is expected to set a definite date the all-important trial to commence.

The main trial sources say is likely to commence after the Easter Holidays.
DAILY GUIDE learnt that apart from the use of audio visual aid in the form of power-point presentation suggested by the petitioners and a few others to be used in the trial, there were sharp disagreements in all the other relevant issues in the petition.

For instance, a suggestion by the petitioners that they would like the court to order the parties to exchange documents seven 7 clear days before proceedings was vehemently opposed by President Mahama’s legal team and also rejected the suggestion that seven days before the trial, all parties must be made to present a list of witnesses and a brief summary of the nature and relevance of the testimony of each witness.

The parties according to the source did not also agree on the mode of the trial and it is now left to the highest court of the land to set it out.

On March 14, the nine-member panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba dismissed applications filed by over 350 National Democratic Congress (NDC) supporters who were seeking to join the petition.

The decision finally blocked any attempt by prospective individuals or groups whose motive was to stall progress made by in the petition.
As it is now no individual or group can apply join the case.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

STATE AGENCIES LOOT PUBLIC PURSE


Richard Quartey - Auditor-General 

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Thursday March 21, 2013

Painstaking investigation conducted by CITY & BUSINESS GUIDE has uncovered startling evidence of how some state agencies and officials persistently loot the public purse.

Details are emerging in the 2011 Auditor General’s Report about how the consolidated fund is continuously milked by those who have access to it in fashion that suggests plunder.

In a series of mind-blowing articles, the paper is set to lead a campaign to stop acts that are painting a gloomy picture of the economy.

In page 62 of the report, the Auditor-General noted with concern certain factors that prevented the government from keeping an accurate financial position.

Some of the areas where the Auditor-General expressed reservation are direct debits unsupported with relevant documentations as well as poor record keeping on the Government of Ghana (GoG) Equity Investments.

Discrepancies between MDAs Actual Expenditure and the Expenditure schedule disclosed in the Public Account also came up strongly.

Others include failure to deduct withholding tax on payment to 15 companies, non-disclosure of GoG carried interest an absence of systems for accountings the returns thereof.

Finally, the Auditor-General also expressed reservation about multiple payments of salaries and pensions, uncertainty in the Recovery of GoG Loans as well as receivables from 9 foreign missions unaccounted for.

On the financial analysis Budget Out-turns for 2011 (in millions), GH¢12,114,16 (budget), GH¢ 13,747.06 (actual) GH¢1,179.99 (variance) and GH¢10,563.82 (actual) were recorded as total expenditure.

GH¢1,734.19 (budget), GH¢ 4,736.24 (actual), GH¢ 189.16 (variance) and GH¢3,887.82 (actual) were recorded as surplus (deficit).

The report said “despite the increase in total revenue of 35 percent in 2011 due to the inflow of GH¢ 254 million annual budget funding amount from the oil revenue and significant increase in revenue from petroleum levies, airport taxes, company and personal taxes and mineral royalties, GoG recorded an actual revenue of GH¢9,010.82 million as against budgeted revenue of GH¢ 10,379.97 million registering a shortfall of GH¢ 1,369.15 million.”

According to the Auditor-General, government expenditure rose by GH¢ 1,179.99 million when compared to the annual budget of GH¢12,114.16 million and said the expenditure could be attributed to  the migration of some institutions onto the Single Spine Salary Structure, errors in the consolidation of MDAs actual expenditures, wrongful payment of salaries and judgement debt expenditures.

The report said actual total expenditure exceeded actual total revenue, revealing a higher deficit of GH¢4,736.24 million as against the projected deficit of GH¢1,734.19 million.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

KPEGAH SUES AKUFO-ADDO


Justice Kpegah is a retired Supreme Court judge who has gone deep into politics

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday March 20, 2013.

Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah, a retired Supreme Court judge who was a leading member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) Legal Team, has filed a suit at an Accra Fast Track High Court claiming that New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential candidate in the December 2012, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is “not entitled to practice law in Ghana.”

The retired judge wants the authorities to close down the law firm Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co, established by the NPP 2012 candidate which arguably is one of the best in the country.

The firm no doubt, has distinguished itself in the field of law and is credited for churning out exceptional lawyers including Attorneys-General in Ghana.
This writ is likely to stoke another heated debate and further raise the already charged political temperature as Nana Akufo-Addo’s lawyers prepare to challenge the retired judge’s claims.

The claim coming from Justice Kpegah was strange especially since Nana Akufo-Addo might have appeared before the Lord Justice severally times without raising a voice when he was at the Bench.

Justice Kpegah who acted briefly as Chief Justice following the death of Chief Justice George Kingsley Acquah was very active for the NDC Legal Team in the days of the late Prof. John Evans Atta Mills’ presidency but appeared to be sidelined when he claimed the President did not listen to his advice.

Reliefs Sought
The controversial retired judge is seeking “a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the General Legal Council Act, Act 38 of 1960 (as amended), unless a person is called to the BAR in Ghana and his name entered in the Roll of Lawyers by the body mandated under the said Act 38 to regulate the training and certifications of persons after a prescribed course of study, that person cannot be deemed competent to practice law in any court of Ghana.”

He also wants “a declaration that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s name is not on the latest edition of the Roll of lawyers in Ghana (1877 to February 1997).”

Furthermore, Justice Kpegah wants “a declaration that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is not entitled to practice law in Ghana.”

He wants a further “declaration that the law firm established as Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co. at Adabraka, Accra is an illegal law firm and therefore not competent to represent any party in litigation before any court in Ghana.”

As a result, Justice Kpegah wants a perpetual injunction retraining “the said Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo from holding himself out as a lawyer competent to practice in the Ghanaian courts or anybody regarding him as such.”

Nana Akufo-Addo is sued

He wants another order “directed at the said Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who is really the most senior or dominant partner in the said law firm to close down the said law chambers immediately and a receiver manager appointed by this honourable court.”

Statement of Claim
In his statement of claim filed just yesterday, Justice Kpegah said “the plaintiff is a citizen of Ghana by birth and a retired Deputy Chief Justice who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of Ghana at all times.”

He said upon the demise of Justice Acquah sometime in 2008, he ‘automatically’ assumed the functions of the Chief Justice because he was the most senior on the bench and by the provisions of the General Legal Council Act, assumed the chairmanship of the council.

“The plaintiff became suspicious of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo because his name was not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana and yet he was being given audience in the courts,” he averred.

“When the plaintiff caused a discreet investigations to be conducted it was revealed that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo was never called to the Ghana Bar but rather one W.A.D Akufo-Addo was called to the Middle Temple in the United Kingdom on July 22, 1971 and on the roll of lawyers in Ghana as No.1190,” he further claimed.

Justice Kpegah claimed that before Nana Akufo-Addo was appointed by former President J.A. Kufuor which made him leader of the bar in Ghana, his name was not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.

Plaintiff averred that “former President J.A. Kufuor and his government knew or ought to have known that the name of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo was not on the roll of lawyers and therefore it was illegal to appoint him as the Attorney General who by the provisions of the 1992 Constitution must be a lawyer in good standing.”

He alleged that Nana Akufo-Addo “never signed the Matriculation Book at the Law School” which is evidence of enrolment in an institution and added that Nana Akufo-Addo “is not known to have ever changed his name.”

He further said that “Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has not been installed anywhere in Ghana within the meaning of the 1992 Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act.”

“Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is impersonating W.A.D. Akufo-Addo who is on the roll of lawyers as No. 1190,” Justice Kpegah claimed.

He said that Nana Akufo-Addo claimed that he obtained his early education in Ghana before proceeding to the United Kingdom to obtain his O and A Level certificates after which he studied Economics at the University of Ghana.

He claimed that Nana Akufo-Addo returned to the UK to read law and was called to the English Bar (Middle Temple) in the same year as No. 1190 on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.

Justice Kpegah said Nana Akufo-Addo’s father Edward was also a member of the Middle Temple and added that Nana Akufo-Addo “never took advantage of the provisions of the General Legal Council Act which enabled people like R.J.A Stanley Harvey QC of Gray’s Inn who was called to the English Bar in 1947 but was specifically called to the Ghana Bar in 1972 to enable him to practice in Ghana.”

Justice Kpegah also claimed that “former President Kufuor who claims to have read law in Oxford has not been called to the Ghana Bar and therefore keeps a respectful distance from the court.”

He also cited Prof. Kwamena Ahwoi whom he claims “has not been called to the Ghana Bar and therefore restricts himself to academia.”

He said that there is no law in Ghana which says that once you are called into the English Bar you can automatically practice in Ghana without being called to the Ghana Bar.

Nana’s Response
Interestingly, as at the time of filing this report, the writ had been copied to the various media houses but the supposed defendant, Nana Akufo-Addo who was once Ghana’s Attorney-General was not yet served with the processes.

When contacted, lawyers for Nana Akufo-Addo confirmed they had not been served and were looking forward to getting the process to counter the retired judge’s claims.

However, after filing the suit, Justice Kpegah rather advised everybody to refrain from commenting on the suit which he said “will prejudice the outcome of the case.”

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

GCNeT DRAGGED TO COURT



Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw owusu
Tuesday March 19, 2013

The Commercial Court in Accra will today commence hearing into the case in which a whistle blower is seeking to block the Ghana Community Network Services (GCNet) from being given a contract renewal to facilitate trading activities in the country.

Currently, GCNet is the sole agency mandated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry to provide electronic data interchange platform and customs management application software for the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).

Apart from the GCNet, the plaintiff Joe Onyame aka Koku Ekpe who says he is a Tema-based business man, also cites GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit.

Reliefs Sought
He wants an order of interlocutory injunction restraining any agency of the state including the GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department from either renewing any contract with GCNeT for the provision of any services to GRA or entering into any similar contract with GCNeT.

He also wants an order directed at GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department “to act on the investigation report indicting certain officials” of the GCNeT.

Furthermore, the plaintiff wants an order to “secure forthwith all the systems servers in the custody of GCNeT to pre-empt any eventual attempts by GCNeT at concealing incriminating evidence lodged in the servers.”

Mr. Onyame also wants the court to order for “the nomination of an independent Information Technology expert to undertake the full and comprehensive/analysis of all systems, logs and data on both the TRADENET and the Ghana Customs Management Servers with the objective of unearthing the full scope and extent of the fraud.”

In the alternative, the plaintiff wants an order for the proprietary owners of the software to be brought down to conduct a full and comprehensive audit of the systems server logs, as well as an analysis of all trade and customs date on the servers.”

The plaintiff also wants an order directed at GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department “to recover all revenue loss to the state arising out of GCNet’s manipulation, deletion and modification of trade customs and any other data from the customs server.”

He also wants an order directed at GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department “to pay informants award to the plaintiff based on the total government tax revenue established as lost after such investigations and analysis as indicated.”

Finally, the plaintiff wants an order directed at “the government acting through the Attorney-General to stop GCNeT from continuing forthwith with its participation in the execution of the e-gov project contract,” as well as legal costs.

Statement of Claim
In his statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that he “is emboldened by the Whistle Blowers Act (Act 720) 2006 to initiate the instant action.”

According to the plaintiff, he is bringing the action in order to compel the defendants “to plug the gaping holes that have been created in the government revenue collection machinery, being institutions, charged with protecting and preserving government revenue.”

The plaintiff avers that GCNeT was contracted under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade to provide a data interchange platform (TRADENET) which is in essence an electronic communication system that allows the Customs Division of GRA to communicate and exchange date related to its operations with its private and public stakeholders, with the overall objective of facilitating trade under the government’s Gateway Project.

He further averred that the GCNeT was also contracted to provide a service referred to as the Ghana Customs Management System (GCMS) which is application software that enables the Customs Division to accelerate the processing of trade and customs documentation for the clearance of goods through the entry points.

The plaintiff argued that by accepting to provide the services, GCNeT by its contractual obligations was only expected to receive and redirect data, as well as provide and maintain communication infrastructure in a manner similar to the kind of services provided by the telecoms and not to have access to the content of the information that is sent to, from or across the communication infrastructure.

The Fraud
The plaintiff said although the systems server on which the customs data is stored is under 24 hour surveillance, the news that GCNeT officials siphoned government revenue to private pockets defeated the purpose of fraud in the system.

“As an informant who had knowledge of this fraud perpetrated by the officials of GCNeT, he wasted no time in informing the authorities concerned (customs) about the manipulation of the system.’ The plaintiff claimed.

He said he discovered in April 2010 that a group operating within the customs clearing and trading community was stealing customs tax revenue by breaking into the system and tampering with customs and trade data and those behind were GCNeT officials after which he reported to CEPS.

According to the plaintiff, the CEPS through its Commissioner Mr. Lanyon, after an investigation into his complaint failed to prosecute the culprit and it allowed one Elliot Ansah, a Manager of GCNeT to flee the country to the United Kingdom.

The plaintiff says that due to the refusal of the defendants to act on the incidence of fraud, losses estimated at about $7million occurred.

Rebuttal
The GCNeT filed a response, denying the plaintiff’s claim and said among other things that “he (plaintiff) lacks the capacity to mount the action.”

According to GCNeT, “there is no gaping holes that have been created in the government revenue collection machinery attributable to the first defendant or at all.”

The first defendant says that “the effect of its services is to make it possible to trace tax evasion and potential revenue loss,” adding “no revenue therefore is lost in the system as there is a trace of any discrepant process with opportunity for collection through a number of ways.”

It said no official from its side siphoned money from the system as alleged by the plaintiff and also denied any theft by its officials.

GCNeT also denied that the relevant agencies and institutions and were refusing to act on complaints and said “the writ is a nullity; it is not seeking any substantive relief, all reliefs being ancillary.”

As at the time of filing this report, there was no indication that the GRA, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department had filed any response.

Monday, March 18, 2013

NDC JOINDERS MISSING




The NDC joinders failed to enter the courtroom

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Saturday March 17, 2013.

Drama unfolded at the Supreme Court on Thursday when an army of National Democratic Congress (NDC) supporters who had filed an application to join the landmark election petition vamoosed and were nowhere to be found when the Supreme Court sat on their application for joinders.

According to reports the supposed party members who claimed they were protecting their votes against the petitioners had cold feet when they saw the large police presence at the court premises and ‘melted away’.

They were reportedly transported from all over the country to Accra by the NDC.

NDC General Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia had said that the people had said that the people had every right to protect their votes.

Some were said to have sauntered across the road towards the Atlantic Ocean while others went on a sight-seeing tour of the central business district.

The situation prompted NPP General Secretary Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie aka Sir John to describe the over 350 members of the NDC who applied for joinders at the Supreme Court as ‘ghosts’.

Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie aka Sir John
Sir John also took a swipe at the Asiedu-Nketiah aka General Mosquito for being behind the numerous joinder applications filed by the ruling party’s supporters.

Sir John said the court took the ‘best’ decision when it ruled that the NDC supporters could not join.

He teased the NDC, describing the over 300 applicants as ‘ghosts’ and challenged the ruling party to give ‘convincing reasons’ why the applicants failed to turn up in court on Thursday.

In spite of a group of people looking like some of the applicants seen in the court’s premises, Sir John told the media that not even a single soul showed up when they were called to testify in court.

The NPP scribe alleged that it was a master plan by the NDC's General Secretary, Asiedu-Nketia, who he described as an expert in manufacturing “ghost names”, to perpetuate fraud.

He claimed that Asiedu-Nketia had been using this same strategy during elections and it only took the intervention of God for him to be exposed in his latest attempt.

NDC’s Support
The NDC  scribe Johnson Asiedu-Nketia had told an Accra-based radio station that he was in full support of the action of the party’s supporters to join the case.

Johnson Asiedu-Nketiah aka General Mosquito
He added that he is happy that the court recognized their rights as citizens by allowing them to move their application which was later dismissed.

“The voters who filed tried to vindicate their rights…at the end of the day we are very happy that their interest has been recognized…I support the stance they have taken” Mr. Asiedu-Nketia said.

About 350 of the ruling party’s supporters had hoped to join the petition in which three leading opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) members are challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President by the Electoral Commission (EC) in the December 7&8, 2012 general election, but their hopes were dashed when the nine-member panel booted them out.

The Drama
When the highest court’s Registrar called one out of the numerous applications, Stephen Ahor who announced himself as representing the NDC supporters told the court that the security arrangements made it impossible for his clients to enter the courtroom after the panel wanted to know where the applicants were.

To be sure of the presence of the applicants which is a requirement, the court halted proceedings for counsel to present some of the applicants but after combing the court’s premises, he came back to say that they were nowhere to be found.

A court official and the police had accompanied him to search for the NDC supporters.

“I was told that because they were coming in a group, the police did not allow them to enter the yard,” counsel told the court upon his return.

Panel Chairman, Justice William Atuguba then said “I do not think we can wait for them the whole day,” and also asked that once all the applications were similar there was the need to merge them to ensure expeditious trial which counsel obliged.

This prompted a panel member, Justice Jones Dotse to enquire from counsel why he failed to attach his practicing number to the application and asked him not to repeat that mistake again.

After the proceedings, some people who had gathered around court’s premises, believed to be some of the applicants looked dejected outside the courtroom and did not seem to understand what had transpired in court.

Ruling
Delivering the ruling after a heated argument on whether or not to allow the NDC supporters to join, the court said that “the joinder is neither necessary nor convenient.”

Next Sitting
The ruling thus, sets the stage for trial of the much-awaited petition which has also attracted international attention except that the parties in the case have been given 7 days to sort out the memorandum of issues for the trial to proceed.

Petitioners leave the court
In the event of the parties not agreeing on the issues to be set for trial within 7 days, the court said they should communicate the disagreement to the court registry for a date to be fixed to thrash the issues out.

As it is, the trial has been adjourned sine die (indefinitely) and reactivating it would depend on the agreement reached between the parties on how the trial should proceed; nonetheless, they have 7 days to agree.

The joinder applications by the NDC supporters were seen by many legal experts as a ploy to delay the court process.

Friday, March 15, 2013

NANA VRS MAHAMA...GO AWAY! JUDGES BOOT NDC JOINDERS


 Nana Akufo-Addo leaves the court premises yesterday

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday March 15, 2013.

The dream of more than 350 National Democratic Congress (NDC) supporters to join the landmark election petition were shattered yesterday when the Supreme Court threw them out.

The nine-member panel chaired by Justice William Atuguba unanimously ruled that the NDC supporters were not allowed in the petition in which three leading opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) members are challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President by the Electoral Commission (EC) in the December 7&8, 2012 general election.

Light At the End of the Tunnel
The ruling thus, sets the stage for trial of the much-awaited petition which has also attracted international attention except that the parties in the case have been given 7 days to sort out the memorandum of issues for the trial to proceed.

In the event of the parties not agreeing on the issues to be set for trial within 7 days, the court said they should communicate the disagreement to the court registry for a date to be fixed to thrash the issues out.

As it is, the trial has been adjourned sine die (indefinitely) and reactivating it would depend on the agreement reached between the parties on how the trial should proceed; nonetheless, they have 7 days to agree.

The joinder applications by the NDC supporters were seen by many legal experts as a ploy to delay the court process.

NDC Dismissed
Delivering the ruling after a heated argument on whether or not to allow the NDC supporters to join, the court said that “the joinder is neither necessary nor convenient.”

The court held that the applicants could not wait for the process to reach an advanced stage before deciding to join the petition and also added that they could not prove they are an interested or necessary party to the petition.

Asiedu-Nketiah explains issues to the media

The panel held that special rules designed by the court were there to ensure expeditious trial and the applicants could not come in to cause a delay.

The ‘prime movers’ of the petition according to the court, were the political parties who are a necessary parties to the process and added that it was that reason that the NDC was allowed to join the case.

It further said it was clear that the concerns of the applicants could be addressed if they chose to enter the case as witnesses without necessarily joining the petition and added that the 1st (President Mahama) and 2nd (NDC) respondents  could protect the interest of all the applicants who fear their ballots could be announced.

Applicants Missing in Court
When the application was filed, Stephen Ahor who announced himself as representing the NDC supporters told the court that the security arrangements made it impossible for his clients to enter the courtroom after the panel wanted to know where the applicants were.

Justice Jones Dotse asked counsel why he failed to attach his practicing number to the application and asked him not to repeat that mistake again.

The court then halted proceedings for counsel to present some of the applicants to the court but after combing the court’s premises, counsel came back to say that they were nowhere to be found.

“I was told that because they were coming in a group, the police did not allow them to enter the yard,” he told the court.

Justice Atuguba then said “I do not think we can wait for them the whole day,” and also asked that once all the applications were similar there was the need to merge them to ensure expeditious trail which counsel obliged.

Counsel for Applicants
At this juncture, Kwabla Dogbe Senanu took the floor and said he was part of the legal team that is going to move the applications and added that he was taking over from Mr. Ahor, Eric Atieku and Genevive Ocansey.

He told the court that at the last count, the applicants were about 350 individuals and once the court had decided to merge the applications, he was representing all of them to which Justice Atuguba said “you can represent all those listed for court today.”

NDC Chairman enters the courtroom

Application for Joinder Moved
Phillip Addison, lead counsel for the petitioners then told the court that his clients had no objection to the merger of all the application while Samuel Kodzo who is representing the NDC also said he had no objection and Mr. Senanu subsequently proceeded to move the motion.

He said the applicants who are from different polling stations were seeking to join the petition in groups and that they were bringing the applications pursuant to Rule 45 (4) of C.I. 16.

Justice Annin-Yeboah  then cut in to say that for the purposes of the petition, the rule quoted by counsel had been amended but Mr. Senanu said Part 8 of C.I. 16 was amended to C.I. 74.

He told the court that the applicants were taking advantage of the court’s decision that allowed the NDC to join the petition.

He said the applicants were a necessary and interested party because it is the votes of voters that give political office holders legitimacy.

“Once the petitioners are seeking to annul their votes they have a constitutional right to protect their interests in this petition.”

As Mr. Senanu tried to play to the gallery, Justice Jones Dotse told counsel to ‘convince’ the court on how the applicants are a ‘necessary party’ to the petition and stopped him from lecturing them on what the court deemed as ‘political science lectures.”

Justice Sulley Gbadegbe who was lively throughout the proceeding with his thought-provoking questions asked counsel what reliefs the petitioners sought from the applicants.

Mr. Senanu said if the results of the 11,916 polling stations were to be annulled it was going to affect the interests of the applicants who cast their ballots.

Justice Gbadegbe then asked again: “You keep using the terms necessary, intervener, proper etc without addressing us on why we should allow the applicants to join. This is a constitutional matter. Are you saying almost every registered Ghanaian voter should come and line up here to join?”

Mr. Senanu replied that the applicants’ polling stations were mentioned and they needed to protect their interests.

He denied that they were seeking to delay the process with the applications saying “that is why we have even agreed to merge all of them.”

Counsel said Rule 70 of C.I.74 which addresses consolidation of petition would not easily open the floodgates for more people to join the process as argued by the petition.

NPP Chairman leaves the courtroom

He said what the applicants had done was a better way of getting their votes to be counted instead of “going to the streets to organize symposium to get their votes counted.”

Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo asked counsel if the issue he had raised formed part of the application but he (counsel) said “it is not there.”

Justice Dotse then alerted counsel that some of the applications were thumb printed but there were no attestation and asked him not to repeat that again.

Addison’s Opposition
Opposing the application, Mr. Addison said the applications had filed with synchronized addresses among others except the names of the deponents.

He said all that the applicants were seeking to do was to delay the hearing of the petition.

He said that every Ghanaian including those who did not vote were interested in the outcome of the petition and the applicants cannot hold that because they voted, they should be allowed to join the petition.

Some of the NPP lawyers in court

He said the nature of the petition puts the applicants squarely in the camp of the respondents especially the 1st and 3rd adding “the interests they are seeking to protect are the interest that every Ghana has in this petition.”

Mr. Addison said the votes the petitioners seek to annul “cut across the board so why would they say those votes are their vote?”

He said the vote the petitioners are seeking to annul are votes that even include those who voted for the petitioners.

He said it was wrong for the applicants to hold that they have the same right as the petitioners saying “if surely their rights are equal, then they cannot be coming to court at this time.”

The petitioners according to their counsel had 21 days to file the petition and they did it within time but the applicants waited for the process to advance before coming to court to say that they must be allowed to join because they have the same rights as the petitioners.

When Justice Dotse reminded counsel that he could not advance his argument on the question of time, Mr Addison replied that from the date the petition was filed the applicants were put on notice.

“There should be equality of treatment before the law. Their interests are fully represented by the 1st and 3rd respondent. If they are allowed and they bring evidence it will be repetitive and repressive.”

He said the non-joinder of the applicants will not “disable the court to fully determine the petition. The application is intended to make a mockery of the petition.”

EC Agrees With NDC Supporters
James Quarshie-Idun, counsel for the EC (2nd respondent) when asked about his position said the EC was not opposed to the applications by the NDC supporters to join the petition.

He said under the rules for election there were three ‘indispensable’ components and that included the commission, candidates and registered voters whose interests needed to be protected.

NDC Backs Its Supporters
The NDC led by Samuel Kodzo also supported the applicants saying “we believe there is merit in the applications.”

NDC supporters who wanted to join the petition

Before the judges retired to their chamber to decide, Justice Doste again asked the bar to be decorous in their language in order not to inflame passions outside the court.

After rejecting the NDC supporters, the court began hearing the application for directions filed by the petitioners but the NDC raised preliminary objection.

NDC Raises Objection
Mr. Kodzo told the court that what the petitioners were seeking to do was “alien to the rules.”

Just as he attempted to cite C.I. 16, Rule 69, Justice Gbadegbe reminded him that the situation was in the case of an appeal and asked him to relate his argument’s to the instant petition.

Mr. Kodzo then said Rule 69 (c) of C.I. 16 was clear on how an election petition should be directed and there was no need for the petitioners to file the instant application asking for directions saying “after close of pleadings all the parties appear for directions.”

Justice Gbadegbe then asked if application for direction and memorandum of issues do not achieve the same purpose but Mr. Kodzo replied “These are irregularities. They are in breach of express provisions of the court rules.”

He said “what they did is alien. It does not pertain in all the High Court divisions. We urge the court to strike out the particulars as filed.”

Addison Replies NDC
Mr. Addison told the court that it had necessitated the filing the application because there is no rule governing that stage of the proceedings and what petitioners did “was only to move the petition forward.”

“What matters is the substance and not the form,” he said and added that when the NDC was being admitted to join the petition, Justice Dotse has made it clear that the court was going to adopt appropriate case management practices in the trial and that was exactly what the petitioners were looking forward to.

NPP lawyer speaks to journalists

Mr. Kodzo came in again to say that contrary to what the petitioners said, Rule 69 (c) spells out the way forward saying “it is provided for. We will come to court and the court will give us direction.”

At this juncture, it was clear that both President Mahama and the EC had all filed their issues for directions except the NDC.

NDC’s Objection Overruled
The court then in a unanimous decision overruled the NDC’s preliminary objection saying counsel could not convince the court with his argument.

Justice Atuguba said that the court will treat petitioner’s application for direction as memorandum of issues.

Mr. Kodzo then asked the court to allow the NDC to file the application for direction and the court allowed them to file it without specifying the time.

Way Forward
This development provoked reaction from the petitioners counsel while the respondent’s counsel especially Tony Lithur representing President Mahama, said they were going to reject most of the proposals put forward by the petitioners for the trial.

He specifically mentioned the use of audio visuals, evidence from potential witnesses, exchange of documents 7 clear days before the trial, mode among others as some of the ‘substantial’ issues that they would raise objection.

Nana Akufo-Addo's car

Justice Gbadegbe then asked all the parties to “put your heads together to narrow down the issues to be set for trial.”

Justice Doste also said that document available show that issues of the 1st and 2nd respondents are “similar in content and style” and it was not difficult for all the parties to sit and narrow the issues down.

The court then adjourned the case sine die for the parties to come to a consensus as to the issues they are setting for trial failure of which would have to be determined by the judges.