Wednesday, May 28, 2014

I GOT $4M FOR MY CLIENT - TONY LITHUR

Tony Lithur

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu & Rita Oduro
Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Tony Lithur who represented Calf Cocoa International Ghana Limited in a suit between the firm and the Ghana government yesterday confirmed to the Commission of Enquiry investigating the payment of judgement debts that he secured $4.150,127.50 for his client.

He told the commission presided over by Justice Yaw Apau of the Court of Appeal that the matter ended up in court because the government at the time refused to release about $2.6million to Calf Cocoa for its operations.

 The ‘Commission of Enquiry into the payment of Judgement Debt and Akin’ under C.I. 79 to investigate the frivolous and dubious payments of huge monies to undeserving individuals and companies, was appointed by President John Dramani Mahama after public uproar over the payments in what has now come to be termed as Judgement Debts (JD).

Notable among them were payments made to CP (€94 million) and the never-ending case of GH¢51.2million parted to the self-styled National Democratic Congress (NDC) financier, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, both of which many believed were dubious and frivolous.

History
Narrating the incident that led to the judgement debt, Mr. Lithur said “I represented Calf Cocoa International in the suit titled Calf Cocoa International Ghana Limited versus the Attorney General and the suit was preceded by a letter which I had written on behalf of client to the AG requesting for the release of certain funds under a subsidiary loan agreement between the government and Calf Cocoa International.”

He said Calf Cocoa International Ghana Limited is a joint venture company between Carridem Development Company Limited, an investment wing of the 31st December Women's Movement (DWM) and China International Corporation Company for horticultural livestock and fishery. It was a company nominated by the Chinese government to enter into a joint venture agreement with Carridem for the processing of cocoa for export to China.

He said Carridem, an investment wing of the 31st December Women’s Movement (DWM) owned 45 percent and Calf Cocoa International Ghana Limited had 55 percent and there was a general loan facility between the governments of Ghana and China for certain sums to be disbursed to Ghana.

“Under that general loan facility, several subsidiary loans were entered into in respect of specific areas of the economy. This subsidiary loan was targeted at cocoa processing.  That loan was for a sum of about $8.750million supposed to be part of the complete funding required to set up the factory and start processing,” adding “The difference between $8.750million and the $10million was supposed to be paid by Carridem which in fact, they did.”

Mr. Lithur said the disbursement started before 2000 and by 2003, the factory had virtually been completed and the final tranche of that facility was to be what he called “working capital.”

“From the working capital Calf Cocoa was supposed to be paying for advertisement, cocoa beans, do trial tests and get the company ready for operation. That was when the problem started,” he said, adding “There was some reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Finance to disburse the amount.”

He said the working capital was $2.6millionand added that the ministry had said they would not pay the amount directly to Calf Cocoa and that Calf Cocoa should enter into a sales agreement with Cocobod for the purchase of cocoa beans and the money will be paid directly to Cocobod.

Mr. Lithur said Calf Cocoa’s position was that the cocoa beans was only a portion of the outstanding disbursement and it still required the funds to do other things and the stalemate led to the issuance of a writ against the government on September 8, 2005.

He also said by the time the suit was instituted, the factory had deteriorated because it had been lying without being operated for a while and during the case at the Commercial Court in Accra, the amount that was accepted by the court as constituting the cost of taking the factory back to an operable state was $1.7million.

“The court in the end delivered judgement in favour of Calf Cocoa and ordered them to pay the following sums: The undisbursed amount was $1.8million. The court further awarded damages which was the material cost for replacing parts at $1.75million.”

He said further that the court awarded interest at $3.5million till the date of final payment and that interest was calculated and the figure came to $600,127.65 and that brought the total sum to $4.150,127.50.

He said “quiet resoundingly, the court on March 5, 2008 took the view that the state was at fault and it awarded substantial damages against the state. Those sums have been paid. In total, the state was ordered to pay $4.150, 127.50 million.

He said initial payment of the principal judgment    debts was made at $3.550, 000 was made based on instructions from the ministry adding “The AG’s attention was drawn to the fact that the interest of $600,000 had not been made and it was also made subsequently.”

Mr. Lithur said the amount that the government should have disbursed was $1.8million and cost of reinstating the factory which was additional award made was $1.75 million and in addition was the accrued interest of  $600,127.65 and a cost of GH¢5,000 so the difference would be about $2.3.

Dometi Kofi Sorkpor (counsel for the commission): Were you able to fathom out the reason why the said amount which happened to be the capital was not released by the government to Calf Cocoa?

Tony Lithur: It was a little difficult to understand at the time. I don’t know what was going through the officials mind. We were clear that it was beginning to sound as if there were improper motives behind the refusal to release the money pursuant to the agreement both parties had signed.

Sorkpor: What in your opinion, should governments be doing as far as some of these matters are concerned?

Justice Apau (interrupts): Are you seeking his opinion?

Tony Lithur: I was actually going to decline…My instructions were lawyers’ instructions.



No comments: