Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By
William Yaw Owusu & Rita Oduro
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
It has emerged that former Deputy Attorney General
Ebo Barton-Odro unilaterally raised the cost of the Asafo Market interchange in
Kumasi for the contractor who executed the project.
According to David Kwabena Ofosu-Dorte of AB &
David Law, Mr. Barton-Odro who was the chairman of a dispute panel on the
project increased the debt owed by the government to Sarroch Grandulati/Gelfi
Joint Venture to GH¢3.4million instead of the agreed GH¢3.180million.
Mr. Ofosu-Dorte who has indepth knowledge in
construction and engineering laws was testifying on behalf of AB & David
Law, lead counsel for the government on the project when the issue came up at
the Commission of Enquiry investigating the payment of judgment debt yesterday.
The
Evidence
Mr. Ofosu-Dorte told Sole-Commissioner Justice Yaw
Apau of the Court of Appeal that his firm was appointed to assess the project
contract between Sarroch Grandulati/Gelfi Joint Venture and the Ministry of
Roads and Highways at a time when Lithur Brew & Co. was already doing the
same job and his firm later became the lead counsel for the project saying “we
led them to the closure of the whole matter.”
He said the project contract was entered into in
January 2004 but along the line, Gelfi exited the joint venture.
Project
Commissioning
He said project was commissioned on November 9, 2007
by President John Agyekum Kufuor when technically it was not supposed to be
handed over yet, even though, the time for completion had elapsed.
“Once it was commissioned, the question of liability
shifted and the government fell into Sarroch Grandulati’s trick because two
weeks after the commissioning Sarroch Grandulati terminated its contract.”
The
Arbitration
He said Sarroch Grandulati then put in a 4.7million
Euro claim and brought a revised claim of 272,427 Euro and GH¢6.1million before
initiating what he called a Dispute Review Board proceedings to get the amount
due adding “the two parties never appointed the board.”
Mr. Ofosu-Dorte said the case even travelled to
international arbitration but the government was able to bring it home for
settlement and when the dispute panel was set up Sarroch Grandulati brought a
bill of GH¢11.803,809 million and 903,177 Euros.
He said the Attorney General, AB & David Law and
Lithur Brew & Co. constituted the government’s dispute team while Sarroch
Grandulati was represented by their lawyers as well as one Steve Mawunyega as
their power of attorney who was later substituted for Nana Kwame Bediako.
Unfolding
Drama
The witness said the government team refused to
recognize Sarroch Grandulati’s GH¢11million from the commencement of the dispute
resolution and the construction firm finally accepted and signed in writing to
be paid GH¢2.8million.
“We thought the matter had ended but we were summoned
later to the office of the Chair and informed that Sarroch Grandulati had
revoked the acceptance of GH¢2.8million.”
He said the assessment team again went through the
records and realized that the best they could get to was GH¢3,180,000 million adding
“that was the figure that was recommended.”
“So from the GH¢2.8 which had been accepted after
they revoked the paper agreement, we made a recommendation of GH¢3.18 and it is
actually a conversion issue as a result of the delay because we insisted in
paying Cedis and nothing more. We actually offered the GH¢2.8 hoping that they
will fall for the bait because we knew that the real amount we could recommend
was GH¢3.18million.”
Barton-Odro
factor
Mr. Ofosu-Dorte said that the Chair (Barton-Odro)
then decided to call a caucus because there was an impasse following Sarroch
Grandulati’s decision not to accept the GH¢3.180million.
“The time we hit the GH¢3.180million he (Barton-Odro)
called a caucus and asked if we could do anything about it and we said he is
the Chair and he represents the government and whatever he thinks he can do
about it he could tell us.”
“We put everything on paper and he decided to
increase the amount to GH¢3.4million so we came back to the room but the
claimant decided that he will take GH¢3.5million and the Chair said GH¢3.4million
was his last offer and he thinks he can end the matter that was why he
increased it to GH¢3.4million.”
Taking
a flack
“I think quite a lot of efforts were made by all
sorts of people to let us go beyond that which I must say in all sincerity, I
found surprising but we did not budge. We had said we would not go beyond our
recommendation and we stuck to that.”
“We took a flack for incorporating the Chair’s
request of increasing the amount from GH¢3.180 to GH¢3.4million. Some people
thought that that was not supposed to be in the report but I hold the principle
that you should not take a decision that you cannot account for later.”
The
Prediction
“Even at that time I asked that what if we are
called tomorrow how do I explain how we arrived at GH¢3.4million when
everything show it should have been GH¢3.180million. The attachments clearly
does not show GH¢3.4million.”
“Five years ago, I did not know I was going to be called
but here I am today, having to explain how we arrived at the figure.”
He said “full settlement report was dated October
22, 2010 and the amount increased from GH¢3.180 to GH¢3.4million because it was
imposed by the Chair (Barto-Odro).”
No comments:
Post a Comment