EOCO EXPLAINS GYEEDA PAYMENTS

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

An investigator in the infamous GYEEDA scandal yesterday admitted that all payments made to Philip Akpeena Assibit, CEO of Goodwill International Group (GIG) passed through the payment processes at the Ministry of Youth and Sports.

Mrs Diana Adu Anane, an investigator at Economic and Organized Crime Organization (EOCO) however, insisted during cross-examination that Assibit’s GIG  was not entitled to the payments since there was no work done.

The investigator had said in her evidence-in-chief that EOCO found out a whopping $2million were first paid for supposed service rendered by Assibit as Managing Consultant to GYEEDA and another over GH¢8 million also paid for oil and gas training run by GIG.

Former Coordinator of National Youth Employment Programme now GYEEDA and current NDC MP for Chiana Paga, Abuga Pele together with Assibit are standing trial for the various roles they played at GYEEDA, which the Attorney General’s Department said caused huge financial loss to the state.

The MP is accused of wilfully causing financial loss to the state to the tune of GH¢3,330,568.53 while Assibit is being tried for defrauding the state of an amount equivalent to $1,948,626.68.

Under cross-examination by Joseph Kpemka, counsel for Assibit, the investigator told the court presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe that Assibit pocketed GH¢53,000 for recruiting 250 youth for training but came back later to file the same claim for which he was again paid.

Counsel (Joseph Kpemka): Was there any payment to GIG which did not pass through the payment process at the Ministry?

Witness (Investogator Mrs. Adu Anane): No

Counsel: So the payment to GIG passed through due process based on claims made.

Witness: Yes

The witness told the court that EOCO found a letter written by Assibit on Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI) letterhead and the accused had described himself as a Managing Consultant but when they investigated, they realised it was a false representation.

She said the payment vouchers had been prepared in favour of MDPI/GIG when it should had been made in the name of MDPI alone since Assibit’s demand letter was on MDPI letterhead and not MDPI/GIG.

She admitted Assibit’s GIG was a tenant at the premises of MDPI but could not find out if there was any tenancy agreement and when counsel suggested to her that she did shoddy investigations, she said it was thorough.

Counsel also pointed to the witness that although the MoU signed between NYEP and GIG was witnessed by a former MDPI director Dr. Martin Zame on behalf of Assibit, the EOCO could not investigate why the MDPI man acted as a witness but Mrs Adu Anane said “we wrote to find out but he was not available.”

She agreed with  counsel that Assibit had at all material times been treated as Managing Consulting but disagreed that all staff of GYEEDA dealt with the accused as Managing Consultant.

Sitting continues today.