Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
After about a year of proceedings, the prosecution in
the trial of Abuga Pele, the former National Coordinator of National Youth
Employment Programme (NYEP) now Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial
Development Agency (GYEEDA) has finally closed its case.
It is now left with Abuga Pele who doubles as NDC MP
for Chiana Paga in the Upper East Region and his co-accused Philip Akpeena
Assibit, CEO of Goodwill International Group (GIG) to open their defense.
However, both defense counsel indicated their
intentions to file a submission of no case immediately Mrs Evelyn Keelson a
Chief State Attorney announced at the Accra Financial Court yesterday that the
prosecution had concluded its case.
Raymond Bagnabu, representing Assibit told Justice
Afia Serwah Asare Botwe trying the case that “we are desirous of putting in a
‘submission of no case’ for Mr. Assibit.”
Karl Adongo who is counsel for Abuga Pele also added “It
is the same with us. We believe no case has been established by the prosecution
so far.”
The court then set the timelines for both teams to
file the necessary processes by May 15 for the defense and June 5 for the
prosecution before adjourning the case until June 19 for ruling.
Prosecution’s Witnesses
The
prosecution was able to call a total of 7 witnesses including Mrs Diana Adu Anane, an
investigator at Economic and Organized Crime Organization (EOCO) who was the
last witness to be cross-examined.
Nuru
Hamidan
former NYEP Deputy National Coordinator in charge of Operations and now MCE for
Asokore Mampong, Gladys Ghartey current Head of United Nations Systems at the
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Mohammed Pelpuo, Head of the
Business Development Unit at NYEP as well as Clement Kofi Humado, former
Minister of Youth and Sports whom the defense team insisted should have also
been on trial, have since testified and cross-examined.
Dr. Shaibu Ahmed
Gariba, who until September 2014 was the Director General of Management Development
and Productivity Institute (MDPI) as Eric Sunu, an Accountant attached to the GYEEDA have also testified and cross-examined.
Accused Persons
Abuga
Pele and Philip Akpeena Assibit are standing trial for the various roles they
played, 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.
The
two have pleaded not guilty and are currently on bail. They were present in
court yesterday.
Charges
The
NDC MP is facing six counts of wilfully causing financial loss to the state
under Section 179A (3) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29, two counts of
abetment under Sections 20(1) and 131(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960
(Act 29) and one count of intentionally misapplying public property, contrary
to Section 1(2) of the Public Property Protection Act, 1977 (SMCD) 140.
Mr. Assibit, who is the first accused person on the
other hand, is facing six counts of defrauding by false pretences, contrary to
Section 131(1) of the Criminal and Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) and five counts
of dishonestly causing loss to public property contrary to Section 2(1) of the
Public Property Protection Act, 1977 (SMCD) 140.
Concluding case
Mrs Adu Anane before
exiting the witness’ box told the court under cross-examination by Mr. Adongo that
the GYEEDA investigations were ongoing but the aspect involving the NDC MP and
Assibit was completed.
She said Mr. Humado approved
the payment based on the justification memo sent by Abuga Pele after the demand
letter by Assibit’s GIG.
She admitted that
Abuga Pele did not have the responsibility to approve payment beyond GH¢20,000
and said that responsibility rested on the sector ministry and the directors
but insisted that “the minister approved the payment based on the justification
by Abuga Pele.”
The investigator also
said GYEEDA did not have internal audit office and that it used the ministry’s
outfit for the pre-auditing of authority’s finances and said it was because Mr.
Humado was not sure about the work done by Assibit that he recommended payment
to be made into the accounts of MDPI instead of GIG.
When counsel put it
to her that it was wrong for Mr. Humado to recommend payment to MDPI which the
prosecution said had no contract with GYEEDA and had not done any work instead
of GIG, she said the recommendation letters had said the work was done by
MDPI/GIG consortium.
No comments:
Post a Comment