LAW TEACHER SHREDS APAU REPORT

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Thursday, July 16, 2015

A United States-based law Professor S. Kwaku Asare has shredded the Justice Yaw Apau’s Judgement Debt Commission leaked report that NPP leader Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo caused financial loss to the state.

Reacting to another lawyer’s declaration that the legal effect of adverse findings in the Apau might bar Nana Akufo-Addo from contesting in the 2016 presidential elections, Prof. Asare said “in fact, nothing in this finding, even accepted at face value, will disqualify Akufo-Addo or anyone from any elective office.”

The judgement Debt Commission report, yet to be released officially, is mired in controversy, with accusations that the Sole-Commissioner did a shoddy job but subsequently received promotion to the Supreme Court.

“For starters, Justice Apau's contention that ‘it was as a result of this failure to bring to the attention of the London High Court the settlement attempts that led to the entry of judgment ex-parte in the sum of US$47 million against GNPC’ is factually barren, legally incompetent and logically bankrupt,” Prof Asare said.

“By Justice Apau's own account, attempts were being made to settle the claim at all material times, initially by the GNPC and later by the Attorney-General (AG),” adding “parties must bring a final settlement, not settlement attempts, to the notice of the court. Thus, it is wrong, as a matter of law, for Justice Apau to have made such a finding.”

Judgement decree

The erudite professor said that “to worsen matters, Justice Apau does not, as he is required to, support this finding with any statement from the judgment decree. In fact, there is no evidence that he sought or obtained the judgment decree.”

“For if he had done so, the judgment decree would have indicated the basis for the default judgment, and saved him from making the embarrassing finding that assigns absence of notice of settlement attempts as the proximate cause of a default judgment.”

Ex-parte judgment

He said that in effect, the contention that it was the failure to bring this settlement attempt to the court’s notice that led to the entry of judgment in the sum of $47 million “is speculative, at best, and puerile, in reality, because the ex-parte judgment was set aside, as most default judgments are, when the parties reached a settlement.”

“Justice Apau notes in the report that that he cannot question the AG's decision to settle the litigated claim. He is essentially correct but incoherent when he acknowledges the AG’s decision to settle the litigated claim and his theory of the default judgment,” he added.

He said the very fact that the claim was settled undermined Justice Apau’s theory of the ex-parte default judgment.

Preposterous conclusion

“Moreover, as it turns out, he ends up not just questioning this decision but, worse, by reaching the preposterous conclusion that settling a claim of $47M for $19.5M is causing financial loss to the State.”

“For reasons that are not indicated in the report, Justice Apau failed to examine the underlying speculative activities that triggered the cause of action. Yet, the analysis of these troubled transactions, which ultimately led to the cause of action and the ensuing settlement, represent the nation’s best hope of understanding this particular judgment debt and the lessons to be drawn therefrom.”

He said that while the Justice was quick to find fault with the AG, he failed to credit to the AG for dispensing with the services of Bindman, the UK legal firm that was representing GNPC.

“Nor does the Justice tell us how much had been paid to Bindman and how much the Republic saved from the dismissal. The bottom line is that the AG settled a $47 million claim for $19.5M. The default judgment entered by the Court is of no moment, as evidenced by the stark fact of the settled amount.”

Disqualification

On whether the findings could disqualify Nana Akufo-Addo or anyone from running for office, Prof Asare said “assuming they are accepted at face value, the answer is absolutely not!”

“This is because the Commission does not make a specific finding of incompetence, assets acquisition, fraud, misuse/abuse of office, or willful action, as set out by the Constitution. “

“The Commission does not even tell us why the AG failed to make appearance on the day the ex parte judgment was given. It makes no attempt to communicate with anyone in the AG’s office or to even get the court decree.”

He said “in fact, the finding does not even name a person. It names the Attorney General, who happens to be the nominal party in all suits in which the government is involved.”

“ Nana Addo, who was Attorney General, at the time, was not even invited to the Commission. Nor does the commission give any evidence of the extent of his involvement or knowledge in the events leading to the ex parte judgment, which, as has been explained, had little legal significance.”

“To hold a particular Attorney General, here Nana Addo, personally accountable for any lapse that occurs on any suit in which he is named a nominal party is to abandon logical and legal reasoning.

“Such a general finding is not the type of specific finding that the Constitution contemplates will disqualify people from holding elective office. The threshold for disqualification is high and rightly so!”