The Minority caucus in parliament has called on the Minister for Energy, Hon. Albert Kan Dapaah to immediately resign from his position. The group has also called on the government to institute a probe into the oil lifting contract between Sahara Energy Resources and the Tema Oil Refinery (TOR) to save the country from incurring huge financial losses.
Explaining their position, the Minority Leader, Hon. Alban Bagbin said the Minority could reveal that the contract was fraudulently entered into and that the continued stay in office by the Minister would obstruct effective investigation to unravel the secrecy surrounding the contract.
At a press conference at the Parliament House, the Ranking Member for Energy, Hon. Abraham Kofi Asante disclosed that the first oil lifting under the Sahara contract began on April 1st, 2001 but the Minister told parliament that the contract was signed on May 25th, 2001 when he appeared before the House on May 30th to answer questions relating to the Sahara contract. Hon. Asante said if what the Minister said is the true situation then "what this means is that either there was no contract covering the initial Sahara liftings between April 1st to May 25th, 2001, or that there was a contract to which the people of Ghana have not been made privy.
According to Hon. Asante, Sahara Energy Resources only has a representation in Abuja in Nigeria but it is company incorporated and registered in the Isle of Man with a stated capital of US $1 million only. He stated that the contract is superfluous in that in it all the executing parties have stated responsibilities which is clearly stated in the agreement and thus questioned why Sahara should be paid substantial amounts to ensure that parties under the contract with TOR do what they are obliged to do.
The Ranking Member said fraud runs through Sahara's major responsibilities adding that under the operational and financial activities Sahara has nothing to do and no role to play and that monies paid are losses to the state. Hon. Asante disclosed that at the time when GNPC was doing the liftings it relied on the services of the Commercial Counselor at the Ghana High Commission at no extra cost to the country to pass on information to and from the Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC) and that for Sahara to be entrusted with the same responsibility is superfluous.
He further disclosed that parties under the agreement are to maintain a strict code of secrecy regarding the terms, existence and contents of the contract and noted that the Sahara contract undermines the sovereignty of Ghanaians and parliament. Hon. Asante carefully explained in comparing the Vitol and Sahara contracts that: "under the Vitol contract, the price is fixed for the supply of 450,000 barrels cargoes, and this is the standard capacity of the vessel that TOR has the facilities to discharge from. However, under the Sahara contract, Sahara would earn an incentive bonus of 75 cents per barrel for any additional crude oil lifted above 430,000 barrels on the M. T. Oceanida.
M. T. Oceanida however has a lifting capacity of more than 450,000 barrels. Thus for every lifting of full capacity that M. T. Oceanida makes, Sahara Limited earns an automatic additional 75 cents per barrel on 20,000 barrels of crude oil or more. As per the earlier calculation, this amounts to a "cool" US$360,000 per year. He said at the end of the day, the outstanding question is: unlike Vitol which was to pre-finance the crude oil purchases, to extend credit facilities to TOR, to construct a Single Point Mooring off-shore Tema, to utilize the full capacity of the chartered vessel (450,000 barrels) without receiving any incentive bonus and whose charges were comparatively more favourable, and who were also to settle the outstanding indebtedness of GNPC to NNPC: What special services are required from Sahara under their management services contract with TOR? The answer is virtually none!" The Ranking Member said the Minority group suspects that the initial Sahara scandal involved some NPP gurus but in the course of the heat they quickly changed things to cover up. He said the contract is fraudulent and superfluous and that the US$3,222,000 being paid to Sahara annually constitutes financial loss to the state, adding that it is preposterous for anyone to claim that the Sahara contract makes a saving of US$7.5 million to the state and demanded its abrogation immediately.