Mr. Tsikata said the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation lost its 20 case to Societe Generale (SG), a French commodities bank, because of lack of legal representation.

Mr. Tsikata said the instruction to the corporation's solicitors to stop and hand over the case to the Attorney General presented SG the opportunity to make amendments to their case and apply for judgment against GNPC.

He said important applications made to the court by the GNPC's solicitors were not pursued when the government decided to throw in the towel.

GNPC lawyers had contested the claims of SG since 1999 based on the fact that it was SG that gave "negligent advice" to the corporation to hedge its anticipated production of oil and gas from the Tano Fields.

Mr. Tsikata said when statements of defence were filed at the London High Court it gave directives that the parties should exchange documents.

The GNPC complied with the directive but SG blacked out sections of what they presented to GNPC because they claimed they did not have to disclose those passages.

Mr. Tsikata said an application was consequently made to the court to order SG to disclose them. It was at that stage that the government decided to drop the case, even though, there was high probability that GNPC could win.

He came to this conclusion because, "before SG brought their claim in the London High Court, they had earlier in 1998 filed a suit in the United States in the District Court in Houston - seeking an order to have the GNPC drill ship D511, moved to the US and detained by them upon conclusion of its contract in Mexico.

"This suit was brought against the US company that had chartered the drill ship as well as GNPC. The case of SG was thrown out and when they appealed to the Court of Appeal in New Orleans, they were again unsuccessful.

"It emerged in those proceedings that SG had sought legal advice about taking action in Mexico, where the drill ship was operating, or in Panama, where the drill ship was registered, and they realised that they could not succeed in either jurisdiction if they filed a suit," Mr. Tsikata said.

The former Chief Executive said it was regrettable that the Minister could rely on rejected allegations in the SG case to paint a picture to the public that was far from the truth.

He emphasised that SG dealt with the corporation as a commercial body throughout the transactions and there was no need for governmental interference.

This, he said, explained why SG claims were pursued against the corporation and not the government.