EX-SCANCEM BOSS IN ‘CAT AND GAME WITH BAAKO

Mr. Gerhard Heiberg, one of the high profile witnesses in the Scancem bribery case being heard in a Norwegian court, has been engaged in a ‘cat and mouse game’ with the author of this story (Kweku Baako, Jnr., Editor-in-Chief of The Crusading Guide), since August 9, 2009.

A relentless pursuit to get him (Heiberg) to answer some questions relating to the SCANCEM case at the Asker and Baerum Court and what he was purported to have said on a Ghanaian radio station last week to the effect that he never mentioned the names of ex-President Rawlings, his wife (Nana Konadu) and Mr. PV Obeng in court, had proved fruitless as at the time of filing this story from Oslo to Accra (August 11, 2007).

Mr. Heiberg had been reported in the April 21-22 2007 edition of a leading mass circulation newspaper (250,000 per day) in Norway, the DAGENS NAERINGSLIV (DN) as having testified in court to the effect that “there were a number of people but I don’t want to give any names. There were many people, in many countries. There were more than Rawlings and PV, including politicians and managers in industry”.

The same Heiberg, according to the DN newspaper, had also indicated that Rawlings and his spouse were among those who had received considerable payments from Scancem (see page 40 of the April 21, 2007 edition of DN which carried the original story).

Heiberg, a former Norcem and Asker Head, also explained to the court that “there were by and large bribes in all countries” where Scancem had its cement business and operations, Sandvika, Norway. Scancem has operations in Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Togo, Tanzania, Congo, Sierra Leone, Niger and Gabon.

I had just arrived in Oslo, Norway, early morning of Tuesday, August 7, 2007, when news reached me that Mr. Heiberg or someone purporting to be him, had told Radio Gold, a leading Ghanaian FM radio station, that he had never mentioned the names of ex-President Rawlings, Mrs. Rawlings and PV Obeng in court during the trial of Tor Egil Kjelsaas, former Scancem African Head, on whose behalf Heiberg had testified in court.

This development was quite surprising given that the same man had been directly quoted as having mentioned those names during his testimony in court by the DN newspaper. If his denial of the quotes attributed to him by the Norwegian newspaper was to turn out to be truthful, then the credibility of the newspaper as well as its story under reference, would have been severely undermined if not entirely shattered.

It was against this background that a colleague Editor-in-Chief, Gabby Asare Ochere-Darko of the Daily Statesman and myself, set up an interview encounter with the two Norwegian journalists, Geir Imset and Herald Vanvik, who wrote the story which has caused waves in both Ghana and Norway. Our mission? To ascertain the veracity or otherwise of Heiberg’s alleged denial on Radio Gold and to seek the reaction of the two journalists to the denial and more information on the Scancem bribery palaver.

Come Wednesday, August 8, 2007, the two of us (Gabby and myself) met the two journalists in a restaurant near a busy and noisy street corner for the slated interview. The over an hour-long interview left us in no doubt that if indeed it was Mr. Heiberg who had issued the purported denial of portions of his court testimony on radio in far away Ghana, then “the general” from Lillehammer Olympics, as he is affectionately called, has a very tall ladder of credibility and integrity to climb.

Why? Because the two Norwegian journalists were meticulous in carrying out their work, culminating in the publication of April 21, 2007 story in which some direct quotes had been attributed to Mr. Heiberg. They showed evidence of their email correspondence with Heiberg; seeking his verification and/or authentication of the quotes being attributed to him, and Heiberg apparently had no problems with the quotations including the one which directly mentioned (implicated?) Rawlings and PV Obeng during his testimony in court in August 2006.

The two confident and self-assured Norwegian journalists couldn’t believe Heiberg would deny responsibility for the quotes attributed to him because he (Heiberg) had approved of them long before the publication of April 21, 2007. Their disbelief stemmed from the fact that after the April 21 publication, Mr. Heiberg, in a telephone chat with Vanvik, (one of the reporters), attested to the fairness and accuracy of the story. He (Heiberg) was then in China. Subsequently, his positive reaction to the story was also published in the April 23 of the DN without it attracting any disapproval from him.

“We are surprised at his Accra denial. He has not complained to us about any aspect of our story of both the April 21 story which carried the quotes attributed to him and the subsequent one (April 23) which reported his positive reaction to the first story. Neither he nor anybody mentioned or quoted in that story has complained to us directly or indirectly through anybody, as far as we know”, lamented the Norwegian journalists.

It was after our encounter with the two journalists and after having satisfied ourselves as to the credibility of their story, particularly with regards to the critical quotes attributed to Mr. Heiberg, that we proceeded to make contact with Mr. Heiberg whose telephone contacts the Norwegian journalists kindly gave us.

The following is how my pursuit of an interview with Mr. Heiberg since my arrival in Oslo, Norway, has unfolded, as at the time of filing this report (August 11, 2007).

STEP ONE – AUGUST 9, 2007 (15.10GMT): I RANG HIS MOBILE PHONE NUMBER IN ORDER TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT FOR AN INTERVIEW. HIS PHONE WAS OFF AND I LEFT A VOICEMAIL INTRODUCING MYSELF AND MY MISSION.

STEP TWO – AUGUST 9, 2007 (17.00GMT): I SENT HIM A TEXT MESSAGE (REMINDER) THUS: “MY NAME IS KWEKU BAAKO, A JOURNALIST 4FRM GHANA NOW IN OSLO, COULD U KINDLY TALK TO ME ON AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST? I WILL LEAVE NORWAY MONDAY, MY CELL NO IS ……” (MY PRIVATE MOBILE NUMBER WAS STATED FOR HIS ATTENTION).

STEP THREE – AUGUST 10, 2007: (HEIBERG’S FIRST RESPONSE) I AM IN CHINA SO I HAVE NO CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU.

STEP FOUR – AUGUST 10, 2007 (02.00) (BAAKO’S RESPONSE): I APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION THOUGH YOU SPOKE TO A GHANAIAN RADIO STATION ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO. I WILL LEAVE OSLO ON MONDAY BUT WILL CONTINUE TO GET YOU TO REACT TO CERTAIN ISSUES RELATIVE TO YOUR ASSERTIONS ON GHANAIAN RADIO AND YOUR SUBMISSIONS IN THE NORWEGIAN COURT AS CARRIED BY THE DN NEWSPAPER. WITH DUE RESPECT, MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS YOU AND A SAFE JOURNEY BACK.

STEP FIVE – AUGUST 10, 2007 (15.35GMT): I RANG HIS (HEIBERG’S) MOBILE NUMBER TO TRY AND PERSUADE HIM TO GRANT AN INTERVIEW AND THE FOLLOWING ENCOUNTER ENSUED:

KWEKU BAAKO (KB): HELLO?

GERHARD HEIBERG (GH): HELLO

KB: GOOD EVENING, HELLO SIR?

GH: YES, GOOD EVENING.

KB: AM I SPEAKING TO MR. GERHARD HEIBERG?

GH: YES

KB: MY NAME IS KWEKU BAAKO, JNR. I AM A JOURNALIST FROM GHANA AND I WANT…

GH: (SHARPLY INTERRUPTS) NO, NO, LISTEN, I AM IN CHINA AND I AM ABOUT TO SIT IN A PLANE IN CHINA

KB: YES, TWO MINUTES OF YOUR TIME, SIR?

GH: I AM SORRY UH?

KB: AND SO WHEN CAN I CALL YOU?

GH: (RUDELY CUTS THE LINE THUS, BRINGING THE CHAT TO AN ABRUPT END)

STEP SIX – AUGUST 10, 2007 (16.54GMT): I DECIDED TO SEND HEIBERG THE FOLLOWING TEXT MESSAGE: “WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR, 4GIVE ME 4 BEING A SOURCE OF TRANSIENT IRRITATION 2 U. IT IS DUE 2 THE NATURE OF MY PROFESSION. I HV TRAVELED ALL THE WAY 4FRM ACCRA 2 OSLO 2 INVESTIGATE THE SCANCEM CASE IN THE ASKER AND BAERUM COURT IN SANDVIKA, NORWAY DURING WHICH U WERE A WITNESS 4 TOR EGIL KJELSAAS. IN ORDER TO A PROFESSIONAL JOB I THOUGHT I NEEDED 2 TALK TO U. HOWEVER IT APPEARS UR WORK SCHEDULE MIGHT NOT ALLOW U 2 RESPOND 2 MY QUESTIONS. MAYBE, I CAN USE THIS MEDIUM 2 GIVE U A BRIEF OUTLINE OF MY AREA OF INTEREST.

*1: HAVE U SPOKEN 2 A GHANAIAN RADIO STATION DURING WHICH U DENIED EVER MENTIONING THE NAMES OF RAWLINGS, HIS WIFE & PV OBENG IN COURT?

*2: HOW DO U REACT 2 CLAIMS BY THE DN JOURNALISTS THAT ALL THE QUOTES ATTRIBUTED 2 U IN THEIR 21ST APRIL EDITION WERE FORWARDED 2 U B4 PUBLICATION AND THAT U OKAYED THEM THEN?

*3: HOW ABT THEIR CLAIM THAT SUBSEQUENT 2 THE FIRST STORY THEY SPOKE 2 U ON THE FON WHILE U WERE IN CHINA AND U ACKNOWLEDGED THE FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF THEIR 21ST APRIL STORY?

*4: THEY SHOWED ME ANOTHER PUBLICATION DATED 23RD APRIL WHICH REPORTED UR POSITIVE REACTION 2 THE FIRST STORY AND THEY THEREFORE CANT UNDERSTAND UR PURPORTED DENIAL ON A GHANAIAN RADIO STATION. THEY ALSO UNDERSCORED THE FACT THAT SINCE THE APRIL 21ST STORY THEY HVNT RECEIVED ANY FORMAL OR VERBAL COMPLAINT 4FRM EITHER U OR ANYBODY ELSE. WHAT IS UR REACTION 2 THEIR REACTION?

*5: I HV MANY MORE QUESTIONS BUT I WILL LIMIT MY INITIAL ENQUIRY 2 THE ABOVE. U MAY CHOOSE THIS MEDIUM 2 ANSWER OR MY EMAIL ADDRESSES WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: kwekubaako@yahoo.com and tawiahsam@ucomgh.com. THANKS FOR UR ATTENTION AND SORRY 4 BEING A BOTHER. GOD BLESS U.

STEP SEVEN – AUGUST 11, 2007 (02.42) (HEIBERG RESPONDS): I AM IN CHINA, TODAY ON MY WAY TO NORTH KOREA! I DON’T HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY TO TAKE AN INTERVIEW.

STEP EIGHT – AUGUST 11, 2007 (06.14) (BAAKO REPLIES): NOT EVEN 5 MINUTES INTERVIEW VIA FON IN RELATION 2 THE FEW QUESTIONS I SENT 2 U VIA THIS MEDIUM YESTERDAY? PLEASE I SINCERELY BELIEVE IT IS IN OUR MUTUAL INTEREST IF U FIND A LITTLE TIME OFF UR TIGHT SCHEDULE 2 PROVIDE ANSWERS 2 MY QUESTIONS VIA FON. THE ANSWERS, HOWEVER BRIEF, MAY BE USEFUL 4 STARTERS WHILE WE WAIT 4 AN OPPORTUNITY 4 A FULLER INTERVIEW. I PROMISE NOT TO TAKE MORE THAN 5 MINS OF UR TIME IF AND WHEN U OBLIGE ME MY REQUEST 4 A BRIEF FON INTERVIEW, HOPING 4 A MORE FAVOURABLE RESPONSE, I REMAIN URS SINCERELY, KWEKU BAAKO, JNR. OSLO, NORWAY.

As at the time of filing this story from Oslo, Norway (11.43 – Norwegian time – 9.43am Ghanaian time), Mr. Gerhard Heiberg, a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and a well-known figure in Norwegian business circles, was yet to reply to my last text message to him.

I might be unfair to him if I were to speculate that he may have lost his enthusiasm to answer questions from the Ghanaian press. Or he prefers the anonymity of radio? Perhaps, he might still be airborne enroute to North Korea. One can only hope against hope that “The General” who testified as a witness for the defendant (accused of stealing bribe money) TOR EGIL KJELSAAS, in the Scancem bribery/theft scandal trial in a Norwegian court, and also found time to talk to Radio Gold in apparent defence of Ex-President Rawlings and company, would also find time and space to respond to the preliminary questions filed to him by this author. Hopefully!?

Only time will tell. Stay tuned…