The Facts Of The Case

Hon Dan Abodakpi was the Minister for Trade during the NDC regime. As Minister, he and the late Victor Serlomey, then Deputy Minister for Finance jointly chaired the Trade and Investment Programme (TIP). In preparation for the phase two of the Gateway Project, they decided to contract the services of a consultant, named Fred Boadu, to do a study proposal for the establishment of a Science and Technology Park. The consultant did the work and duly submitted to Mr Dan Abodakpi, on the basis of which he wrote to the late Victor Serlomey for the payment to be effected in favour of the consultant for the job done.

Payment was effected in two tranches of $100,000 and $300,000. The letter by Victor Serlomey to Ecobank which keeps the TIP account indicated that the payment was for feasibility study instead of a study proposal (baseline study).

The government in its desire to persecute former ministers of the NDC commissioned through the National Security Coordinator a so-called forensic audit into the TIP account by Baffuor Awuah of Baffuor Awuah and Associates. Baffuor Awuah is a card-bearing member of the NPP. The prosecution called ten (10) witnesses while the defense called three (3) witnesses. It came out in the course of the trial that almost the whole amount paid Dan Abodakpi in pursuance of the contract between Fred Boadu and the Ministry of Trade had been frozen by the government and therefore under the control of the government even before the trial started.

The Prosecution alleged in the course of the trial that the contract for the consultancy services was not witnessed but it was proved that there is no law in Ghana that a Government contract should be witnessed.

The Prosecution alleged that they could not find the first letter written by Dan Abodakpi for the payment of $100,000.00. Again evidence before the trial judge indicated that the letter in question had been given to the Police.

The Prosecution alleged that the mere fact that the letter written by Victor Selormey to ECOBANK was copied to Dan Abodakpi shows that he has received it. They also said that Dan Abodakpi knew that payment is not made for study proposal and therefore he conspired with the late Victor Selormey to use feasibility study in that letter instead of study proposal.

Again Dan Abodakpi or the Defence explained that any letter that he receives as Minister is embossed with the stamp of the Ministry of Trade and minuted on. Since the letter which was tendered by the prosecution was not embossed it shows that he has not received it.

Again Counsel for Dan Abodakpi pointed out that under Section 22 of the Evidence Decree such a presumption does not apply in a criminal trial and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

It is also important to state that a Prosecution’s witness came and valued the Study proposal and indicated that the minimum to be charged by an off-shore company for the study proposal should be between $75,000 and $150,000 and that there is no maximum (Mr Bibilazu of MDPI’s evidence).

This forced the prosecution to state in its final address to the court that the loss involved was no longer $400,000 but $250,000. But under the Criminal Procedure Code if there is a variance between the charge and the evidence, the charge must be amended but the prosecution never amended the charge sheet.

Another prosecution witness came to court and said that he was not the final authority as far as TIP issues are concerned and that he was subject to the Project Co-ordinator. The Project Co-ordinator (Dr Yankey) was not called by Prosecution but by the Defence and he said he received the contract for consultancy services and that it was in order.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE JUDGMENT 1. It is important to state that in law once a judge has delivered his judgment, the citizenry are at liberty to support the judgment, accept the judgment, criticize it or condemn same.

Dr K A Busia as Prime Minister condemned both the judges of the Supreme Court when they ruled against the then government of the Progress Party in the Sallah vrs the Attorney-General. President Kufour was then a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Again under the NPP Government, both the Attorney-General Nana Akuffo-Addo and President Kufour who was then in Australia also condemned the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tsatsu Tsikata Vrs the Attorney-General. The NPP Government did not only condemn the judgment in the Tsatsu Tsikata case but went further to appoint the late Justice D. K. Afreh specifically to sit and overturn the case on review. (The Press Statement of Jake Obetsebi Lamptey on the nomination of Justice Afreh to the Supreme Court attests to this fact)

2. The NDC has a problem with the judgment because the Forensic Audit was done contrary to the Constitution and the law of the Republic of Ghana.

It is contrary to the Constitution because the Auditor was appointed by the Office of the President (Castle Annex) contrary to Article 187 of the Constitution. This is therefore contrary to the rule of law. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. See page one of the Special Audit Report.

Under the Constitution, only the Auditor General can appoint a person to audit the Public Accounts of Ghana. Even if the President wants to do it, he has to do it through the Auditor-General in consultation with the Council of State.

It is also contrary to the relevant Section of the Audit Service Act, Act 584 of 2000.

3. The NDC is also against the judgment because in auditing, the person audited must be given a hearing. This principle is grounded in the rules of natural justice. The Auditor never spoke to Dan Abodakpi, neither did he speak to the late Victor Selormey. His explanation that he could not find them is untenable because during all the material time Dan Abodakpi and Victor Selormey were in Parliament and Prison respectively.

4. It is important to state that the so-called Audit Report specifically indicated among its objectives the fact that evidence is to be gathered to prosecute accused persons. This is a clear case of persecution. This evidence is very prejudicial to the whole case.

5. The judge deliberately refused to consider that aspect of the prosecution witness that is against the prosecution. This is because he has refused to consider the total evidence. The totality of the evidence is all the evidence of the prosecution and the evidence of the defence. The judge refused to adhere to the totality of the evidence. Therefore in his judgment he never referred to the evidence of Mr Bibilazu of MDPI. Neither did he refer to the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 etc. (P.W – Prosecution Witness). P.8

6. He also did not refer to the evidence of the Defence witnesses at all in his judgment.

7. If it is the case of the Prosecution that there is no maximum fee to be charged for the consultancy services provided by the Consultant based on the work done and assessed, then what evidence did the judge use to convict Dan Abodakpi on the $400,000.

8. Again in sentencing, the judge is bound to consider a lot of factors, the amount of money involved, the whereabouts of the money, whether the accused benefited from it, whether the accused is a first offender etc. The judge refused to take all these factors into consideration and sentenced Dan Abodakpi to the maximum of 10 years under the relevant law. This, the NDC considered rather harsh and excessive.

These and several others are the reasons why the NDC is against the judgment. We believe that right from the beginning the due process was negated constitutionally by non adherence to Article 187 of the Constitution. The rules of natural justice have been ignored completely in the auditing process and contrary to the Audit Service Act.

We see the trial of Dan Abodakpi, Tsatsu Tsikata, the former 1st Lady and others before them as part of the NPP grand design to “destroy” the NDC.

We therefore see his trial coming as it does from the Office of the President as politically motivated.

We believe that Dan Abodakpi is innocent. We are therefore not supporting a corrupt colleague.

We must therefore protest against the judgment. The beneficiaries of these our noble protests are not only NDC Members but the NPP members as well. We want the rule of law and respect for the constitution to prevail over the rule of men.