Lawyers for the troubled Ghana Football Association are challenging the basis of the court order banning them from the administration of football in the country for ten days.

An Accra High Court granted an application by the Attorney General to enable government dissolve the scandal hit Ghana Football Association.

The Attorney General headed to court on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 to dissolve the Ghana Football Association (GFA) following an explosive revelation against the football powerhouse.

The former president of the FA Kwesi Nyantakyi is currently on a police enquiry bail after being captured on tape receiving $65,000 gift to agree a sponsorship deal with supposed investors in an undercover investigation by celebrated journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

Reacting to the order, lawyer for the association Thaddeus Sory said the AG’s claim against the FA has no merit and must be dismissed.

“Respondent further says that the institution of the instant proceedings in breach of the rights of the persons mentioned in the allegations pleaded in the petition as well as Respondent’s, and without subjecting the video upon which the petition is mounted to due process also raises the question whether Petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs herein sought.

“WHEREFORE Respondent says that the petition has no merits and should be accordingly dismissed,” the statement read in part.



Below are details of the statement

Save as hereinafter expressly admitted, Respondent denies each and every averment contained in the Attorney-General’s petition as if same were herein set out in extenso and denied seriatim.

Respondent admits paragraphs 1 to 5, 14, 24 and 30 of the petition.

Save that the power (right) conferred on the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 implies a duty to act for the protection of the public interest, such power being necessarily implied into the Attorney-General’s functions, paragraph 6 of the petition is denied.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 6 of the petition that in the exercise of the power (right) conferred on the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to act for the protection of the public interest, the Attorney-General’s fundamental obligation (duty) as a public official and above all the Minister for Justice, is to exercise such power in accordance with the law.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 6 of the petition that in the exercise of the Attorney-General’s power for purposes of protecting the public interest therefore, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, must have regard to the principles of administrative justice and also act fairly.

Save that Respondent is registered as company limited by guarantee, Respondent denies paragraph 7 of the petition and says in answer thereto that it is not all of Respondent’s duties which are discharged in the public interest, Respondent’s main focus, in so far as its duties are concerned, being its members.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that it is obvious even from paragraph 2 of the petition that Applicant herself admits that Respondent’s existence as a company limited by guarantee is for purposes of regulating the football activities of its members and not that of the public at large.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that Respondent’s members are made of private persons who, in the exercise of the fundamental right to associate, have come together to promote their common interest which is, among others, the promotion of the game of football between and among themselves and not the public at large.

Respondent further says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that none of the private persons who form the entirety of Respondent’s membership was established either because the public had any interest in it or for the benefit of any member of the public Respondent’s members, which are mainly football clubs, were established to promote the individual interest of the persons who promoted Respondent’s members.



Respondent repeats paragraph 9 above of the instant answer and says in further answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that accordingly, none of the clubs which form Respondent’s membership was formed or established pursuant to any resolution by a public or statutory entity, such clubs having been established by the private and voluntary acts of the individuals who promoted them (Respondent’s individual members).

Respondent also says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that the public’s involvement which may be loosely described as “interest” in the activities carried out by Respondent’s members (football clubs) in their associative relationship with one another in the form of a company limited by guarantee, is narrowly limited to the emotional attachment and the joy that the football activities carried on by Respondent’s members bring to them but such members of the public have no legal or equitable interest in any of Respondent’s members or Respondent itself for that matter.

Respondent repeats paragraph 11 above of the instant answer and says yet in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that the fact that members of the public consume services provided by a private entity or even benefit massively from such services does not confer on any member of the public any right or interest in the activities of that private entity or constitute Respondent into a public trust.

Respondent says in final answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that no member of Respondent is funded from the Consolidated or Contingency Fund or from any other public funds.

Save that the National Football Teams are organized by Respondent and mostly funded from public funds, Respondent vehemently denies paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition.



Respondent says in answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that the national teams are very different from Respondent’s members, the national teams being teams formed by selecting good players from Respondent’s members to represent the nation, Respondent’s members’ players being Ghanaians.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that Respondent’s involvement in the management of the national teams of the Republic of Ghana results from a practice that has existed between Respondent and the nation recognized by Federation of International Football Association (FIFA).

Respondent says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that at all times material to the instant petition Respondent has always acknowledged that the national teams belong to the nation and are not part of Respondent’s business.

Respondent repeats paragraph 17 above and says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that the specific nature of the relationship between the nation and Respondent, in so far as the national teams are concerned, is acknowledged in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5 as well as Government’s own White Paper on exhibit AG5 which is exhibited to the affidavit in verification and marked 1.

Respondent says also in answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that as a matter of fact, Respondent manages the national teams for and on behalf of the Republic of Ghana which is a fact documented in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5 and confirmed by Respondent’s exhibit 1.

Save that Respondent’s activities have a bearing on the international image and reputation of Ghana, Respondent denies paragraph 10 of the petition and says that the activities of every Ghanaian, home and abroad most definitely, directly impacts the reputation of Ghana too, the reason for which Ghana expends huge sums of money on its foreign affairs especially its embassies abroad.



Save that the Commission of Inquiry to enquire into Matters Relating to the Participation of the Black Stars Team in the World Cup Tournament 2014, made findings against some of Respondent’s members, Respondent denies paragraph 15 of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that none of Respondent’s officers were found to have acted illegally and that in any case those officers in respect of which the aforesaid Commission made findings against have challenged the said findings as evidenced by exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 attached to the affidavit in verification of this answer.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that the Commission never found any payment made by any of Respondent’s officers to be unlawful and that indeed the Commission actually found the Ministry of Youth and Sports (MOYS) as well as the National Sports Authority (NSA) to have rather engaged in various wrongful acts.

Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that at all times material to the instant petition the officials of the MOYS and NSA against whom findings were made by the said Commission, have not challenged such findings for which reason if any action may legitimately be taken on the said findings, it can only begin, in all condour and fairness with the MOYS and NSA but not Respondent.

Save that Anas Aremeyaw Anas prepared and recently aired a documentary film, Respondent denies paragraph 17 of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 17 of the petition that the said documentary film neither established nor proved any acts of illegality or criminality against any of Respondent’s subscribers, or directors or officials, the said documentary being the supposed investigative journalist’s prejudicial presentation of allegations of corruption against some of Respondent’s members.

Save that Respondent’s former President and others feature in the supposed “Anas Video”, Respondent denies paragraph 19 of the petition.

Respondent says, in answer to paragraph 19 of the petition that the feature of its former President and its members in the said video established or proved nothing criminal or illegal engaged in by them a fact put beyond doubt by Petitioner’s own exhibit AG7 attached to the affidavit in verification of the petition.

Save that as subscriber to Respondent’s regulations Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi has contested and won elections to serve as Respondent’s President in which capacity Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is entitled by the rules regulating Respondent’s affairs to appoint his Vice President, Respondent denies paragraph 23 of the petition.

Respondent accordingly says in answer to paragraph 23 of the petition that Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi has contested and won elections to serve as Respondent’s President in accordance with Respondent’s rules and appoints his (Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi) Vice President in accordance with the same rules and in accordance with which rules the Vice President is also dismissed, a fact confirming that Respondent acts in accordance with rules and not the perception prejudicially sold to the public suggesting that Respondent conducts its affairs without any standards or code.

Respondent further says in answer to paragraph 23 of the petition that as a private entity, it (Respondent) is entitled to decide its rules of succession agreeable to its members only, the views on the rules, held by individuals outside Respondent’s membership being irrelevant.

Save that His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana has tasked the Ghana Police Service to investigate the allegations contained in the Anas video Respondent denies paragraph 25 of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that the report made by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana is a step in the right direction the reason being that His Excellency the President recognises the fact that the allegations founded on the video being prejudicially compiled by Anas Aremeyaw Anas constitute allegations only, for which reason it is necessary for the appropriate authorities of State to investigate same.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that in the capacity in which Petitioner has initiated the present proceedings, it would have (having regard to paragraph 25 of the petition) been a proper, fair and candid exercise of Petitioner’s power under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to have taken cue from the Respondent’s directions, and waited for the result of the investigations triggered by His Excellency the President before commencing the instant proceedings.

Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that in any case, Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is not synonymous with Respondent and the instant petition not being about the liquidation of Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi but Respondent, prejudicial allegations against Mr. Nyantakyi, contained in the so called Anas video have no place in the petition especially that Petitioner herself admits at paragraph 24 of the petition that Mr. Nyantakyi has resigned from Respondent.

Save that Anas Aremeyaw Anas has petitioned the world governing body FIFA in making the allegations pleaded in paragraph 26 of the petition, Respondent denies the aforesaid paragraph of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 26 of the petition that the allegations contained in Mr. Anas’ petition to FIFA are not only based on the prejudicially edited video recordings compiled by Anas himself but are also unfounded in so far as the allegations of illegality and criminality are concerned and mounted in many instances on falsehoods.

Save that FIFA suspended Mr. Nyantakyi for a period of 90 days, Respondent denies paragraph 27 of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that the action taken by FIFA is a normal action taken by FIFA when allegations are made against one of its members, the temporary nature of the ban underscoring the fact that it is to pave the way for investigations into the allegations made against Mr. Nyantakyi.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that taking cue from FIFA’s approach, it would have been a proper, fair and candid exercise of Petitioner’s power under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to have concluded investigations into the allegations made against Mr. Nyantakyi before commencing the instant proceedings and not to assume the allegations made by a journalist based on a self serving prejudicial presentation of his supposed investigations as having attained the status of a judicial finding which should accordingly be executed without due process.

Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that in any case, and as pleaded before, Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is not synonymous with Respondent and the instant petition not being about the liquidation of Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi but Respondent, prejudicial allegations against Mr. Nyantakyi have no place in the petition especially that Petitioner herself admits at paragraph 24 of the petition that Mr. Nyantakyi has resigned from Respondent.

Save that the Government of the Republic of Ghana is in contact with the FIFA and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) on the allegations upon which the instant petition is mounted, Respondent denies paragraph 30 of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 30 of the petition that Petitioner’s aforesaid pleading renders the instant petition premature as neither CAF nor FIFA has confirmed that any legitimate basis has been established by government to justify a restructuring of Respondent and the drastic petition for its liquidation.

Respondent says further in answer to paragraph 30 of the petition that the fact that FIFA’s intervention on Mr. Nyantakyi (as confirmed by Petitioner herself) is temporary further confirms the instant petition as premature, since FIFA may well not extend the ban or affirm Anas’s supposed investigations as conclusive.

Respondent denies paragraphs 11 to 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 31 to 34 and of the petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 11 of the petition that at no point in time has Respondent’s subscribers, directors and officers operated Respondent for illegal purposes. The fact that some of Respondent’s subscribers or directors or officers are alleged to have acted illegally is not evidence that Respondent’s incorporation was for the purposes of the acts alleged to have been engaged in by them or even that they acted for Respondent’s benefit.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 12 of the petition that it is completely untrue that Respondent’s structures have become any emblem of scandal, corruption and immoral conduct; allegations or perceptions (not proof) of scandal, corruption and immoral conduct being the subject matter of widespread public perception even in the most hallowed public offices of the Republic.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 12 of the petition that at no point in time has any of Respondent’s subscribers, directors and officers been convicted of any scandalous, corrupt or criminal conduct; a fact which Petitioner in the capacity in which the instant petition is brought, knows of.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 13 of the petition that the issues that arose in relation to Ghana’s participation in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Competition in Brazil are clearly stated in the statute which established the Commission of Inquiry Into Matters Relating to the Participation of the Black Stars Team in the World Cup Tournament which are also stated in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5 as well as exhibit 1 attached to Respondent’s affidavit in verification.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 13 of the petition that accordingly the Commission of Inquiry Into Matters Relating to the Participation of the Black Stars Team in the World Cup Tournament was never established to enquire into any allegations that Respondent carried out any illegal enterprise.

Respondent says further in answer to paragraph 13 of the petition that indeed the Commission made enquiries into the conduct of several public officials of the MOYS and NSA which fact is also well documented in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5 and Respondent’s exhibit 1.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 16 of the petition that at no point in time has any of Respondent’s subscribers, directors and officers ever been convicted of corruption, fraud or any crime, a fact which Applicant very well knows.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 18 of the petition that the supposed under cover documentary did not establish or prove any act of fraud, deceit, corruption and illegality relating to Respondent’s objects, the documentary being a carefully contrived scheme hatched by the journalist who made it (the documentary) to disparage and tarnish Respondent’s image by the prejudicial presentation of information gathered and the suppression of material facts germane to establishing whether or not the allegations founded on the documentary have any substance at all.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 18 of the petition that the fact that the information contained in the documentary does not by itself establish or prove that Respondent carries out its objects in an illegal manner or for illegal purposes apart, the information (not evidence) gathered by the supposed journalist was obtained illegally and criminally through fraud and false pretences which should also have been the subject of Petitioner’s interest too.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 20 of the petition that no person featured in the video has been proven to have engaged in any illegality the said video being a prejudicial presentation of its author’s personal agenda contrived to embarrass and tarnish Respondent’s image and that of its officials.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 20 of the petition that at all times material to the petition, the supposed investigative journalist has carried out several investigations into the conduct of various institutions, individuals and state officials and it has been established through judicial proceedings based on his (the journalist’s) own investigations that he wrongly and indeed falsely alleged of several people he featured in his videos that they engaged in wrongdoing.

Respondent says further in answer to paragraph 20 of the petition that accordingly the allegations pleaded at paragraph 20 of the petition are Petitioner’s perception of what has been prejudicially presented by the journalist to the public and that in the capacity in which Petitioner initiates the instant proceedings, Petitioner knows from proceedings the Attorney-General has previously prosecuted based on the said journalist’s video recordings that several people featured in his video recordings were found after they were subjected to judicial proceedings not to have engaged in any wrong doing.

Respondent says particularly in answer to paragraph 20(a) of the petition that it has not been proven that the match officials captured in the Anas video are guilty of any wrongdoing, especially that the clubs mentioned in the said paragraph of the petition now answered have denied involvement in any match fixing and the referees, linesmen and match commissioners are neither subscribers to Respondent’s regulations, nor Respondent’s directors.

Respondent says in specific answer to paragraph 20(b) of the petition that the pleading that the decisions given by the referees, linesmen and match commissioners were false because they were given money so to do is not proven and the referees, linesmen and match commissioners are neither subscribers to Respondent’s regulations, nor Respondent’s directors.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 20(c) and (d) of the petition that the recording of persons alleged to be Respondent’s officials and ascribing to them statements made of and concerning matches played by Respondent’s members, without subjecting those statements to any of the known methods of proof, is improper especially when the video recordings shown are edited versions and carry with it the prejudice and misrepresentations of the maker of the video recording.

Respondent says in answer to the second part of paragraph 20 headed; Particulars of defrauding by false pretences that none of the pleadings or all of them combined, warrant the instant application, as Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi also carries on business as a private Ghanaian and in such capacity does not act for and on Respondent’s behalf, Mr. Nyantakyi‘s position (Respondent’s former President) being a part time responsibility.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 20(c) of the petition that at no point in time did Mr. Anas Aremeyaw Anas and/or his Tiger Eye team represent to Mr. Nyantakyi that money paid to Mr. Nyantakyi was “a deposit in consideration for the business connections he had promised to strike for the businessmen with the President and other leading members of Government” and that indeed Mr. Anas‘s own video recording does not support the pleading.

Respondent says also in answer to paragraph 20(c) of the petition that the video confirms payment to Mr. Nyantakyi of forty thousand United States Dollars ($40,000.00) and not sixty five thousand United States ($65,000.00) a fact which confirms the need for further interrogation not only of the video recording upon which the instant pleading is based but also the bona fides of the investigations and the deceit and misrepresentation upon which it is mounted.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 20(d) and (e) of the petition that without hearing any of the persons represented in the Anas video as engaging in the acts the subject matter of the pleading here answered, it is improper to assume the representations supposedly made as conclusive against them.

Respondent says that in further answer to paragraph 20(d) and (e) of the petition that in any case, none of the officials referred to are subscribers to Respondent’s regulations, or Respondent’s directors and the assumption that the contents of the video recording are conclusive undermines their right to be presumed innocent.

Respondent says in answer to that part of paragraph 20 of the petition headed; Money Laundering that no payment made to any company related to Respondent was used for any illegal payments or money laundering and as pleaded earlier, Mr. Nyantakyi is not synonymous with Respondent.

Respondent also says in general answer to paragraph 20 of the petition that in the capacity in which Petitioner has instituted the present proceedings, the proper exercise of Attorney-General’s functions in the public interest is to have initiated the appropriate proceedings to establish the guilt or otherwise of Respondent and its officials on the basis of the video recording so much relied upon in the instant proceedings before assuming Respondent and its officials guilty of the allegations contained in the aforesaid paragraph of the petition.

Respondent therefore says in final answer to paragraph 20 of the petition that the instant proceedings have been brought in violation of Respondent’s and its subscribers’, directors’ and officers’ right to administrative justice and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 21 of the petition that it is completely untrue that Respondent’s image has been on the steep decline over the years as a result of any rogue elements who are subscribers to Respondent’s regulations, the Anas video not being any legal standard by which any person’s guilt or otherwise is determined or established.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 21 of the petition that, at all times material to the petition, Respondent has proved and established itself without a shred of doubt that it has mastered and dutifully carried out its authorized objects, a fact evidenced by the performance of Ghana’s national teams which Respondent has managed for the Republic of Ghana, the said teams having attained the most enviable heights in Ghana’s history under Respondent’s management.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 22 of the petition that the pleading therein contained is untrue, Petitioner’s omission to plead facts to support the said pleading confirming Respondent’s instant pleading.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 28 of the petition that apart from just repeating allegations of corruption, Petitioner has not established any well founded reason for the instant petition which is obviously premature, initiated in breach of Respondent’s rights and Petitioner’s fundamental constitutional obligations and definitely based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 28 of the petition that it cannot be in the national interest for proceedings of the kind before the Court to be instituted based on unproven allegations, in breach of the rights of persons affected by it to administrative justice and their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, countenancing such proceedings being subversive of due process and the rule of law which are pillars of our constitutional democracy.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 29 of the petition that it is certainly only just and equitable to commence the instant proceedings in accordance with law and due process especially that nowhere in the petition does Petitioner allege that every subscriber, director and officer of Respondent has been found guilty of any illegality or criminal conduct for which reason it will rather be unjust, inequitable and illegitimate to countenance the instant petition.

Respondent says in answer to paragraph 31 of the petition that in terms of the allegations upon which the present petition has been initiated, the petition flies in the face of section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 read together with relevant provisions of the 1992 Constitution and other statutes and renders the petition unmeritorious.

Respondent says that the precipitated commencement of the instant proceedings oblivious of the fact that the video recording does not prove Respondent or any of its subscribers, directors or officers guilty of the allegations contained in the petition and also oblivious of the fact that previous proceedings initiated by Petitioners’ own office did not result in a one hundred per cent (100%) conviction of all those who featured in the videos recorded by the journalist and further oblivious of Respondent’s, its subscribers’ and officers’ right to administrative justice and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, completely undermines the bona fides of the petition and exposes it as being without merit.

Respondent says in answer to paragraphs 32 to 34 of the petition that whilst this Court has injunctive powers as well as the power to appoint the Registrar of Companies as the liquidator, this Court exercises such powers in accordance with clearly established principles of law but not in violation of peoples’ rights (which the Court must rather protect) or the speculative representations of a party based on information which has not been tested in this Court by any of the requisite procedure and standards of proof.

Respondent says that the so called Anas video known as documentary No. 12 only presents to the public information about the interactions recorded in the edited video but not evidence that Respondent, or any of its subscribers, directors and officers are guilty of any corrupt acts, which fact is beyond any controversy whatsoever especially when it is noted that the information contained in the video is nothing but a (mis)representation of the work engaged in by the journalist.

Respondent says that apart from the (mis)representations contained in the so called Anas video, there is not one allegation of corruption emanating from any other source alleging corruption against Respondent, or its subscribers, or directors or officials, which again puts it beyond doubt that the so called Anas video ought not to be the blue print for dealing with allegations or even perceptions of corruption in this country, the video being only a presentation of a particular person’s works, the motive for pursuing such work being questionable.

Respondent says that the supposed investigative work upon which the instant application is mounted has been subjected to widespread criticism on grounds of ethics, motive and approach as evidenced by exhibits 7 and 8 attached to the affidavit in verification.

Respondent says that in any case, the status of exhibit AG5 upon which the Government of the Republic of Ghana has issued a White Paper and in respect of which there are appellately pending judicial proceedings exposes as questionable whether Petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

Respondent further says that the institution of the instant proceedings in breach of the rights of the persons mentioned in the allegations pleaded in the petition as well as Respondent’s, and without subjecting the video upon which the petition is mounted to due process also raises the question whether Petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs herein sought.

WHEREFORE Respondent says that the petition has no merits and should be accordingly dismissed.

DATED AT SORY @ LAW, ACCRA THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

……………….………………………

SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT.

LICENCE NO. GAR 15280/18.

CHAMBER REG. NO. 0003354/17.

TIN No. of CHAMBERS. C0001356860.

THE REGISTRAR,

HIGH COURT,

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION),

ACCRA.

AND FOR SERVICE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTORNEY-