|
President John Dramani Mahama has asked the Commission on Human Rights and Administration Justice (CHRAJ) to dismiss allegations of conflict of interest levelled against him.
There are three separate petitions against the President over allegations of a Ford Expedition vehicle gifted to him by a Burkinabe contractor.
Two of the petitions are from the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) and the Youth Wing of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), while one is from the Minority in Parliament.
But in a response dated July 18, 2016, signed by Mr Tony Lithur, the lawyer for President Mahama, and addressed to the acting Commissioner of CHRAJ, the President said he was innocent of the allegations levelled against him.
The petitioners are asking CHRAJ to hold that President Mahama has violated Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution which states: “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the functions of his office.”
According to counsel for the President, the facts did not support the false allegations of conflict of interest made against the President.
In respect of the gift of the vehicle, counsel said the President was not aware at the time the vehicle was delivered to the Castle that a gift had been made to him by a Burkinabe businessman and contractor, Mr Djibril Kanazoe.
“At the earliest opportunity, he instructed the vehicle to be added to the official presidential fleet and it has since been used for official purposes,” Mr Lithur explained.
No Control
“It is important to point out that at the time the vehicle was delivered to the Presidency, my client was not aware that Mr Kanazoe’s company had been awarded a contract to construct the perimeter wall around the Ghana Mission in Ouagadougou.
“He could, therefore, not have played any role whatsoever in, or exercised any influence over the award of the contract.
“Regarding the award of the contract to construct the Dodo-Pepesu Nkwanta road, the facts are clear that my client could not have influenced its award because, being an EU contract, the EU supervised the formal processes leading to the award.
“In the circumstances, I submit that the complaints made by all three complainants are absolutely without any basis whatsoever, either in law or in fact, and, therefore, should be dismissed,” counsel submitted.
Not privy to process
“My client has instructed me to say that since at the time he was not involved in, or aware of, all the matters described above, he cannot say anything about the procurement processes that went into the award of the contract beyond the documents that have come to his attention.
“Concluding this part of my client’s response, therefore, I have been instructed to say that in the award of the contract to construct a perimeter wall around the mission land in Ouagadougou, it is clear from the documentation available to him that designated state officials independently took and executed decisions in the normal course of their work and in accordance with demands of the situation.
“My client denies any involvement in the entire process and states that he only got to know of this contract after the false allegations of bribery and corruption were first made against him,“ Mr Lithur said.
Background
Narrating his client’s version of the story, counsel said on or about October 2012, a Ford Expedition was delivered by the Ghana Mission in Burkina Faso to Mr Mark Woyongo, the then Upper East Regional Minister, for onward delivery to the Castle, then the seat of government.
According to him, Mr Woyongo was informed that the vehicle was a gift to the President from Mr Kanazoe, a Burkinabe national and businessman who was the President’s friend.
“The vehicle was delivered to the Castle, then the seat of government. At the time, my client was on a nationwide campaign tour for election and was unaware of the existence of the gift.
“It was not until his campaign took him to the Upper East Region that the Honourable Minister, assuming that my client had already been notified of the delivery of the vehicle, enquired about it.
“My client then asked the minister to call Mr Kanazoe for him to thank him, which he did.
“When my client returned to Accra after his campaign but before the December 2012 general election, the officer in charge of the presidential car fleet informed him that he had taken delivery of the vehicle and asked what he should do with it. My client instructed him to add it to the presidential fleet,” he explained.
The vehicle
Counsel said when the allegations made in the complaints first surfaced, the President made enquiries and was informed that since the delivery of the vehicle, it had been re-fitted with security equipment to be used for the provision of security for state convoys and VIPs generally and had since been used exclusively as such.
“Also attached are pictures of the current state of the vehicle. Enclosed are pen drives showing a video of the vehicle in contention. A digital log book for the vehicle has also been attached,” Mr Lithur said.
Unsolicited Gift
He further submitted that the gift was completely un-solicited, as neither the President nor Mr Kanazoe had previously discussed Mr Kanazoe’s intention of making a gift of the vehicle to Mr Mahama.
“My client states, therefore, that while it may have been Mr Kanazoe’s intention to donate the vehicle to him as a personal gift, neither he nor his office regarded or treated it as such.
“Since its delivery to the Presidency, therefore, the vehicle has always been treated as state property and, as can be seen from the facts stated herein above, my client’s conduct at all material times was consistent with such treatment,” he said.
He said his client was not involved in the formal process by which the vehicle was delivered to Ghana until the news broke.
Perimeter wall
On the issue of the construction of the perimeter wall around the Ghana Mission in Ouagadougou, he denied allegations that the vehicle was a bribe for the award of that contract to Mr Kanazoe.
Mr Lithur said the scope of work included not only the construction of a 673-metre-long reinforced wall in sandwiched design but also two septic tanks, security gate houses, complete with visitors’ waiting area, per an Architectural Engineering Services Limited (AESL) report.
Dodo Pepesu-Nkwanta road contract
Counsel also denied allegations that the award of the Dodo Pepesu-Nkwanta road contract to Kanazoe was as a result of the Ford Expedition gift.
“Even the most cursory investigation into the circumstances of the award of that particular contract would show that it was a European Union (EU)-funded project awarded after an international competitive bidding process supervised by the EU and, therefore, not subject to any external influence.
“After my client had received news about the false allegations being made against him regarding the contract, he called for information on the award process. The documentation received by my client shows that Enterprise Oumaroe Kanazoe emerged as the lowest evaluated bidder in an international competitive bidding process, after undergoing a valuation process supervised by representatives of the EU,” he said.
Counsel attached documents on the processes resulting in the award of the road contract to Mr Kanazoe.
He said “the allegation of bribery and corruption against my client can only be described as malicious”.
“In general response to the allegations of bribery and corruption made against my client by the petitioners, he denies any involvement in and/or influence whatsoever and howsoever over the award, and/or processes leading to the award, of the two contracts mentioned by the petitioners, their implementation and payment, therefore, and hopes the commission would peremptorily dismiss the claims,” counsel added. |
Comments