Waterville’s fraud on Ghana; Consar, Michelleti must be comepelled to provide evidence – Baako


The Editor in Chief of the Crusading Guide Newspaper says government must compel construction firms Michelleti and Consar to make public payments made to Waterville under the CAN 2008 stadium agreement which has now become a subject of international arbitration.

Malik Kweku Baako Jnr is convinced that the evidence to be provided by the two construction firms will show beyond doubts that Waterville fraudulently manipulated the system and got paid twice for the same work done.

He made the comments on Joy FM’s news analysis programme Newsfile, Saturday, during a discussion on illegal judgment debt payments made to Waterville and business man Alfred Agbesie Woyome between 2010 and 2011.

Waterville has currently dragged the government of Ghana before an arbitration body in the UK asking it to reverse a Supreme Court ruling in Ghana which ordered that the firm must refund some €47million it fraudulently received from the government of Ghana.

Even before the arbitration tribunal will sit to adjudicate on the matter, the editor of the New Crusading Guide newspaper Kweku Baako Jnr is questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal because the contract which formed basis for the arbitration never came into being.

He argued the contract never came into effect because the conditions precedent which would legitimize the contract were never fulfilled by Waterville.

For instance, he argued that as part of the contract entered into with the erstwhile Kufuor administration, Waterville was expected to raise funds for the construction of new stadia for the CAN 2008 Nations Cup tournament.

It however failed to raise the funds, a development which forced the erstwhile NPP government to abrogate the contract with Waterville.

The then Attorney General Joe Ghartey wrote to Waterville on August 1 2006, communicating government’s decision to abrogate the contract and cited the reasons for the abrogation.

According to Kweku Baako Jnr, Waterville wrote back agreeing to the abrogation despite a threat of legal action.

“…Conscious of the delay that such legality would ensue and the adverse impact to the CAN 2008 target we decided without prejudice to our accrued entitlements to accept the decision of the government to terminate the agreement,” Baako quoted the Waterville letter as saying.

After the concession, Waterville later demanded from government monies it expended for initial works done on some stadium renovation.

Kweku Baako stated emphatically that government paid to the sub-contractors [Michelleti and Consar] all monies budget for the stadium construction and the two companies were supposed to pay Waterville an amount of money for the initial work they did before their contract with government was terminated.

The newspaper editor said he had incontrovertible evidence to show that Consar and Michelleti paid to Waterville the amount owed them.

“Waterville was paid all its entitlements by the sub-contractors and this a letter dated 24th October 2008 [proves the payment],” he said.

Kweku Baako Jnr is incensed all the more that after receiving some €25,000 under the Kufuor regime, for work legitimately done, Waterville, went back to the new government led by the late John Mills to demand payment for the same job done for which his company had been paid in 2008.

The 24th October 2008 letter notwithstanding, Kweku Baako Jnr said Consar and Michelleti must be forced to disclose to the public the amount of money they paid to Waterville.

“We must compel them to bring evidence of the payment they made to Waterville. This is non-negotiable,” he said, adding “this will expose Waterville’s fraudulent conduct,” he added.

Kofi Adams, a National Organiser of the governing NDC, dismissed assertion that government is not committed to retrieving the monies from Waterville and Woyome.

He said even before the ruling by the Supreme Court, government had gone to the Commercial court to seek to retrieve the monies.

Kofi Adams said critics should be “ashamed” of themselves for suggesting that government has shown no commitment to receiving the monies.


More Politics »


Comments:
This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login