[ 2009-11-06 ]

M&J SAGA: Why Mills okayed Kamara
We reproduce our stance on the Mabey & Johnson bribery saga
first published last Friday in view of the President’s
swearing-in of his top diplomat to Nigeria. We have had
cause to criticise this administration and will continue to
do so when the need arise. It has been our opinion, however,
long before the President ever arrived at that conclusion,
that some NDC members have no case to answer in the ongoing
M&J scandal when the facts are carefully examined. This
position can be seen in this commentary, which we have
reasons to believe are similar to the reasons why the
President, after receiving his brief on the M&J scandal from
his Attorney General, arrived at the decision he has taken.
Let those who disagree do so. It is their right to.

We, however, think President Mill’s decision is the best and
certainly the wisest in this case and are not afraid to say
so.

PRESIDENT JOHN EVANS Atta Mills recently did the most
sensible thing in the face of the unpleasant news that two
of his top ministers; some leading lights in his party and
some former ministers of state have been caught in an
international bribery scandal in a court ruling in London.

The ruling by the British court was the result of
investigations by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) of the UK,
which got an easier case to prosecute after a plea-bargain
deal led to confessions by the London-based Mabey and
Johnson bridge building company. As part of its confession,
M&J admitted and revealed details of systemic bribes it said
it paid to a number of public officials in Ghana, Jamaica
and a host of countries to procure public contracts.

The initial reactions of NDC/government activists were to
pour scorn on the allegations and to question the integrity
of the British justice system, as if our judicial system was
any better. When that didn’t work, some cried racism. Then
the cover-up tune was changed to an attempt by the British
government to arm-twist the Ghana government from finishing
its probe into the acquisition of GT by Vodafone. What those
who argued this way forgot to remember was that the British
had long started probing M&J, Bi-water and other companies
which had worked in Ghana and elsewhere long before their
mobile telephony flagship chose to partner our flagging
Ghana Telecom.

Reality soon hit home. Ghanaians quickly saw through the
various cheap attempts and attacks aimed at confusing and
begging the issues.

The verdict was indeed damning. Though our ministers had not
been tried and found guilty of any crime in court, the
evidence which emerged out of the proceedings of Judge
Rivlin’s Southwark Crown Court based on admissions by M&J
and on a number of persons were troubling.

Details in the prosecution’s case on Health Minister Dr
George Sipa-Yankey, Minister of State Amadu Seidu, former
Water, Works and Housing Minister Boniface Abubakar
Saddique, former Roads Minister Ato Quarshie and Mr Edward
Lord-Attivor, former Chairman of the Board of Inter-City
Transport Corporation were so damaging that no serious
government anywhere, especially one that rode on the power
of waging a better war against corruption, can ignore them.
President Mills had to do something. The pressure was on.

And yes, Mills did something. He chose to redeem his image
and retain the trust of Ghanaians in his administration. He
asked the most indicted officials to do what they should
have done the moment the scandal broke. Leave the
administration and clear their individual names and not stay
around to smear the government, party and Ghanaians with
their individual dirt.

It may have been difficult for the President, because one of
the men affected –Sipa Yankey- happens to be a personal
buddy and one of the most efficient ministers in the
topsy-turvy administration.

But it was the wisest thing to do. Truth be told, the two
resigned ministers should have left the administration the
moment they became aware of the scandal. They were
individually indicted and therefore individually culpable
for whatever wrongs alleged against them. If they believe
those allegations were false, they had personal duties to
take decisions which would safeguard their individual
reputations; not wait for evidence to be stacked against
them and hope to hide behind the collective group (party).
Staying in government and hoping to battle their cases will
hurt them individually, hurt the administration and of
course, worsen the perception that the NDC itself may have
had a hand in the scandal. No doubt, some began to raise
questions as to whether President Mills himself was not a
beneficiary of the alleged bribe, despite the fact that the
offence had not been contested and proven against the two
ministerial suspects, and despite the fact that even if the
allegations had been proven, there was absolutely no basis
linking Mills to what would have been individual crimes.

This is why we are excited that the two officials have
resigned – albeit they were pushed to. Our excitement comes
from the fact that the decision to push them out retains the
good governance practice that Ghana as a nation should stick
to in its evolution of a good democratic culture. Besides,
it gives the very-challenged administration time and space
to concentrate on the survival issues most Ghanaians worry
about.

The President’s decision to seek the AG’s advise as well as
his directive that the case be handed to the Justice Emile
Short-led Commission on Human Rights and Administrative
Justice (CHRAJ) are in our in our view spot-on.

We are of the opinion that contrary to claims that the
President was wrong in sending Mrs. Betty Mould-Iddrrisu,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to the UK to scout
for more info on the scandal, it was the right thing to do.
The A-G certainly needed to be fully briefed of the facts in
this case to properly advise Mills. Going to London to get
the facts definitely availed her of the full facts and would
have allowed her to give the NDC “old man” sound legal
advice.

Her travel to the UK is best understood when viewed against
the background that the preamble to the prosecution’s
opening statement in the case “Regina versus Mabey and
Johnson” states:

“Note: This statement is provided for the assistance of the
Court and the parties. While it substantially sets out the
Crown’s case, it is not, nor does it purport to be, a full
and exhaustive pleading of that case.”

Thus if the full pleadings were not in court papers, how
else can the AG then remain informed of the non-pleaded
aspects of the case outlined in court if she were to remain
in Accra and communicate with her colleagues in the UK?

For those whose argument against the trip is based on cost,
we’d ask them to come again. Within a week the AG did
whatever she needed to do and returned. How sure can we be
that e-mail exchanges or other forms of communication with
the British SFO would have been equally effective if the AG
had remained in Accra?

Besides, who says personal contacts and in-depth background
info on how the UK officials went about their evidence
gathering process did not lead to her arriving at a better
judgement of the issue in her advice to the President?

If the argument against her going to the UK is because of
the cost involved as some have suggested, isn’t it baffling
that those who make this argument also insist at the same
time that she should have gone with officials of CHRAJ.
Would the presence of CHRAJ officials also not have added to
the cost then?

This is why we disagree with some of these criticisms
against Mills’ decision. Our only point of disagreement with
the President is his earlier request that the AG should
investigate the case. We knew beforehand that this was a
no-go area. After all the A-G had herself told Ghanaians
weeks earlier in a rejoinder to a Chronicle story which
labelled her “Betty Plunker” that she does not investigate
cases but advise on them when dockets are brought before her
office.

We were therefore not surprised when the President woke up
to this reality and directed that the docket be handed over
to CHRAJ for proper investigation. We can only hope the
President helps CHRAJ to arrive at the truth, nothing but
the truth.

Some have, however, asked what the presidency would do about
Kwame Peprah and Mr Baba Kamara?

Our simple response: What do those people expect Mills to
do? And why don’t those who ask these questions add Mrs
Rawlings to the equation since she was also mentioned in the
same scheme of things Messrs Peprah and Kamara were cited.

The truth is that there is nothing the President can do
about these three because the SFO report did not indict them
as much as it did the allegedly bribed officials.

Indeed in the case of Mr Kamara, the SFO itself admitted
that its inferences from an ‘internal memo’ by a Director of
M&J that he may have been poached to be an agent because of
his political clout and alleged ability to attract business
corruptly were issues that M&J contested.

In other words, M&J did not confess to these as in the case
of the other bribed Ghanaian officials. On the contrary,
M&J, the prosecutors themselves said, insisted that the SFO
was wrong in its inferences.

Better still for Kamara, no evidence was led by the SFO in
its case against him, Peprah and Mrs. Rawlings to back their
inferences, thus leaving those allegations with nothing to
back them up unlike in the case against the two ministers
and former officials where account transfer details, etc.,
were provided.

Since President Mills cannot be reasonably expected to
manufacture the evidence even the SFO could not get to nail
Kamara, it is reasonable that he should be allowed to take
up his job as a diplomat, unless he himself does not want
to.

Same goes for former Finance Minister Mr. Kwame Peprah and
former First Lady Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, who were
described as Chairman and members respectively of the
“powerful NDC Finance Committee”. Besides the factual
inaccuracies of their membership of the Finance Committee –
Peprah was never the Chairman and Mrs. Rawlings never a
member of the official NDC Finance Committee – the duo would
not have committed a crime even if they were members. Unless
the SFO makes available incriminating evidence against these
personalities, we can chose to suspect them all we want but
we cannot have any serious, legitimate basis to ask them to
step out. The foundation for such a request is seriously
weak.

As the Akans say, “nipa ye adie osa ayeyie”. For now we’ve
got to admit the President has played the right game and
behaved in the right way on this issue. We can only say
ayekoo to him and hope that he stays the path and does
nothing to undermine the CHRAJ probe behind the scenes.
After all, his former ministers would have the right to
defend themselves in the public space before CHRAJ. And if
push comes to shove and they are found guilty, the fact of
their indictment can only be used in questioning the
President judgment in the selection of these men and not to
personally indict him. His defence however lies in the fact
that as a human society there will always be alleged cases
of corruption among us. The trick is therefore not the fact
that it may come up; the question is how we deal with it as
a society determines whether we are serious about addressing
it.

On this score, the President has passed the test, even if he
mishandled the case of his former Youth and Sports Minister,
Alhaji Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka. That, however, is another
case for another day.

... go Back

Please adhere to the rules of good manners when appending your views. This site is for the enjoyment of all no matter what political persuasion they hold. We do not wish to edit your comments so please therefore avoid strong xxxxxx and swearwords. Thank you.