<<Print>>

A FORMER Chief Executive of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tsatsu Tsikata yesterday failed to confirm his own admission that the state-run oil firm owed the multinational French Bank, Societe Generale about $40 million as far back as 1998. Documents presented to the Sole Commissioner investigating huge judgement debts and compensations payments to institutions and individuals, Justice Yaw Apau, indicated that the former GNPC boss, in his letter of December 15, 1998, confirmed to the Corporation�s board that GNPC was indebted to Societe Generale to the tune of over $40 million and that it was this amount that accrued interest and increased the total indebtedness to $47 million. Surprisingly, Mr. Tsatsu was silent on the huge debt, which was occasioned by a failed oil hedging contract between Societe Generale and GNPC. Interestingly, the Sole Commissioner, who has been listening to the media debate on the drillship, also failed to draw the attention of Mr Tsikata to the $40 million debt and rather reduced the ex-GNPC chief�s appearance to a lecture on the performance of the oil company under his tenure. Following the failed contract, the French Bank sued GNPC in a London court and received default judgment of the $47 million, but the previous Kufuor administration, through prudent negotiations, reduced the money to $19.5 million. Mr. Tsatsu was, therefore, invited by the Judgement Debt Commission, investigating the issue to give evidence on circumstances that led to the judgement debt and the sale of GNPC�s oil drillship for $24 million to liquidate the $19.5 million debt. Drillship Sale The sale of the GNPC�s drillship had been a matter of controversy and a subject of enquiry by the Sole Commissioner appointed by President John Mahama to investigate all judgement debt cases in the country. The Kufuor administration had been accused of legal and procedural breaches by the Commission for not consulting the Board of the GNPC, which had the legal mandate to sell. Some also accused K.T. Hammond, a former Deputy Minister of Energy, and his boss, Dr Albert Kan Dapaah, of misappropriating an amount of $3.5 million, which was left after the sale of the ship for $24million. However, K.T. Hammond, who handled the drillship transaction, denied wrongdoing in the whole transaction. Tsatsu�s Admission Mr Tsikata admitted the state-owned oil corporation owed Societe Generale some amount of money and was negotiating for a settlement. He gave testimony barely 24 hours after Albert Kan-Dapaah and K.T. Hammond had appeared before the commission, during which they justified the sale of the drillship of the GNPC to settle the debts, pointing out that they were not reckless. No Documents Presented Mr. Tsatsu, who did not provide a single document in evidence to the Commission to confirm his claims except a press statement he issued on September 5, 2001 in reaction to former Energy Minister, Albert Kan-Dapaah, claimed the two parties had agreed to settle the issue through negations, adding that Societe Generale had accepted to take $12 million as full settlement during his time. He claimed further that by the time he left office, GNPC�s lawyers, Bindman and Partners were still negotiating a further reduction of the $12 million the bank was willing to accept. However, he did not explain why Societe Generale was in a London court claiming $47 million when the same bank had earlier agreed to accept $12 million around 1998 at the time he was the GNPC chief. Probably knowing he would not face any legal challenge on his testimonies, the former GNPC boss boldly dared anybody who thought he was not speaking the truth to cross-examine him. However, Commissioner Justice Apau declined Tsastu�s offer to be cross-examined, informing the ex-GNPC chief �you are not on trial and so nobody would be able to cross-examine you. You are only a witness for the commission.� Tsatsu Slams Kufuor According to Tsatsu, the Kufuor administration should not have opted for an out-of-court settlement because GNPC, through its lawyers, Bindman & Partners, put up serious defence against the claims by Societe Generale. �GNPC was sued as a statutory body by SG (Societe Generale) in a case that they brought in the high court in London. And GNPC contested the liability that was claimed in that suit,� Mr. Tsatsu maintained. He said GNPC, with the blessing of its board, had instructed its lawyers Bindman & Partners to defend the case which they did with counter-claims. �GNPC took all these steps not only because of my position but also with the full knowledge and approval of the board of directors of GNPC. �So the claim that was being made by SG was a contested claim; we did not accept liability for that. And we filed a defence and counter-claims,� Mr. Tsikata stated, pointing out �this was to the best of his recollection�.I have to say I don�t have the documentation.� According to him, Societe Generale�s claim was for an amount of $40 million and that �It was a claim that arose from a series of transactions that took place from 1996 to 1998.� GNPC�s Counter Claim Mr. Tsatsu indicated that GNPC�s counter-claim related to the fact that Societe Generale had acted negligently in advising the Corporation on the hedging on derivative, which was highly technical. �SG had acted as an advisor to GNPC and had acted negligently on breach of their duty of the terms to contract and on that basis we did not accept liability.� He said GNPC was prepared to bring a technical person to speak on the hedging contract because the testimony of the expert was part of the relevant testament that GNPC sought to bring out SG to demonstrate the character of the advisor. �We are dealing with an area which is very specialised and it was important for us to bring before the court the testimony from the witness who had the necessary knowledge about the case for SG to explain why they were making the claim.� Mr. Tsikata said GNPC also requested exchange of documents between it and Societe Generale as well as tape recordings relating to the contract upon which the debt claim was being made. �We, in turn, presented documents that legally related to the transition including internal documents relating to the time of the transaction,� Mr. Tsatsu claimed. According to him, when Societe Generale produced the contract document, it was realised that the French bank had blanked-out certain portions of the document that were relevant to GNPC�s case. He reiterated that �at certain places in the documents, there was some missing information. We told the court that certain portions of the documents they submitted to us were incorrect. �Now, we regarded those blanked-out portions relevant. We also insisted that SG filled the blanked-out portions because they were relevant to the defence that we were putting in the court.� Mr. Tsatsu indicated that SG resisted the correction and also refused to produce the tape recordings. He said the court case was �going back and forth for some time and at the same time some discussions were going on, especially after we ended discussions that were initiated.� He indicated the court case started when he had just exited office as the GNPC chief executive in the latter part of the year 2000, adding that the Kufuor administration could have contested it with strong defence on merit. Tsatsu said he first presented a brief to Attorney-General under the Kufuor administration, Nana Akufo-Addo, on the pendency of the court case. GNPC�s Mess Tsatsu vehemently disagreed with K.T. Hammond�s claim that GNPC was in financial mess because it had failed to take appropriate corporate decisions. Tsatsu told the judgement debt commission that GNPC could not have been described as being in a state of mess as the Corporation at the time had liabilities but also had assets, which critics did not mention. He also dismissed claims that the controversial oil drillship had been collateralised in the oil exploration transaction with Societe Generale. Tsatsu claimed a �mortgage document� was drafted between GNPC and Societe Generale to cover the oil drillship but that document had no indication of any amount �due and payable.� Kufuor As Debt Collector Mr. Tsikata accused former President Agyekum Kufuor of being a debt collector for Societe Generale. He claimed the former President was interested in collecting money for the French bank against the interest of the state and that probably explained why the Kufuor administration was quick to pay the $19.5million to Societe Generale. According to him, the French bank had approached former Minister Kwame Peprah and Vice President Atta Mills under the Rawlings administration for government to hand responsibility of GNPC�s indebtedness to them. He said the Rawlings administration refused to take the responsibility because the agreement between Societe Generale and GNPC was entered into by independent corporate institutions. �SG all along needed the mighty hands of government to settle their matter but did not succeed,� Mr. Tsikata stated, adding that Societe Generale finally succeeded in getting assistance from the Kufuor administration. By Awudu Mahama