<<Print>>

DR BENJAMIN KUNBUOR, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, yesterday defended the controversial judgment debt payment to Construction Pioneers (CP), which is among many others that have become a source of concern to Ghanaians and an albatross around the neck of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration. Government had, in a negotiated settlement spearheaded by former Attorney-General, Mrs. Betty Mould-Iddrisu, agreed to pay CP �94 million as settlement claim in which the construction firm had demanded about �106 million for termination of five road contracts. Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) yesterday, Dr. Kunbuor indicated that government had no option but to agree on the amount because the interest was accruing on the claim. He used almost two-and-a-half hours of the engagement to virtually parry all the questions from members of the PAC with legal jargons, which the Chairman of the Committee, Albert Kan-Dapaah, felt was not very helpful in unraveling the matter. Dr Kunbuor could not tell whether the amount was the best deal for a country that was in dire need of cash for development. Anna A. Gaisie, Solicitor-General, said she was part of a team that agreed on the amount and narrated that the negotiations had dragged on over a long period, involving several people. She said the only person who had sat through all the meetings and read all the documents was one Mr. Selby, who had since passed on and that there was no one who could give full details of the negotiations. When asked if the amount of �94 million was the best outcome of the efforts by key officers at the Attorney-General�s Department including herself, she said it was a difficult question to answer. But P. F. Naana Dontoh, a Chief State Attorney, answered in the affirmative. As part of efforts to unravel the payment settlement, Mr. Kan-Dapaah requested the Attorney-General�s Department to furnish it with details of the team that did the negotiation. The committee, he indicated, would also want to know the terms of reference, minutes of the negotiation and, given the magnitude of the amount, whether cabinet had approved the settlement agreement. Mr. Kunbuor�s appearance at PAC was a sequel to an earlier one by Mrs. Mould-Iddrisu who had been summoned to answer queries relating to her authorization of payment of �14,000,000 to CP as part payment of the negotiated settlement claims of �94,000,000 in the matter that was still being pursued by Ghana at an international arbitration. When asked why the �14 million was paid in 2009 before the settlement agreement was reached in 2010, Dr Kunbuor said it was to serve as a precondition to the final settlement. In March 2010, CP entered into a settlement agreement with the Government of Ghana (GoG) for an amount of �94,000,000 for wrongful abrogation of contracts in 2003. Even before an agreement was concluded, Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who was then the Attorney-General, authorized the payment of �14,000,000 in 2009, being part payment of the settlement claim of �94,000,000 and other payments were made in 2010. The A-G told the committee that the payment was agreed upon because the CP could have confiscated the assets of Ghana. When Mr. Kan-Dapaah queried the basis for the �94 million settlement, the Attorney-General said he was invited to clarify issues surrounding �80 million of the total amount. �I will need to be given notice which would state detailed particulars of what this committee would like me to comment on. Considering the volume of documents, I cannot answer extempore while I am under oath.� Dr. Kunbuor maintained he had nothing to hide from the issue, which transcended individuals and governments. Former Attorney General Joe Ghartey had told the PAC that CP had no case to warrant such a payment. In one of the cases in which the CP was demanding $50million as compensation for the Assin-Praso, Yamoransa and Akim-Oda roads that had not been constructed, Mr Ghartey said, �It was money in my view not justified�. �The view I took was that the Minister of Finance himself should be involved in the settlement having regard to the high amount that they were talking about,� he stated. According to him, the company�s reason for making the claim was that they had mobilised to the site but the engineers insisted they had not given them the authority to mobilise on site and �when you sign a construction contract, you just don�t take your machines to site; you wait until they give you permission until you go on site.�