Tell Ghanaians What You Know About Airbus Saga – LPG Challenges Mahama
The Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG) has challenged former President John Dramani Mahama to tell Ghanaians what he knows about the Airbus bribery saga.
It said a statement from the former President would put to rest any speculations and also clear him and the country of any blame or suspicion.
GO1
“From 2009 to 2016, the NDC was in charge of this country. Whatever happened between that time, they are responsible. We want the former President to tell everybody who the Government Official 1 is”, the leader of the party, Mr Kofi Akpaloo, said at a press conference in Accra today.
“Now when you mention Ghana anywhere around the world, people associate it with bribery and corruption. Former President Mahama needs to help us fight it by addressing this issue,” he added.
According to him, the €35 million involved in the purchase of the aircraft as at that time was equivalent to $40 million and asked, “why should we spend $40million to buy an aircraft that was selling at $25 million?”
He advised that the best thing the country had to do was to retrieve the extra $15 million on each aircraft.
Background
Airbus, the European aircraft manufacturer, is alleged to have paid bribes in Ghana when it sold the three military aircraft to the country.
The company admitted hiring the brother of a top elected Ghanaian official as its consultant in the sale of the aircraft.
Also, Airbus confessed paying the said consultant through a third party when its Compliance Unit raised red flags about the close relationship between the consultant and the top elected official who was a key decision maker in the purchase of the military aircraft.
Response from the NDC
But, in a riposte, a statement signed by a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in the immediate past NDC administration, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, said the reports alleging that Airbus SE paid bribes during the administration of President John Evans Atta Mills and John Mahama were “false, misleading and do not reflect the approved judgement” by the UK court.
<<Print>>