CHRAJ unable to proceed with M&J probe

THE Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) says it has been unable to conduct speedy investigations into the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery allegations because it has not received all the documentation on the allegations. The Commission noted that it had not received the relevant documents regarding its request for Mutual Legal Assistance from the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to enable it to conduct investigation into the allegations.
The commission, however, said it hoped to commence a formal hearing into the allegations made against some Ghanaian officials as soon as it received documents requested from the SFO (UK) through Ghana’s Attorney General.
In a statement signed by the Commissioner, Mr Emile Francis Short, the Commission said it appreciated the importance of bringing closure to its investigations as soon as possible, adding that “It is for this reason that the Commission is deeply concerned about its inability to obtain from the SFO (UK) some documents which formed the basis for the allegations made against the officials being investigated.
“We hope that the ongoing communications between the UK Central Authority and the Attorney General would result in the Commission receiving the documentation as soon as possible,”
The statement said on October 7, 2009 the Commission commenced preliminary investigations into the allegations of corruption relating to the operations of Mabey and Johnson Limited (M&J) in Ghana in the 1990s, which have been made against certain former public officials.
A summary of allegations indicated that during the 1990s M&J was awarded a number of contracts by the Ghanaian Government, including the Priority Bridge Programme 1 in 1994 with the value of £14 million; Priority Bridge Programme 2 in 1996 with the value of £8 million; the Department of Feeder Roads Project in 1998 with the value of £3.5 million.
It pointed out that according to the UK SFO, in order to establish its business in Ghana, M&J appointed agents to act on its behalf. Payments of commission to agents, according to the report, was a routine aspect of the company’s business, authorised at director level and so these payments were structured into the company’s commercial processes and were factored into contract pricing.
Public officials mentioned in the allegations by the UK SFO were Brig-Gen Lord Attivor, Dr George Sipa-Adjah Yankey, Dr Ato Quarshie, Alhaji Boniface Abubarkar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu and Mr Kwame Peprah. The office also alleged that Baba Kamara served as an agent and he used his influence to corruptly secure contracts for M&J.
It stated it was alleged by the UK SFO that in Ghana and very much to the knowledge of M&J, the agents were involved in corrupt relationships with public officials of influence over M&J affairs, adding that “the bribes were deducted from the overall commission due to agents”.
The statement said the Commission on October 7, 2009 commenced preliminary investigations into the allegations of corruption pursuant to its anti-corruption mandate under Article 218 (e) of 1992 Constitution to “investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and the misappropriation of public monies by officials and take appropriate steps...”
The allegations were first made public during investigation by the UK’s SFO into activities of M&J in Ghana and other countries, including Jamaica.
The CHRAJ statement indicated that its decision to commence investigations followed various media publications and discussions of the allegations in the aftermath of the Sentence Hearing, having particular regard to the Commission’s duty to investigate all instances of alleged or suspected corruption and misappropriation of public monies by officials.
It said it was significant to note that throughout the investigation, the CHTAJ had been mindful of the fact that the hearing of the Southwark Crown Court proceeded on the basis of pleas of guilt and agreement about the above-mentioned allegations between M&J and the SFO.
“None of the named former public officials was before the court. The Commission has and would continue to afford the named public officials every opportunity to respond to and challenge the allegations made against them,” it stated.
It stressed that the allegations made against the Ghanaian officials involved transnational transactions that required co-operation not only from the M&J but also for the SFO.
“In this regard, the Commission has been unable to proceed as expeditiously as expected because it has not received all the documentation on which the allegations made are hinged,” it stressed.