Cabinet memo contradicts prosecution at GYEEDA trial
A cabinet memo which contradicted state prosecutors’ position on the non-availability of a $65 million World Bank facility, was tendered in evidence at the GYEEDA trial at the Financial Division of the High Court in Accra yesterday.
Advertisement
The memo, dated July 18, 2012, said a $65 million grant had been secured from the World Bank to assist in building the capacity of the youth in the country.
It said executive approval had been given for restructuring of the secretariat of the National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP).
It also talked about the migration of existing personnel to a new organisational structure, removal of ghost names and putting all youth projects under one umbrella and rebranding of NYEP into GYEEDA.
All these measures were instituted to place the programme in a better position to access and utilise the $65 million.
The memo said the money had been secured, but a prosecution witness told the court that the government never accessed the money.
Prosecution
A representative of Goodwill International Ghana (GIG), Philip Akpeena Assibit, is standing trial for defrauding the government to the tune of GH¢4.1 million on the pretext of securing the said $65 million World Bank facility.
Standing trial with Assibit is a former National Co-ordinator of the Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency (GYEEDA), Mr Abuga Pele.
Semantics
Answering questions under cross-examination from counsel for Assibit, Mr Raymond Bagnabu, a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Mr Clement Humado, told the court that “as minister, I knew we were to access. It’s a question of semantics. As a minister no amount has been approved. No disbursement has been done.
“I have seen the word, but I do not think the money is available and ready to be disbursed. It remains an issue of interpretation,” he added.
Admitting that he organised a press conference on December 8, 2011 to announce the $65 million facility, Mr Humado said he used the word “pledged” and not “secured” in his speech.
“A pledge does not mean the money is at hand,” Mr Humado noted.
He said although the Cabinet memo said the grant had been secured, “in these matters, one needs to reconcile words with reality. As far as I know, as minister, the money was not released to the Ministry of Finance to be transmitted to the account of the National Youth Employment Agency (NYEP).”
Mr Bagnabu questioned the witness if the said pledge of the $65 million at the press conference was a political statement, but Mr Humado said “a pledge can be made but if not brought, you don’t have it in hand.”
He further explained that contributions for such press conferences were usually provided by government agencies.
He nonetheless took responsibility for the content of the press statement.
Entitlement
Mr Humado said GIG and the Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI) worked out proposals which eventually crystalised into a $65 million World Bank pledge.
He admitted that the two bodies were entitled to some fees, if indeed they designed the Youth Employment Programme (YEP).
Abnormality
Mr Humado said it was abnormal for Pele to issue cheques directly to Assibit and not the MDPI as directed by the ministry.
He said Pele was directed to pay all moneys for consultancy fees for youth employment programmes to the MDPI.
He said his technical directors advised that the money be paid to MDPI which in turn could sort out its arrangements with GIG, adding that if Pele chose to add GIG “that was his business. We did not add GIG.”
Carl Adongo
One of the lawyers for Pele, Mr Carl Adongo, began cross examining the witness on a fiery note but the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Afia Asare-Botwe, had to stop him in his tracks.
Mr Adongo obliged and reduced the momentum of the cross- examination.
Mr Humado told the court that he indeed instructed Pele not to sign anything beyond GH¢20,000 and explained that he was directed to seek approval from the ministry before he could order payments above GH¢20,000.
Mr Adongo: You instructed him to pay GH¢835,000 for tracer study.
Mr Humado: I do not recall I asked him to pay any amount in respect of tracer studies. Mr Adongo said there is no evidence Pele paid for tracer studies but the witness said EOCO told him the amount had been paid.
Mr Adongo: You are just here to tell story of EOCO about payment.
Mr Humado: I do not agree with counsel on that matter. I did not authorise payment for tracer studies. I was surprised when I got to know the amount had been paid
Counsel suggested to the witness that Pele said he complied with all instructions, but Mr Humado said he did not agree with the phrase “all instructions,” and explained that “there were times memos and invoices that were supposed to be seen by me, he did not bring them to my attention”.
Hearing continues on October 27, 2014.
