The Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr Joe Ghartey, appeared before the Commercial Court on Tuesday to testify in the litigation involving the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone International BV in 2008.
An original subpoena was issued in 2012, for Mr Ghartey to appear before the court on May 22, 2012, but the court could not hear him because a witness from the Ministry of Communication was by then in the witness box.
Mr Ghartey was, therefore, granted leave to absent himself until the court was ready for him.
When he appeared to give his testimony at the court, Mr Ghartey denied his direct involvement in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) of the contract at the time he was Attorney General (AG).
During cross-examination by Mr Bright Akwetey, who is the counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Ghartey told the court that as Attorney General, the SPA was drafted with the involvement of lawyers from Vodafone to come out with an acceptable agreement.
He explained that as the normal procedure, when the documents were brought before him, he gave his advice on it after which it was transferred to the sector minister concerned to take it to Parliament for the necessary action.
Mr Akwetey accused Mr Ghartey of complicity in the SPA, when he questioned him on the fact that the National Communications Backbone Company was decoupled from the then Ghana Telecom and given to Vodafone, an addition he (Mr Akwetey) said was not part of the original agreement.
He further said the Volta River Authority (VRA) Fibre Network, which was added to the contract was not the original arrangement which saw the divestiture of the 70 per cent shares of Ghana Telecom (GT) to Vodafone BV of the UK.
But the Second Deputy Speaker reiterated that his mandate as AG at the time was only to advise the government and that his mandate was limited.
The Presiding Judge, Mrs Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, had to angrily stamp her authority to restore order in the court when the two men were straying from the main issues to engage in personal attacks.
Mr Akwetey had a cause to question why ‘Kumasi’ in the agreement was spelt with an “e,” which for him indicated that the SPA was not drafted in Ghana, but Mr Ghartey described that mistake as a typographical error.
But Mr Davies, counsel for Mr Ghartey, objected to Mr Akewtey’s line of questioning, describing it as unnecessary.
Six witnesses drawn from the Volta River Authority (VRA), the National Communication Backbone Authority, the Ministry of Communication, the Ghana Grid Company (GRIDC), ECOBANK Development Corporation and the Ministry of Finance, have so far testified in the hearing.
The litigation on the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone resumed at the Commercial Court in April, 2012, following the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of an application for stay of proceedings at the Commercial Court.
Vodafone had gone to the Court of Appeal, praying the court to stay proceedings at the Commercial Court, and stop the court from receiving documents on the sale of GT to Vodafone with the reason that the Supreme Court, which was billed to hear constitutional aspects relating to the transaction, had not requested for such documents.
Mrs Justice Torkornoo is currently taking evidence for onward delivery to the Supreme Court for determination.
The plaintiffs in the matter, Professor Agyeman Badu Akosa and five others, sued the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited and the Registrar General over the sale of GT to Vodafone.
The other plaintiffs, who are all members of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), are Mr Michael Kosi Dedey, Dr Nii Moi Thompson, Naa Kordai Assimeh, Ms Rhodaline Imoru Ayarna and Mr Kwame Jantuah, are calling for a declaration that the sale of GT is inimical to the public interest.
They are seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the agreement entered into by the government was not in accordance with due process of law and is, therefore, a nullity.
They are also requesting for an order declaring that the forcible grouping of autonomous state institutions established by law — Voltacom, Fibreco, VRA Fibre Network and VRA Fibre Assets — with GT to form the purported Enlarged GT Group was unlawful and, therefore, void and of no legal effect.
They are contending among others that the SPA entered into among the Government of Ghana, GT and Vodafone for the sale of 70 per cent of GT for $900 million was against the public interest and constituted an abuse of the discretionary powers of the government.
Hearing continues on July 8, 2013.
By Sebastian Syme
Writer’s email:
