The businessman accused of causing a financial loss of €2.37 million to the state in an ambulance deal has testified that the government breached contract clauses concerning letters of credit (LC). Under cross-examination, Richard Jakpa explained that the government violated clause 5.1 by establishing the LC directly to Big Sea and paying them instead of his company, Jakpa at Business.
Contract Breach and Legal Consequences
During the trial, Jakpa argued that this breach absolves his company from any responsibility for the financial loss incurred. He said, “Jakpa at Business is not responsible for any financial loss caused to the state. It wasn’t the duty of government to have raised LC direct to the principal (Big Sea) in breach of this clause.” Jakpa mentioned that his company stopped dealing with the government after signing the contract. Following the breach, he initiated a civil suit, which led to a High Court ruling that all LCs should be established in Jakpa’s name. The court expressed surprise at the government’s decision to establish the LC in Big Sea’s name.
When questioned about whether 28.7 percent of the amount paid went to Jakpa at Business, he confirmed the percentage but was unsure of the exact nominal figure. Meanwhile, the seal on the letter requesting the establishment of the LCs became a focal point during cross-examination. Deputy Attorney-General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah asked Jakpa to identify the Minister’s designation on the seal, which Jakpa claimed was not legible.
Allegations and Evidence of Misconduct
In addition, the Deputy Attorney-General introduced a letter into evidence that detailed Jakpa’s dismissal from the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) for unsatisfactory conduct. Jakpa’s lawyers objected to the letter, but presiding judge Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe admitted it as evidence, noting that Jakpa had acknowledged the document and could speak to it. She stated that the covering letters were official documents and would be used to assess credibility.
Jakpa further explained the breach during his testimony. He stated that his company, Jakpa at Business, was not responsible for the financial loss because the government should not have raised the LC directly to Big Sea. He emphasized that his company’s role was limited to facilitating the deal and that the government’s direct engagement with Big Sea was outside the agreed terms.
The Deputy Attorney-General challenged Jakpa on the letter seal’s details, suggesting it indicated a Deputy Minister of Finance’s involvement. However, Jakpa maintained that the writing was illegible and could not confirm the exact designation.
Background of the Case
Jakpa and Dr. Ato Forson, the Minority Leader, are accused of causing financial loss to the state through a deal to purchase 200 ambulances between 2014 and 2016. They face charges of willfully causing financial loss to the state, abetment to willfully causing financial loss to the state, contravention of the Public Procurement Act, and intentionally misapplying public property. According to the Attorney-General’s facts, in 2009, then-President John Evans Atta Mills announced the purchase of new ambulances for the National Ambulance Service.
Jakpa, representing Big Sea General Trading Limited, a Dubai-based company, approached the Ministry of Health with a financing proposal from Stanbic Bank for the supply of 200 ambulances. Parliament approved the financing agreement. In 2012, Dr. Anemana sought approval from the Public Procurement Authority to engage Big Sea through single sourcing. In 2014, Dr. Forson requested letters of credit covering €3.95 million for 50 ambulances in favor of Big Sea. However, the ambulances, costing €2.37 million, were found to be unsuitable and “not fit for purpose.”
The trial continues as Jakpa and Dr. Forson maintain their not-guilty pleas. The case has raised significant questions about government procurement processes and contract management. The court’s decision will have implications for accountability and governance in public sector transactions.
The court proceedings are closely watched, with both legal teams presenting detailed arguments. The outcome will likely set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the responsibility and accountability of involved parties in government contracts.
Source: Graphic Online
