Richard Jakpa, a businessman standing trial alongside the Minority Leader over a controversial ambulance deal, testified on Tuesday to explain why the ambulances involved were deemed unfit for use. The trial has garnered significant public interest, focusing on the intricacies and alleged mismanagement of the ambulance procurement process.
Ambulance Usage Restrictions
Jakpa stated in court that a letter had been issued instructing the government not to use the ambulances upon arrival. He emphasized that the initial ten ambulances that arrived at the port were meant only for parking, not for immediate use. “The ambulances were not fit for purpose because a letter had been written instructing the government not to use them,” Jakpa explained.
Under cross-examination by the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, Jakpa disclosed that the Ministry of Health had been asked to take urgent steps to clear and transfer the ambulances to a secure parking space. The directive required Jakpa’s principal company, Big Sea Trading LLC, to arrange for professionals to train government paramedics on how to use the ambulances and their equipment properly.
Jakpa asserted that the instruction to park the ambulances temporarily was a precautionary measure. He maintained that the ambulances were intended to be operational only after the paramedics received the necessary training. This, he argued, was essential to ensure the effective and safe use of the vehicles and their medical equipment.
Defense Against Prosecution Claims
Jakpa contested the prosecution’s assertion that a post-delivery inspection rendered the ambulances unfit for use. He insisted that the training and proper utilization of the equipment were necessary steps that had not yet been completed. “The claim that the ambulances were not fit for purpose is misleading. They were parked pending the completion of training and installation procedures,” he stated.
When questioned about the contract’s approval process, Jakpa declined to confirm whether the deal between Big Sea Trading LLC and the government had received both parliamentary and cabinet approval. “I am not in the position to answer because I was not at the Ministry of Health, neither was I responsible for sending all these for approval. I can’t confirm that for the A-G because I don’t work in parliament and don’t know how they communicate their approval,” he stated.
The Attorney-General pressed Jakpa on the transparency and legality of the contract, suggesting that the absence of clear approvals could indicate procedural breaches. Jakpa, however, stood firm, reiterating that his role did not involve handling the administrative aspects of the approval process.
Contract Approval Uncertainty
The Attorney-General presented Jakpa with a letter indicating cabinet approval of the contract for the ambulances in favor of Big Sea. However, Jakpa responded, “I am not an MP and I don’t know how they communicate.” He emphasized that his responsibilities were limited to the delivery and operational readiness of the ambulances, not the bureaucratic processes involved.
Jakpa’s defense underscores the complexities and procedural requirements of the ambulance deal. The trial continues to draw significant public attention, highlighting the importance of transparency and due diligence in government procurement processes. Also, the businessman’s testimony suggests that the issues surrounding the ambulances may stem from miscommunication and delays in the training and deployment phases.
The court proceedings are set to continue as further testimonies and evidence are expected to provide additional clarity on the controversial ambulance deal. The ongoing trial not only seeks to address the specific allegations against Jakpa and his co-accused but also aims to shed light on broader issues of accountability and efficiency within government contracts.
Source: Graphic Online
