In a legal dispute involving a $134 million judgment debt owed by the Ghanaian government, Attorney-General Godfred Dame has firmly rejected accusations that his office has neglected its duty to settle the debt. He stressed that the responsibility for payment falls squarely on the Ministry of Finance, not the Attorney-General’s office, in response to criticisms from former Power Minister Dr. Kwabena Donkor.
This legal battle originates from a power purchase agreement between Ghana and Trafigura’s Ghana Power Generation Company (GPGC). The agreement ended in controversy when the Ghanaian government terminated the contract on February 18, 2018, a decision that eventually led to a tribunal ruling against Ghana. On January 26, 2021, a tribunal in the United Kingdom issued a Final Award, declaring that Ghana had breached its contractual obligations and ordering the government to pay $134,348,661 as an Early Termination Payment. The ruling also included an interest rate of six months USD LIBOR plus 6%, further inflating the debt.
In addition to the principal amount, the tribunal ordered Ghana to cover GPGC’s arbitration fees and expenses, totaling $3,309,877.74. This amount was also subjected to an interest rate of three-month USD LIBOR, compounded quarterly. Despite this clear ruling, Ghana has only made partial payments to date, amounting to $1,897,692.40. This leaves a staggering $111,493,828.92 in arrears, with interest continuing to accrue.
The failure to settle this debt has led to further legal action in the United States. Recently, a district court in Washington, D.C. granted a Motion for Default Judgment in favor of GPGC. This judgment orders the Ghanaian government to pay the outstanding amount of $111,493,828.92, along with mandatory post-judgment interest. The ruling underscores the seriousness of the situation and the potential financial implications for Ghana if the debt remains unpaid.
Former Power Minister Dr. Kwabena Donkor, who was in office during the negotiation of the original power agreement, has been vocal in his criticism of the government’s handling of the case. He argues that the reasons given by the government for terminating the agreement were unjustified and that the subsequent legal liabilities could have been avoided. Dr. Donkor has specifically questioned the role of the Attorney-General’s office, suggesting that it failed to take the necessary steps to resolve the issue before it escalated.
“What was the Attorney-General’s Department and the Ministry of Energy doing? Did they sleep on the job or did they realize that the arbitration settlement was on such strong legal terms that it was not worth challenging? That could also be an option,” Dr. Donkor remarked, expressing his frustration over the situation.
However, in a response during an interview on Joy FM’s Midday News, Attorney-General Godfred Dame defended his office’s actions. He emphasized that the Final Award from the tribunal was indeed final and that his primary duty was to ensure that the Ministry of Finance executed the payment. “The award was final, and my duty will be to ensure that the Ministry of Finance pays,” Dame stated. He further clarified, “And indeed, the Minister of Finance has not paid. I’m not a Minister for Finance.”
Dame also addressed the criticism from Dr. Donkor, dismissing it as part of a broader political smear campaign by the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC). He insisted that these attempts to undermine his work would not succeed, pointing out that, under his tenure as Attorney-General, there had not been a single judgment debt against the state. “I think all these attempts, with all respect, aim to hurl mud at my reputation will not stick because the record will show that in my tenure as Attorney General, there has not been a single judgment debt,” he asserted.
The ongoing controversy has sparked a broader debate about the government’s handling of judgment debts and the financial consequences for the nation. Dr. Donkor has promised that a future NDC administration would thoroughly investigate all such judgment debts. He indicated that there could be possible prosecutions of public officers who are found to have caused financial losses to the state through their actions or inactions.
