$2.25bn Bond: Withdraw, Refile Suit – SC to DYMOG

0

The Supreme Court has ordered for the withdrawal of the writ of summons filed by the Dynamic Youth Movement (DYMOG) against Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and the Attorney General over the controversial $2.25 billion bond saga.

According to the seven-member eminent bench, the memorandum of issues filed ought to have been signed off by the lead counsel rather than the plaintiff, Edward Tuttor.

The Bench said the practice is wrong and negates order 50 of the Civil Producer Rules and advised counsel for the plaintiff, Osman Alhassan, to withdraw the writ and effect the corrections.

However, in an interview with Class91.3FM’s Ibrahim Obeng-Mensah, Mr Alhassan described the action of the court as discretionary and stated that he will effect the needed corrections.

Background

The Ministry of Finance announced in 2017 the successful issuance of 15- and 7-year bonds with a coupon rate of 19.5% and raised a total of $1.13billion.

It also stated that it raised the cedi equivalent of $1.12billion in five- and 10-year bonds via a tap-in arrangement. This means the total amount raised through the bonds as of 3 April 2017 was $2.25billion.

On 25 April 2017, a citizen, Yaw Brogya Genfi petitioned the Commission on Human Rights and administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to investigate the bond transaction because he suspected the Finance Minister was involved in a conflict of interest situation.

The Commission, after its investigations, gave wide-ranging directives in relation to bond issuance in order to ensure transparency and clarity.

However, DYMOG described the report by CHRAJ as “disappointing” and took the matter to the Supreme Court.

DYMOG filed a suit at the apex court praying for, among others, a declaration that by going beyond investigations to make a pronouncement (of guilt or otherwise) on the 1st Defendant [Ken Ofori Atta] in respect of the allegation of breach of conflict of interest, the 2nd Defendant [CHRAJ] has contravened Article 287 of the 1992 Constitution.

It is also seeking the Court to declare that by interpreting Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution (as disclosed between paragraph 3 of page 127 and paragraph 3 of page 133 of the Report), CHRAJ has contravened Article 130(1) (a) of the 1992 Constitution; and also a consequential order that the content of the report as specified in reliefs (a) and (b) above be expunged from the Report.

Time With Anase live on stage

Below are the reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs:

THE RELIEFS SOUGHT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

A declaration that by going beyond investigations to make a pronouncement (of guilt or otherwise) on the 1st Defendant in respect of the allegation of breach of conflict of interest, the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 287 of the 1992 Constitution.

A declaration that by interpreting Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution (as disclosed between paragraph 3 of page 127 and paragraph 3 of page 133 of the Report), the 2nd Defendant has contravened Article 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution;

A consequential order that the content of the report as specified in reliefs (a) and (b) above be expunged from the Report;

A declaration that the failure of the 1st Defendant to declare his shareholding interests in Data Bank Financial Services Limited, Data Bank Brokerage Limited and Data Bank Financial Holdings Limited to the Auditor-General before taking office as Minister of Finance, as found by the 2nd Defendant at page 120 of the Report, contravenes Article 286(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution;

A declaration that the occupation by the 1st Defendant of the office of a director in Ventures and Acquisition Limited, a private company, while in office as the Minster responsible for finance without the due permission of the Right Honourable Speaker of Parliament on the grounds stated by the law, contravenes Articles 78(3) of the 1992 Constitution;

A declaration that by issuing or overseeing the issuance of the said bonds to Templeton without disclosing his relational interest with a director at Templeton, one Trevor G. Trefgarne, the 1st Defendant has acted in contravention of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution;

A declaration that by issuing or overseeing the issuance of the said bonds without disclosing his interests in the securities industries in general, the 1st Defendant has acted in contravention of Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution; and

Any other reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit under the circumstances.

Source: ClassFMonline

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: