Manasseh Azure Awuni vs Attorney General- The Saglemi Affordable Housing case
(Culled from my Longer Piece)
Of the explanations I was not convinced or disagreed with, the Collins Dauda and the Saglemi Affordable Housing case stood out. In that case, two former Ministers and three others were charged with 52 counts of Wilfully Causing Financial Loss to the Republic, Intentionally Misapplying Public Property, Issuing False Certificate, and Dishonestly Causing Loss to Public Property.
In the widely publicised case, the government had borrowed $200 million in 2012 to build 5000 affordable houses. The cost included consultancy and the actual building. The money was spent, but only 1506 housing units were built. The housing units built were not even completed, and we are told the country needed another $100 million to complete the 1506 housing units.
The fact sheet of the case said: “Even though a total amount of $196,428,891.66 has been spent on the Saglemi Affordable Housing Project, with the contractor having been paid $179,904,757.78, investigations revealed that the cost of works executed on the site, including consultancy services, is about $64,982,900.77. Only 651.75 acres of land out of the 2,172 acres of land made available by the MWRWH to the contractor for the project has been developed.”
In his reason for discontinuing the case, the Attorney General said: “The second reason why I dropped the charges in some of the cases, as I stated above, is that the charges were defective and, upon careful scrutiny, were filed against the promptings of plain commonsense. In the case of the Republic v. Collins Dauda & Others, for instance, the first accused was charged with misapplying public property (funds) in the sum of Two Hundred Million United States Dollars (USD200million).
“In laying the charges, the prosecution failed and or neglected to take account of the basic fact that it was part of that US$200m that was used to construct the houses at Saglemi. In other words, the value of that built environment is, in my considered opinion, a key determinant of how much of the total sum was allegedly misapplied by the Honourable Collins Dauda. Discounting the value of the built environment renders the charge defective.
“The prosecution in this case also failed and or neglected to take account of payments that were made by other Ministers who took office after the Honourable Collins Dauda. For instance, the Honourable Atta Akyea, as Minister of Works and Housing, approved a payment to the tune of US$ 5 million in 2017. That ought to have been considered in determining the value of state funds that the Honourable Collins Dauda had misapplied.”
I disagree with the Attorney-General’s reason for dropping this case. I’m not a lawyer, but as the Attorney General alluded to common sense, his reason is worth subjecting to that test:
a. The fact sheet of the case said: “On 27th February 2014, the 1st accused [Collins Dauda] who had assumed office as the new Minister for MWRWH, without any parliamentary approval, reviewed the original EPC and signed the First and Restated Agreement with Construtora OAS, represented by its Executive Chairman, the 4ht accused. In the process, he changed the scope of works and the application of the $ 200 million approved by Parliament for the construction of 5000 housing units. This new agreement required the contractor to execute the project in three phases over a site of 1,272 acres whilst the $200 million was now to be applied towards the execution of only the first phase of the project comprising just about 1502 housing units. This was contrary to the executive and parliamentary approvals as well as the Facility and Escrow Management Agreements.”
b. My understanding is that since the agreement was altered, the $200 borrowed was going to be applied (or misapplied) for 1502 housing units and not the 5000 units in the initial agreement approved by the parliament and the executive whoever acted or disbursed the funds after Collins Dauda was bound by Collins Dauda’s agreement. But that is not the only reason I disagree with the Attorney General.
c. The “misapplication” charge the Attorney General faulted was only one count. Granted that it was defective, does that also invalidate the other 51 counts with different particulars of offences?
d. Collins Dauda also faced three other charges, namely Wilfully Causing Financial Loss to the Republic, Issuing False Certificate, and Dishonestly Causing Loss to Public Property. So, if one charge failed the commonsense test, how about the rest?
e. If Collins Dauda was wrongly charged, how about the other four accused persons? Why were they not allowed to the four charges and tens of counts against them? Does a single count against Collins Dauda, even if we agree it was defective, render the charges against the other persons invalid?
f. Finally, nobody has argued against the fact that Ghana lost money in the Saglemi housing project. The $200 million we borrowed would be repaid with interest. We got only 1506 partially completed housing units instead of 5000 fully completed units. At every material moment, ministers and chief directors were responsible for the expenditure and disbursement of the funds. Granted that the former Attorney General made mistakes, couldn’t the charges be amended so that the persons involved would answer for their roles? If we move on and allow the $200 million to go to waste without anybody answering for it, what message are we sending to others who occupy public office?
By Manasseh Azure Awuni
