By Ernest Addo
The Country Managing Partner of Deloitte (Ghana), Daniel Kwadwo Owusu, is under investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ghana Police Service, over allegations of fabrication, falsification, and perjury, in a case brought on by Dram Oil in Ghana.
Deloitte is an internationally reputed brand under which approximately 450,000 dedicated professionals in independent firms throughout the world collaborate to provide audit and assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax and related services to select clients.
CID sources with knowledge of the case told this paper that Daniel Kwadwo Owusu, who has worked the past twenty-fours (24) years with Deloitte was arrested on 6 December, 2023, following a petition from the Oil Marketing Company (OMC) and later granted bail with the docket opened for his case made ready for the Attorney General’s input before a possible prosecution could start.
The case of Dram Oil, an oil marketing company, is that Deloitte has allegedly presented a misleading and false report, based solely on an assumption of First In, First Out (FIFO) without proper execution, departed from its own initial report which aligned with the facts established during a trial that indicated a positive balance in favour of Dram Oil, and deviating from established facts and judgment by the High Court of Ghana to audit Vihama.
The story is that somewhere in 2011, Dram Oil entered into a distribution agreement with Vihama Energy Ltd for Dram Oil to import petroleum products into Ghana, and Vihama through its government-approved bulk distribution (BDC) license would store, distribute, and sell the products on a wholesale basis to oil marketing companies (OMC’s) on behalf of Dram. Subsequent to this agreement, Dram secured a finance facility from a local bank called Cal Bank and imported 16m litres (13,244mt) of gasoline into Ghana at a cost of $950 per metric ton. The cargo was discharged into the storage facility of the Bulk Oil Storage and Transport (BOST) company, a government-owned company, on the 29th of December 2011.
According to the fact presented before the court, upon arrival, Vihama refused to sell the cargo claiming that it had its own cargo to sell and could therefore only sell the Dram cargo after it had disposed of its own cargo. As the facility granted to Dram was a 90-day facility, it became apparent that Dram would be unable to amortize the loan as per schedule. Dram Oil is said to have entered into another agreement with another BDC Licensed company to sell the cargo.
Cal Bank is reported to have objected to this and insisted that Dram works with Vihama. A tri-partite agreement at the insistence of Cal Bank was executed between all three parties on the 23rd of January 2012 which was to govern the operation of the transaction. During this period, no oil from Dram cargo had been sold and remained unsold deep into February with Dram facing a default situation with Cal Bank.
However, the price of the cargo kept rising on the market and reached its peak of $1200 per metric ton in March, making it a significantly profitable transaction that would amortize the debt completely despite the delay. At this point, Vihama is said to have reverted by using strong-arm tactics and against the executed distribution agreement offered to purchase all of the cargo from Dram at a wholesale price to help it resolve its situation with Cal Bank.
New Crusading Guide gathered that two contracts were therefore executed between the Managing Director of Dram and Vihama for the sale of the cargo of 13,244 metric tonnes on the 29th of February 2012 and early March 2012. Vihama subsequently started selling the cargo and made payments to Dram accordingly enabling it to amortize the loan with Cal Bank.
On completion of the payments, however, there were still some amounts outstanding to Cal bank on the transaction who then sought to demand payment of the overdue sums from Dram. The matter ended up in court and Dram enjoined Vihama to the suit against the wish of CAL Bank on the basis that:
1. The overriding agreement was the tri-partite agreement
2. The subsequent agreement between Dram and Vihama was unlawful
3. Vihama, as per the tr-partite agreement had therefore not rendered accounts of the sales of the cargo sold in March 2012 to Dram and Cal Bank.
On this basis therefore parties could not ascertain any indebtedness until full accounts had been rendered on the sales of the cargo.
Vihama, the paper gathered from sources, opposed this argument on the basis that it had legitimately purchased the cargo on the 29th of February and early March and so had full proprietary rights to the cargo and subsequent sales and so did not need to render accounts.
On the 18th of May 2015 before Justice Novisi, the court gave judgment in favour of Dram and held that the subsequent sales contract of the 29th of February 2012 and early March 2012 were unlawful as Cal Bank was not a party to these contracts and that the overriding agreement was the tri-partite agreement signed on the 23rd of January 2012.
She further ordered that an independent auditor be appointed to audit the accounts of Vihama to determine the monies received by Vihama from the sales of the cargo under the tripartite agreement of the 23rd of January 2012 with further orders to be made by the court on receipt of the auditor’s report.
Stay tuned for more from the court.
