Richard Jakpa, the third (3rd) accused in the ongoing ambulance case, yesterday, admitted that the international business agreement signed with a Dubai based company, Big Sea General Trading LLC, did not receive parliamentary approval as required by article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
Under cross-examination by the Attorney-General himself, Godfred Yeboah Dame, embattled businessman, the businessman however explained that it was up to the Ministers for Finance and Health of the day to have submitted the agreement to Parliament for approval.
The third (3rd) accused also admitted that Big Sea was not mentioned in the business proposal he submitted to the Ministry of Health for the supply of the ambulances. Big Sea was also not mentioned in the joint Memorandum submitted by the Ministers for Health and Parliament to Cabinet.
The company was again not mentioned in the Cabinet approval for the transaction.
Mr Jakpa tried to explain to the court that Parliament’s Committee of Health had examined the specifications required for an ambulance whilst the Finance Committee examined the contract.
However, the Attorney-General asked him to look at the Parliamentary approval and tell the court whether Big Sea was even mentioned.
Jakpa answered that he could not see Big Sea in it.
On the registration of Big Sea as a company licensed to convert vehicles into ambulances, the Attorney-General asked Jakpa to look at documents tendered by Jakpa himself and indicate when Big Sea was registered.
The Attorney-General indicated that per Jakpa’s own documents, Big Sea was registered as licensed to convert vehicles into ambulances originally on 9th April, 2015. Jakpa replied that the registration is annual and renewed each year.
This is instructive as the Ambulance Contract was signed in 2012 and the importation of the ambulances itself was in 2014.
Jakpa also admited that his company received 28.7% of the amount paid by the Government to Big Sea under the Ambulance contract, amounting to about 700,000 Euros.
Mr. Dame: If you look at the Agency Agreement you signed with Big Sea Limited, you were entitled to 10% of all monies paid under the Ambulance Contract.
Jakpa: That is so but it is not my total entitlement. I was entitled to more by other clauses under the Agreement…
Mr. Dame: Out of the about 2.3 million Euros paid by the Government to Big Sea under the Ambulance Contract, you and Jakpa at Business earned 28.7% of it. In fact, about 700,000 Euros was paid to you.
Jakpa: Yes, that was the amount paid to Jakpa at Business as an Agent.
More so, the Deputy Attorney General (AG), Alfred Tuah-Yeboah also tendered into evidence Richard Jakpa’s dismissal letter from the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF).
The letter of dismissal showed that Jakpa was dismissed from the Ghana Army in November, 2007 for “unsatisfactory conduct marked by fraudulent conduct abrasiveness, general indiscipline and that he belongs to a world incompatible with decent and gentlemanly composure.
The Ministry of Defence further stated that Jakpa “is a bad example by all standards and his continued retention in the Service is likely to cause more harm to the Service and to himself.”
The Ministry of Defence further noted that, per Jakpa’s records, he should have at the rank of Captain by August, 2002 but he consistently failed his promotion examinations and now lags far behind his mates in rank. Jakpa was therefore released for inefficiency.
The prosecution argued that Jakpa’s dismissal letter is pertinent to establishing his character and the circumstances surrounding his involvement in the ambulance procurement process.
The letter detailed reasons for Jakpa’s termination, which included allegations of misconduct and breach of military protocols.
In presenting the evidence, the Deputy AG emphasised the relevance of Jakpa’s dismissal to the case, asserting that it highlights a pattern of behaviour that could be critical in understanding the broader context of the allegations.
The Deputy AG argued that Jakpa’s dismissal for misconduct casts doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness, which are key elements in assessing the validity of his testimony and actions related to the ambulance procurement.
Defence attorneys, however, raised objections to the introduction of the dismissal letter, arguing that it was prejudicial and unrelated to the core issues of the trial.
They contended that Mr Jakpa’s past employment records should not influence the court’s assessment of the current charges and that the focus should remain on the evidence directly related to the ambulance case.
The defence requested the court to disregard the letter as inadmissible evidence, citing concerns of bias.
The judge eventually admitted the document into evidence despite the opposition by the lawyers of the third accused.
