Former Director General (DG) of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust, (SSNIT), Mr Ernest Thomson, and three others have been ordered by the High Court in Accra to open their defence to charges regarding the purchase of Operational Business Suite (OBS).
On December 3, 2024, the Court presided over by Justice Henry Anthony Kwofie said, Mr Thompson together with John Hagan Mensah, a former IT Manager at SSNIT and Peter Hayibor, the lawyer for SSNIT should respond to two counts.
The two counts are conspiracy and wilfully causing financial loss to the Republic contrary to section 179(3) (a) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
Caleb Kwaku Afaglo, a former Head of Management Information Systems (MIS) at SSNIT is to respond to seven counts.
Mr Afaglo is responding to the charges of “Defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29),” three counts of “possession of forged document contrary to section 166 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) “and three counts of “uttering forged document contrary to section 169 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29).”
Meanwhile, the Chief Executive Officer of Perfect Business Systems, Madam Juliet Hassana Kramer, has been acquitted and discharged on the charge of defrauding by false pretence.
While describing the charge against Hassana Kramer as bizarre, the Court said the prosecution was unable to establish the charge against her.
The order of Justice Henry Attorney Kwofie, a Justice of the Supreme Court who is presiding over the case as an additional High Court judge was made on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, during a ruling on the submission of no case to answer.
Ernest Thompson and the four others before Tuesday, December 3, 2024, were facing a total of 29 counts related to the $66 million SSNIT OBS project, intended to revamp SSNIT’s operations through Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
They had all pleaded not guilty to their respective charges while the prosecution closed their case after parading ten witnesses.
Acquittal
Ruling on the submission of no case to answer, the Court said, the prosecution was unable to establish prima facie evidence against Ernest Thompson, Hagan Mensah and Hassan Kramer on the first 16 counts which comprised eight counts of conspiracy and eight counts of willfully causing financial loss to the Republic.
The Court also observed that in relation to those 16 counts, the right processes were followed and so the charges of conspiracy and causing financial loss in counts 1 to 16 cannot be sustained.
The Court also observed that all changes that were made in the OBS deal were approved by the OBS Steering Committee and the Committee members including the Prosecution’s star witness, Mr Godson Kwadzo Ladzekpo, who testified as the acting Managing Director in charge of Management Information Systems.
The Court also said, the OBS contract itself made room for changes in valuation, changes and inclusion of additional hardware and in the view of the Court “this was not strange.”
The Court said the OBS Project “used several terminology that could be interpreted differently,” and in the view of the Court, the Critical Legacy Document was a project on its own and cannot be part of the OBS project as intimated by the First Prosecution Witness.
In the words of the Court, it said it is “bizarre” for (Mr Godson Kwadzo Ladzekpo) to say that was part of the OBS project since it had its own budget of 4 million dollars.
The Court again said the audit report on the project arrived at wrong conclusions which they are either “speculative or lack understanding.”
The Court went ahead to acquit and discharge Ernest Thompson, Hagan Mensah and Hassana Kramer on Counts 1 to 16.
The CEO of Perfect Business Systems who was separately charged with defrauding by false pretence (on Count 19) was again acquitted and discharged as the prosecution was unable to prove the charge.
Justice Anthony Kwofie, the presiding judge again acquitted and discharged Ernest Thompson and Hassana Kramer on Count 20 which related to Contravention of the Public Procurement Act contrary to section 92(2)(a) of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663).
blogpay
Total Comments: 0