Woyome Not Entitled To Payment

Mr Alfred Woyome

The interim report of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) on the payment of judgement debt to Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome, has concluded that Mr Woyome was not entitled to the GH¢51,283,480.59 that was paid to him by the government with respect to the abrogation of the stadia contracts.

It said Mr Woyome put in a claim for an amount which, by his own documentary submissions, he was not entitled to.

“He manipulated documents and information, and riding on the negligence and/or complicity of public officials, managed to receive money which he was clearly not entitled to,” said the report.

The report, dated February 1, 2012 and signed by the Executive Director of EOCO, Mr Biadela Mortey Akpadzi, said Mr Woyome, through his manipulations, received GH¢17,094,493.53 in February 2010, GH¢10,000,000 on January 27, 2011, GH¢10,000,000 on April 8, 2011 and GH¢14,188,987.06 on September 12, 2011.

Background
Giving a background to the saga, the report recalled that in or about July 2004, Ghana was given the right to host the 26th Africa Cup of Nations (CAN 2008) tournament and the Confederation of African Football, among other things, specified that the tournament should be held in at least four separate stadia but not more than six.

It said an advert was placed in the Daily Graphic of Thursday, January 6, 2005 which requested for suitably qualified firms and joint ventures for the expression of interest for the consulting services, construction, supply of goods and related services to be awarded on “turnkey” basis.

The task, it said, involved upgrading the Accra and Kumasi stadia, building two new 20,000 all-seated capacity stadia in Sekondi/Takoradi and Tamale and other specific products and services areas, including project investors and financiers.

“Among other things, the advert stated specifically that the expression of interest should be limited to evidence of sourcing financial support for the project and any other relevant information. The advert also stated clearly that the tendering will be governed by the rules and procedures of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 of the Republic of Ghana and that only shortlisted applicants will be invited to submit technical and financial proposals,” it said.

Deadline
According to the report, at the close of the deadline, 12 companies were invited to present proposals for the design, procurement and construction of the stadia. They were Emsas Construction/ Epiferm Ghana Ltd, British Engineering Services Group, Ballast Nedam Ghana BV, Ghana Infrastructure Ltd, Mpowapak GmbH/ Vamed Engineering GmbH and Co. KG, Trump Construction Ltd, Consortium CAIB GH2 Ltd, Weightron International Ltd, Interberton, E.H. Group and Associates, Excelsior Consortium Alliance and Aarun BIS Company Ltd.

As of 4 p.m. on July 4, 2005, the time the submission of bids closed, however, only eight bids had been received, it said, adding that Ballast Nedam Ghana BV and Interberton, both of whom expressed interest independently, had put in a joint bid.

It named the companies which submitted the bids as Esmas Construction/Epiferm Ghana Ltd, British Engineering Services Group, Ballast Nedam Ghana BV/Interbeton, Ghana Infrastructure Ltd, Mpowapak GmbH and Co. KG, Trump Construction Ltd, Consortium CAIB GH2 Ltd and Weightron International Ltd.

The companies which did not submit bids, according to the report, were E.H. Group and Associates, Elcelsior Consortium Alliance and Aurum BIS Company Ltd.

Evaluation
It said the proposals which were submitted by the deadline were evaluated on the parameters of proof of funding, budget, detailed drawings and programme of works, adding that after considering the proposals along the parameters determined, Emsas Construction /Epiferm Ghana Ltd, Ghana Infrastructure Ltd, Mpowapak GmbH/Vamed Engineering GmbH and Co. KG; British Engineering Services Group, Weightron International Ltd and Ballast Nedam Ghana BV/Interbeton were deemed as qualified for detailed evaluation.

It noted that Vamed Engineering assigned its rights and responsibilities under the tender to Waterville Holding (BVI) per a Vamed Engineering letter dated July 1, 2005, and accordingly Waterville assumed the role of Vamed and was the agency which the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MOESS) dealt with in all practical terms and had a contract with, if any.

The report said a financial evaluation committee, comprising Mr Lionel Van Lare Dosoo, the then Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ghana; Mr Paul Asimenu, the Director of Legal Services at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and Mr Michael Opoku Afari of the Research Department of the Bank of Ghana, declared the financial proposals of Vamed /Mpowapak to be financially responsive.

It said the report of the financial evaluation committee was later passed on to the Central Tender Review Board (CTRB) for its concurrent approval.

After the CTRB conveyed its concurrent approval to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports, the report said there was no definite written document as evidence of communication of the success of Vamed/Mpowapak in the tender. However, in a letter written in August 2005, Mpowapak referred to two meetings at which it was informed of its success.

Abrogation of process
According to the report, the process was going on smoothly until the government intervened and abrogated the process in order to bring in the Shanghai Construction Group and award it the contract for the construction of the stadia.

It said when the decision was taken by Cabinet to abrogate the tender process, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, the then Minister of Education and Sports, in his memorandum to Cabinet dated July 27, 2005, warned of the fact that Shanghai Construction Group did not qualify for the award because the group had not taken part in the tender, had not been evaluated and had not provided any financial proposals and that at the stage that the proposals had got to, it would be a breach of the Public Procurement Act to abrogate the process.

It quoted Mr Osafo-Maafo as saying, “If, on the other hand, the recommendations arising out of the tender will be set aside, then we should marshall our forces and make a decision which we can defend both nationally and internationally.”

It said Mr Osafo-Maafo, in a letter dated August 22, 2005, informed Vamed of the termination of the tender process, the reasons being “the high financial commitments implied in the submissions, the inconclusive and the non-assuring nature of the financial submissions”.

Protest
The report said Waterville protested against the termination, pointing out that the reasons given were not tenable and the termination illegal. Consequently Waterville was given the right to commence the rehabilitation of the Accra and Kumasi stadia but those contracts were also terminated, after which the company put in a claim of 21,569,946.71 euros for actual work done and financial engineering.

The government paid an amount of 11,935,706.55 euro but failed to pay the difference.

claim
The report said in his claim, Woyome gave a long narration of his involvement in the process of Ghana winning the bid for CAN 2008 from 2001/2002 when the late Mr Edward Osei Kwaku was the Minister of Youth and Sports up until the abrogation of the contract in 2006 and stated that he and his associates, Mpowapak, Austro Invest and other American companies had worked to the point where Waterville had been invited and made financial investments such as expenditure on surveys, drawings and financial engineering.

He also narrated how he worked with the World Bank and donor partners to get sports defined as “a tool for development, peace, health and poverty alleviation as part of the Millenium Development Goal” which enabled them to engineer a soft loan for the project when, hitherto, sports was not considered for soft loans.

Woyome, the report said, claimed that they went through all the processes and won the bid with the support of the Bank of Austria, the Exim bank of the USA and Waterville BVI and that Waterville had been made to proceed to the site to commence demolition work in order to save time, but before the procurement process could be concluded, the government brought in the Shanghai Construction Group, abrogated the procurement process, undertook sole sourcing by providing misleading information on the actual cost of the contract and awarded the contract to the Shanghai Group.