CHRAJ Did Cover-Up In Ford Saga: Mahama Took A Bribe - NPP Insists

The opposition New Patriotic Party has expressed shock and disbelief over the report by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice that absolved President John Dramani Mahama of any wrong doing in the Ford saga.

The party maintains that despite the report, many Ghanaians still believe that the Ford presented to the president was a bribe.

"President Mahama's Ford gift is a bribe and that no amount of white-washing will exonerate him," the party has said in statement signed by Nana Akomea, the Communications Director.

The CHRAJ on Thursday September 29 published its report on its investigation and conclusions in the matter of the Ford vehicle gift/bribery saga to President Mahama.

The report concluded even though it was inappropriate for President Mahama to receive the Ford vehicle as a gift, he was not guilty of having put himself in the position of receiving a bribe or put himself in a conflict of interest/abuse of office/corruption situation.

The NPP has no doubt that by accepting the Ford vehicle from a government contractor, who got his contracts only after meeting with him, President Mahama had received a bribe or kickback by every description.

According to the party, the CHRAJ report is one desperate and blatant attempt at a white-wash which will go down as a most shoddy job by a constitutional body in the Fourth Republic of Ghana.

"The facts of this matter have one summary: President Mahama, the topmost public servant in Ghana, received an expensive present from a contractor who was in a contractual engagement with the government of President Mahama," it noted.

The opposition party reminded the President of his own Code of Ethics he issued to his ministers and appointees that forbids all those who work under him from accepting gifts of more than UD$50, or from accepting gifts from a commercial enterprise or any other organisation.

Again, the same code of ethics forbids government functionaries from putting themselves in a conflict of interest situation where their personal friends derive some financial benefits from a decision by the government.

To the NPP, any objective review of President Mahama's conduct in the light of these provisions show clear wrongdoing.

"The second basis for CHRAJ's conclusion, that when it came to the President's attention he immediately turned the gift to the state is also contestable, just by looking at the simple facts of this case," it added.

It said the President took a high value gift from a contractor who met him to solicit for government contracts and was subsequently awarded contracts, stressing “what the President Mahama did is an open and shut case of wrong doing, bribery and corruption.”

According to the findings by the commission, there is no evidence that President Mahama took part in decisions to award contracts to his contractor friend, and that when the gift was brought to his attention he handed the vehicle to the State.

But the NPP has rubbished the findings, stating categorically that "these two basis of the CHRAJ are clearly flawed."

The party further quizzed:"how do we decide the President was not complicit in decision by his appointees to award contracts to his friend? The guidelines mentioned above say it is sufficient to show that gifts were taken from a contractor (who after meeting Vice President Mahama,) got substantial contracts from the Government."

According to the NPP, even though the president was supposed to have turned the vehicle to the state on November 2, 2012, records presented to CHRAJ show the vehicle was declared at Tema Port and Customs Duty paid on February 13, 2013, three clear months after.

The opposition party wondered why an armored state vehicle, turned over to the state on November 2, was taken out more than three months later to the Tema port, declared before Customs, and import duties paid, amounting to GHC23, 646.

"It is trite knowledge that customs duties are not paid on State vehicles. The President of Ghana also does not pay taxes. So on whose behalf was the duty paid? What was the purpose of paying the duty?" the party asked.