Special Prosecutor’s Disturbing Whitewash and Blindness: An Epic Betrayal of Justice and a Shield for the Corrupt in the Airbus Scandal

I was deeply heartbroken as I watched yesterday's press conference by the Special Prosecutor, a moment that shattered the hopes of many Ghanaians who once believed in the fight against corruption. The very office that was established to hold the powerful accountable, to be the beacon of justice and integrity, has now become the shield behind which the corrupt seek refuge. To witness the Special Prosecutor, a person meant to embody the nation’s commitment to transparency, attempt to exonerate former President Mahama in the Airbus scandal is nothing short of appalling. It felt like a betrayal, not just of the principles upon which the office was founded, but of the trust of every Ghanaian who longs for a country where truth and justice prevail. The press conference, rather than reassuring Ghanaians of the commitment to integrity, has instead cast a dark shadow over the fight against corruption, making me question the very foundation of justice in our beloved country. This press conference has left a deep scar on the conscience of our nation, casting a shadow over our collective struggle against corruption.

I've taken the time to thoroughly read the report from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) on the Airbus scandal, and I want to share both a summary of its contents and my perspective on the findings. The report delves into the complex details surrounding the Airbus scandal, outlining the allegations of corruption and bribery that implicated various officials, including former President Mahama. The investigation aimed to uncover the truth behind these allegations, scrutinizing the transactions and decisions involved in the acquisition of Airbus aircraft for Ghana. Despite the weight of the evidence, the report of the OSP ultimately attempts to distance former President Mahama from direct culpability, highlighting legal technicalities and imaginary gaps in the evidence.

After reading the report, I'm left with a sense of deep disappointment. While the document is thorough in its detail, it seems to shy away from delivering the kind of accountability that many Ghanaians had hoped for. Instead of serving as a clear statement against corruption, the report feels like an attempt to sidestep the uncomfortable truths that need to be confronted. It's disheartening to see an office that was established to be the vanguard of integrity appear to falter in its mission, leaving many unanswered questions and eroding the trust that Ghanaians have placed in the fight against corruption.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in Ghana conducted an investigation into allegations of bribery by Airbus SE, a European aerospace corporation, involving Ghanaian officials. The investigation focused on the sale of military transport aircraft to Ghana between 2009 and 2015. The probe was initiated following a referral from the President of Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo, based on findings from a UK court that indicated Airbus employees made or promised payments to an intermediary, who was a close relative of a high-ranking Ghanaian official, to secure the aircraft deal. The report highlights coordinated judicial outcomes from courts in the UK, US, and France, where Airbus was fined over 3.9 billion Euros for bribery and corruption across multiple countries, including Ghana. In respect of Ghana, the investigation revealed that Airbus failed to prevent bribery and engaged in deliberate actions to circumvent compliance processes, resulting in substantial payments to intermediaries.

The OSP established that statement of facts from the UK and the US Courts summarized that between 2009 and 2015, an Airbus defence company engaged Samuel Adam Mahama AKA Samuel Adam Foster who had no experience in aircraft sale transactions in the aviation sector, as its Business Partner in respect of the proposed sale of three aircraft to the Government of Ghana. Samuel Adam Mahama is a biological brother of John Mahama who was the Vice President and Chairman of the Ghana Armed Forces Council at the time. Several Airbus employees knew that Samuel Mahama was a younger brother to John Mahama.

In the report, Samuel Adam Mahama is confirmed as Intermediary 5 or Consultant 4, while former President Mahama is also confirmed as being the Government Official 1 or Individual 1.

On 7 December 2009, John Mahama’s younger brother together with his friends who are UK citizens formed a company in Ghana. They further formed another company of the same name in the UK in February 2010. This was the corporate vehicle through which Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates provided services to Airbus. From 2009, Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates worked on the sales of Airbus aircraft to the Government of Ghana without any written consultant agreement. Airbus promised to pay Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates an amount of 5 million Euros upon a successful signing of the deal.

In May 2011, Samuel Adam Mahama’s company submitted a formal Business Partner application to Airbus. On July 8,2011, Samuel Mahama’s associate, Philip Sean Middlemiss, wrote to a senior official of Airbus that he had just returned from Ghana “having had very productive meetings with all parties, including Vice President Mahama, the Ministry of Defence and Minister of Finance.” The email stated that the aircraft sale was agreed at all levels, and was expected to clear Parliament by 14 July 2011, and that John Mahama had expressed an interest in buying two more aircrafts. President John Mahama was blind copied in some of the emails from the relevant Airbus officials to Samuel Adam Mahama. In less than a month on 3 August 2011, Airbus and the Government of Ghana signed a purchase agreement for the sale of two C-295 aircraft.

Samuel Adam Mahama and his company having secured the sale of 2 aircraft to Ghana were to be rewarded but Following the May 2011 Business Partner application, Airbus top officials commissioned an external due diligence report on the company that was fronting for Airbus in Ghana. The investigation revealed Samuel Adam Mahama’s relationship with the company and Vice President John Mahama. The Airbus external due diligence report raised concerns that there was a risk of non-conformity with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

The next this was how to pay Samuel Adam Mahama and his friends without violating the OECD Convention on anti-bribery. Airbus employees, fully aware of the potential risks, deliberately bypassed standard compliance procedures to facilitate payments to Samuel Mahama and his associates, despite concerns about their close relationship with John Mahama. This deliberate circumvention involved falsely representing that work related to the first 2 aircraft had been performed by a Spanish company. Airbus paid 3,909,756.85 Euros to the Spanish Company, who in turn paid 3,850,115 Euros to Samuel Adam Mahama’s Company, retaining about 60,000 Euros. This move was obviously intended to obscure the true nature of the payments and to cover the influence peddling of Samuel Adam Mahama due to his connection with John Mahama. In another move reminiscent of Woyome’s financial re-engineering, Samuel Adam Mahama later claimed that he was owed an additional 1,675,000 Euros, a claim that Airbus top officials disputed. However, Samuel Adam Mahama did not file any legal proceedings to challenge the decision by Airbus not to pay the remaining amount.

Although Airbus admitted criminal culpability and admitted the allegations of bribery and corruption of John Mahama through his younger brother and accepted punishments thereof, the Special Prosecutor claims that the UK and US judicial decisions only establish criminal culpability in the context of the laws of the two jurisdictions. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that the acts accepted as proved beyond reasonable doubt in those jurisdictions amount to criminal offences in the reckoning of Ghanaian law.

Based on the court judgments against Airbus in the UK and the USA involving business transactions in Ghana the OSP attempted to conduct its own independent investigation to establish the culpability of any Ghanaian government official in corruption and corruption-related offences. The OSP interviewed former President Mahama, Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates namely Philip Sean Middlemiss, Leanne Sarah Davis and Sarah Furneaux (the spouse of Samuel Adam Mahama)

While Samuel Mahama and his associates denied any wrongdoing, President Mahama claimed he had no influence in the purchase of the aircraft but admitted meeting Airbus representatives to discuss the PROPOSED sale of the aircraft. The UK investigation shows that the Mahamas met Airbus officials and members of the ministries of Defence and Finance but also separately met his brother and Airbus officials on the proposed purchase. Why would Mahama meet Airbus and his brother separately to discuss a proposal to buy aircraft from the Airbus? Why didn’t the Airbus officials and Mahama’s brother go to the Ministry of Defence since John Mahama claims it was the idea of the Ministry of Defence to acquire new aircraft? OSP claims that the direct communications and meetings between former President Mahama and officials of Airbus to close the deal were actuated by good intentions on the part of the former. The OSP is now a clairvoyant who reads the construction of the mind of John Mahama from his face?

The company established by Mahama’s brother in 2009 to do business with Airbus was dissolved in September 2011 One month after Airbus signed the contract with the government of Ghana. Is it not most interesting? Again, the OSP claims that Samuel and his associates became involved as intermediaries in the Airbus-Ghana deal after the decision by the Government of Ghana in preference of the C-295 aircraft. Therefore, it seems that Samuel Mahama’s Airbus intermediary role at the time his brother served as the Vice President of Ghana was a case of luckless coincidence. Wow, a rich remark from the Special Prosecutor. If indeed, the purchase of the aircraft was a done deal between the government of Ghana and Airbus, what really was Mahama’s brother employed to do? If indeed the contract was fait accompli, why did Mahama meet his brother and other representatives of Airbus in his office severally to discuss the proposed deal? It is my understanding and the understanding of many fair readers that, at the time Mahama’s brother was employed by Airbus, there was only an expression of intent to buy from the government of Ghana and that the contract was not yet sealed so the work of Samuel Mahama was to fast track the deal considering his relationship with President Mahama for a fee.

Further, is it not surprising that it did not reasonably occur to President Mahama who was the Chairman of the Armed Forces Council because of his position as the Vice President – and therefore a key decision-maker during the first Airbus purchase that his familial relationship with Samuel Mahama could raise reasonable suspicion of bribery and corruption? How did the OSP conclude that such a classic case of influence peddling and conflict of interest was intended with good faith?

The OSP claims that it does not find evidence of a bribe paid to Samuel Adam Mahama or actual transmission of such bribe to President Mahama. Is it not obvious that the money paid to Samuel Adam Mahama was a bribe considering that Airbus had to criminally divert the payment through another subsidiary? Again if Samuel Mahama engaged in legitimate business with Airbus why did he abandon chasing the 1,675,000 Euros he was owed without instituting any legal proceedings when other senior officials of Airbus disputed such a claim? More so, how will the OSP know whether payments were made from Samuel Mahama or his company to John Mahama since the OSP did not investigate the bank accounts of the former President?

In paragraphs 6.15 and 6.16 the OSP speaks for Airbus and claims that the circumventing of payment by Airbus through their Spanish Partners was ‘‘probably a well-intentioned adventure, though apparently misguided – as it rendered the payments seemingly of doubtful provenance’’. Wow, is this confusing defence coming from the OSP, an office established to fight corruption? In any case, is it true that Airbus did not know about the relationship between Samuel Adam Mahama before his employment? If that were the case, why would a company like Airbus employ Samuel Mahama, who had not demonstrated any previous experience in aircraft purchase intermediary at the time and assign him to Ghana, a country where Samuel’s brother was the Vice President and chairman of the Armed Forces Council? What a coincidence!!

The OSP claims that since the referenced individuals were not represented during the UK and US investigations, it became a case of whatever characterization Airbus placed on their conduct in relation to the actions of the employees of Airbus. Airbus soiled the image of its employees and business associates, in this case, the government of Ghana to save its reputation. The question is how did Airbus admitting that the money paid to the employees was to facilitate business favours in Ghana protect its reputation by any stretch of anybody's imagination?

Again, the OSP claims John Mahama, Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates were not subjects of investigation and did not have the opportunity to defend themselves. However, the OSP’s own investigation which was to find the missing pieces in the UK and US investigations puzzle, the OSP also failed to speak with Airbus to hear their side of the story. An interesting twist to the puzzle. The OSP further claims that ‘‘while the accepted facts in the two foreign jurisdictions are that the employees of Airbus designed the payments to the intermediaries as bribes intended to court favour with Ghanaian public officials, the intermediaries, on the other hand, appeared to expect and received the payments as their legitimate expectation under an arrangement of success-based commissions for the sale of the military transport aircraft to the Government of Ghana. And their actions (in whichever way viewed) were calculated as businessmen expecting their lawful paychecks and not as conduits of a bribery scheme’’. The question arises again, if Samuel Mahama believed and knew that he was engaged in a legitimate business with Airbus, why didn’t Samuel Mahama take Airbus on when they refused to pay 1.6m Euros owed him? We are talking about 1,600,000 Euros, not GH 160.00. The OSP just awarded Samuel Mahama the title of philanthropist of the century. I thought such a worthless award scheme would be left with Dr UN.

Airbus says it employed Samuel Mahama and his associates as conduits to pay bribes and to corrupt Ghanaian government officials to favour the business of Airbus. Airbus made payments as a reward to Samuel Adam Mahama and his associates after a good job done to the expectation of Airbus. Courts in the US and UK found Airbus guilty of bribery and corruption and have punished Airbus accordingly. Yet, Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor, an institution established with the foremost mandate to fight corruption says that Samuel Mahama and his associates are not culpable and that he doesn’t see any evidence of payment from Samuel Adam Mahama or his Associates or Business into the Account of John Mahama, therefore, he does not smell any scent of corruption or corruption-related issues around John Mahama. The nose of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Kissi Agyabeng seems blocked to the pungent stench which fills the nostrils of right-thinking Ghanaians.

When the Airbus scandal first emerged four years ago, the NDC vehemently denied that John Mahama was "Government Official 1." The question of whether Samuel Adam Mahama directly paid bribes to John Mahama was never a central issue. However, in a startling turn of events, the NDC now acknowledges that John Mahama is indeed The Government Official 1, yet they celebrate the Special Prosecutor's failure to conclusively prove a direct bribe payment to him. This focus on technicalities, rather than addressing the critical issues of influence peddling, conflict of interest, and the broader perception of corruption, is deeply disappointing. It paints a grim picture of the kind of half-hearted anti-corruption efforts Ghanaians might expect under an unlikely John Mahama presidency. Ghanaians have the opportunity to choose a leader untainted by corruption, a leader who will truly uphold integrity and transparency in the person of Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and it's crucial that we make that choice wisely.

Ladies and Gentlemen, is this the Ghana we want? God bless our homeland Ghana and make us bold enough to reject corruption and all its manifestations.

James McKeown
Helsinki, Finland