Vodafone Committee- Minority Answers Gov't!

THE MINORITY in Parliament have taken a swipe at the recommendations of the committee set to look into the Sale and Purchase Agreement over the Vodafone / GT deal, describing their findings as unwholesome and unmeritorious!

The Minority, led by Hon. Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu has described the various claims made by the Inter-Ministerial Review Committee and the various responses from government as wholly unacceptable and an abuse of the sensibilities of Ghanaians.

The Minority gave position at a press conference to comprehensively answer the various concerns raised over the divestiture of 70% shares of GT to Vodafone.

Explaining the background to the current impasse, the Minority Leader said that in May 2009, the Minister for Communications set up a ministerial committee to examine 'issues relating to the management and finance of Ghana Telecom from the tenure of Telenor/Telecom Management Partners up to the sale of 70% shares of Gt to Vodafone in 2008'.

He said that the Committee's report was supposed to have been presented in august 2009, but before the Minister could officially issue the report, an anonymous phantom document was presented to the public as the report.

“The contents of this anonymous and hence cowardly document became the basis for all kinds of scurrilous stories not only n the NDC propaganda media, but also in some respectable media.” He said.

He said that the NPP refrained from official comment on this anonymous and cowardly document. However, on October 15th, a statement of summary of the committee's report was issued from the Office of the President with the effect that government would later issue its position on the report.

He said that on November 3, 2009, government finally came out with its position on the committee's report, signed by the Chief of staff.

Addressing the specific issues raised, the Minority Leader said that it had been claimed there was a provision in the Sale and Purchase (SPA) that ousted the jurisdiction of our courts. He said that the interpretation of the relevant clause was wrong, and simply meant that the transaction could not close if the sale shares of 70% were encumbered in any way.

The Minority Leader said that it had also been claimed that there was a clause guaranteeing indemnity for anyone who might have committed wrong in the sale of the GT's shares, but again this interpretation was wrong, and meant, simply that the new board or owners cannot be held responsible for the corrupt acts of the previous directors, if any.

He said that the Committee also claimed that the SPA was against the laws of Ghana, but this was very far from the truth.

The Minority Leader said that the committee also said that it was wrong for Vodafone to have been issued with a 3G license without tender, and said that the committee's position was wrong, since the NCA had the right to determine its policy according to its policy objectives.

“It is worth noting that it is the same procedures that was used to grant 3G licenses to all the other operators so why should anybody now raise issue?” he wondered.

On the contentious issue of the identity of the Vodafone branch that government dealt with (whether PLC or International BV) and that that would make the ratification of the sale by parliament unconstitutional, he said that they were completely satisfied that Vodafone BV is a 100% owned subsidiary of Vodafone PLC.

“Indeed the government may sign agreements through any of its MDAs, and any such agreement is of no less significance than those signed directly by the Presidency,” he said.

He pooh-poohed the suggestion that GT was under-valued because the Transaction Advisor had put a higher value on it and that Telecom SA had offered a higher fee of $947 for 67% of GT.

He said that the Transaction Advisor rather put a top figure of $769 million on GT with a negotiable 40% goodwill, taking the value to $1,075 billion, but eventually recommended that it be sold to Portugal Telecom for a fee of $480 million.

“In the event, the actual negotiated offer from Vodafone of $900 million far exceeded the offer by France Telecom ($520) and, indeed the proposal by Portugal Telecom ($480 m).

He said that Telecom SA had made an initial offer of $320 million which was evaluated and rejected by the Transaction advisors.

He said that apart from their low bid, they also did not meet the technical requirement of 6 million mobile lines/subscribers that was required of all bidders, thus ruling them out.

However, long after the end of the original tender period at end of December 2007 and the government had entered into and almost concluded the SPA with Vodafone, Telekom SA made another offer on 15th May 2009, but it was too late.

In addition, their bid was not much better that of Vodafone and they had also asked for the inclusion of not only the fiber-optic broadband, but also GT's rural networks!

He laughed at the conclusion by the Committee that Ghana received only $266.57 million from Vodafone, saying that $900 million was transferred to Ghana and a simple check at the Bank of Ghana would have confirmed this.

He said that again it was claimed that the valuation for the fiber-optic backbone was under-valued.

“In terms of cost, government had spent $30 million and VRA had spent $48 million, a total of $78 million. The valuation paid by Vodafone is $100 million,” he said, calling on the people of Ghana to judge.

On claims of executive interference in the sale of Ghana Telecom by former president John Agyekum Kufuor, they described it as not only strange but preposterous and absurd.

“For the avoidance of doubt it is important to state categorically that President Kufuor did not solely decide on price, on his own technical and legal assumptions,” the Minority Leader said, adding that the best offer recommended by the TA was $580 million.

“If government subsequently secured $900 million, how is anyone ale to ascribe bad motives to anybody who took part in securing the far better offer of $900 million?” he wondered.

He said that negotiations were undertaken by the executive, with the President as the head.

“So how could the executive interfere in its own processes?” he wondered.

They wished the government well in its mission to 're-engage' Vodafone on the SPA, and said that this is better than the bellicosity of the initial stages.