Speaking on Eyewitness News on Thursday, Yaw Oppong said the right institution to have investigated the matter is the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“The substantial issue confirms that the CHRAJ’s investigation did not grant the reliefs that complainants brought before it against the Minister, but if you read it carefully and from information that is in the public domain, CHRAJ for instance went into matters that it does not have jurisdiction to investigate or matters that exclusive jurisdiction or authority has been given to other statutory institutions.”

“For example, on the issues relating to the bond, such matters as far as I know, has been exclusively granted the Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, they have a committee that is mandated to do so in the name of the commission,” he added.

He referenced a case involving HFC where an issue was supposed to be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission but ended up at the High Court.

“They [HFC] went to the high court and that court received the application but didn’t have jurisdiction. When it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court clearly said when it comes to matters relating to securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission is the first place of call to investigate that. Until they [Securities and Exchange Commission] have shown open bias or not been able to exhibit independence, then you can come to the court. So the Supreme Court struck out that application,” the private legal practitioner added.

He also added that, CHRAJ went beyond its jurisdiction to further investigate the Finance Minister’s assets saying that “I understand that, that matter was not part of the issues it was investigating.”

Background

The controversy over the bond begun after the Minority called for a full-scale parliamentary probe into how persons they referred to as very close friends of the Finance Minister, purchased 95 percent of the $2.25 billion bond issue in April 2017.

The NDC’s Ashanti Regional Youth Organizer, Yaw Brongya Genfi, subsequently petitioned CHRAJ to investigate the bond on grounds that Mr. Ofori Atta attempted to promote a personal interest for himself, as well as family and friends,.

On the substantive matter of conflict of interest, CHRAJ cleared Mr. Ofori-Atta of any wrongdoing, stating that, “on the basis of the evidence available to the Commission, it has come to the conclusion and therefore holds that, the allegations by the complainant that the respondent has contravened Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution by putting himself in a conflict of interest situation in relation to the issuance of the 5-year, 7-year, 10-year and 15-year bonds, have not been substantiated.”

CHRAJ however said that the Finance Minister, breached certain processes in the issuance of the bond.

In its 140-page report on the matter, CHRAJ made some suggestions to the Minister of Finance to ensure that due diligence is ensured in subsequent deals.

Among other directives, it said the Minister must pass regulations to monitor the format of and criteria for the auctions, and the procedures for participation, bidding, and allocation in auctions in relation to the issuance of securities in the domestic market.

CHRAJ further charged the Minister take measures in preventing Primary Dealers who are also bookrunners or transaction Advisors from gaining the unfair advantage because of their dual roles.

It had found the Primary Dealers also doubled up as bookrunners or transaction advisors, and that dual role gave them an undue advantage.

Group sues Ofori-Atta, AG, CHRAJ over $2.25 bn bond

A group calling itself Dynamic Youth Organisation of Ghana, has sued the Finance Minister, Ken Ofori Atta, the Attorney General and the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice [CHRAJ] over the $2.25 billion bond issue.

The Convener for this new group, Edward Tutor, speaking on Eyewitness News last week explained that, the decision to clear Mr. Ofori Atta of any wrongdoing contravenes Article 284 of the constitution.

Mr. Tutor said their suit is to therefore to invoke the Supreme Court to interpret Article 284 of the 1992 constitution.

Ofori-Atta to sue CHRAJ

Meanwhile, the Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, may be dragging CHRAJ to court, over its handling of the petition in relation to the $2.25 billion bond issue.

He is heading to court to compel CHRAJ to overturn some of the declarations it considers irrelevant to the petition.

Addressing a news conference in Accra today [Thursday], the Information Minister, Mustapha Hamid, said the Finance Minister believes CHRAJ went “beyond the matter of conflict of interest to make pronouncements on other matters that it was not seized with the capacity to make.”

This was announced after the Minority in Parliament had reiterated their calls on the Minister to resign or be forced out constitutionally based on the findings of the CHRAJ report.

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post CHRAJ exceeded its limit in $2.25b bond investigation – Lawyer appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Speaking on the Citi Breakfast Show on Wednesday, lawyer Oppong said “when a law made in 1966 is no more in tune with modern technology, let the appropriate authority repeal it.”

[contextly_sidebar id=”vHaK93N39j1ebwQ2UZQhXxJaAdSs3gCm”]The TV licensing Act 1966 (NLCD 89) mandates the collection of license fees from persons or households that own television sets, but Director General of the GBC, Dr. Annor-Ntow, told Citi News in an interview that the license is to cover content and not ownership of TV sets.

Dr. Annor Ntow had also noted that persons who watch TV on their smartphones will also be charged because the law borders on content.

But lawyer Oppong is of the view that this will be illegal per the current standing of the law.

“It is his [Dr. Akuffo Annor-Ntow’s] construction of the law. I’m saying that my construction of the law is that, it doesn’t include anything  either than what we know to be TV. My understanding is that a TV is a TV. The description given through the law doesn’t derogate from our understanding of what is television now.”

Lawyer Oppong said “we should separate what we watch from the TV from a mobile phone because a mobile phone is a mobile phone.”

CJ sets up special court to prosecute TV licence defaulters

Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo has set up a special TV Licence Court to deal with people who refuse to pay the mandatory TV licence fees.

The courts, numbering 11, are located across all the ten regions of the country, and are to sit every Thursday with effect from 4th January 2018.

The courts will sit from 8:30am to 4:00pm on the said day.

Police to help enforce TV license payment – GBC

The  GBC Director-General had earlier said the Police Service will help in the pursuit of persons who refuse to pay their TV licence fees.

Dr. Annof-Ntow said the police involvement is to help forestall further challenges with the collection of the fees.

“We made a formal appeal not only to the court, but also to the IGP because we anticipated that we were going to hit a snag and some people will deliberately refuse to pay. So from where we sit, I’m delighted at the fact that the Chief Justice has granted our request. What it means therefore is that, this is an encouragement for everybody to go and pay the television licence.”

Opposition to payments

Meanwhile, some Ghanaians have kicked against the payments accusing GBC of not providing compelling content to motivate them to pay the fees.

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post ‘Archaic’ TV license law can be repealed if necessary – Lawyer appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Lawyer Oppong also said per his understanding of the law, it does not also border on content but owning a Television set.

Dr. Akuffo Annor-Ntow, Director-General of the state broadcaster, GBC,  had opined that the collection of TV licenses fees will be extended to persons who consume Television content via mobile devices and applications.

[contextly_sidebar id=”uGDduxUFS5ewa59qne2PcMaU79tspArn”]Speaking to Citi News following the setting up of a special TV Licence Court to deal with TV license fee defaulters, he said “ultimately, the laws will extend to those who consume that content on mobile applications.”

But sharing his views on the matter on the Citi Breakfast Show on Wednesday, Lawyer Oppong maintained that, the GBC Director-General’s explanation contradicts the law bringing into force the TV Licensing regime.

“It is his [Dr. Akuffo Annor-Ntow’s] construction of the law. I’m saying that my construction of the law is that, it doesn’t include anything  either than what we know to be TV. My understanding is that a TV is a TV. The description given through the law doesn’t derogate from our understanding of what is television now.”

Lawyer Oppong said “we should separate what we watch from the TV from a mobile phone because a mobile phone is a mobile phone.”

He further noted that, although the law could be reviewed to include TV content watched on smartphones, the law in its current state does not include that.

“When a law made in 1966 is no more in tuned with modern technology let the appropriate authority repeal it,” he added.

CJ sets up special court to prosecute TV licence defaulters

Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo has set up a special TV Licence Court to deal with people who refuse to pay the mandatory TV licence fees.

The courts, numbering 11, are located across all the ten regions of the country, and are to sit every Thursday with effect from 4th January 2018.

The courts will sit from 8:30am to 4:00pm on the said day.

Police to help enforce TV license payment – GBC

The  GBC Director-General had earlier said the Police Service will help in the pursuit of persons who refuse to pay their TV licence fees.

Dr. Annof-Ntow said the police involvement is to help forestall further challenges with the collection of the fees.

“We made a formal appeal not only to the court, but also to the IGP because we anticipated that we were going to hit a snag and some people will deliberately refuse to pay. So from where we sit, I’m delighted at the fact that the Chief Justice has granted our request. What it means therefore is that, this is an encouragement for everybody to go and pay the television licence.”

Opposition to payments

Meanwhile, some Ghanaians have kicked against the payments accusing GBC of not providing compelling content to motivate them to pay the fees.

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post 50-yr old TV licence law doesn’t cover smartphones – Lawyer appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Mr. Woyome, who is to be orally examined by former Attorney General, Martin Amidu, in the controversial GHc51 million judgement debt case, has accused Ghana’s apex court of persecuting him.

“I feel that the Supreme Court is persecuting me,” he lamented while addressing the media on Thursday.

But speaking on Eyewitness News on Friday, Yaw Oppong, a private legal practitioner, said such comments make Mr. Woyome a “candidate for contempt.”

[contextly_sidebar id=”v3MtR89fuNZCA5kVhxnrercOZe5Wiefm”]“I think that particular statement should have been withdrawn by now by the gentleman [Woyome]. It is another organ of state, and a very important one at that. When a case goes well for you; then everybody must sing the praises of God; but when it goes against you then you see everything wrong about it.”

“I think that if his lawyers have advised him and he has refused, that’s okay; otherwise this is a statement that he should have withdrawn because ordinarily; it has made him a candidate for contempt proceedings,” he noted.

Brouhaha over GHc51 million booty

Yaw Oppong made the comment on the back of some press conferences and counter statements from Mr. Woyome and Martin Amidu respectively, after the Supreme Court granted the latter an opportunity to orally examine Mr. Woyome, regarding the repayment of the judgment debt paid to him.

Background

Alfred Woyome was paid ¢51 million after he claimed that he helped Ghana to raise funds to construct stadia for purposes of hosting the CAN 2008 Nations Cup.

The Supreme Court in 2014 ordered Mr. Woyome to pay back the money after Mr. Martin Amidu challenged the legality of the payments in court.

Some efforts by the Attorney General to retrieve the GHc51 million including selling his property to defray the debt, has proved futile.

This compelled Mr. Amidu to return to court to seek an order to examine Woyome, after the Attorney General backtracked from pursuing the case despite serving an earlier notice to orally examine him.

–

By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post Woyome faces contempt for attacking Supreme Court – Lawyer appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.