{"id":131331,"date":"2015-07-04T05:24:59","date_gmt":"2015-07-04T05:24:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/4cd.e16.myftpupload.com\/?p=131331"},"modified":"2015-07-04T07:40:27","modified_gmt":"2015-07-04T07:40:27","slug":"african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/","title":{"rendered":"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Judgement Debt Commission has indicted former deputy Attorney General and first deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ebo Barton Odro for directing the Ministry of Finance to pay over GHC 4million to African Automobile Limited as post judgment interest in 2013.<\/p>\n

This, according to a leaked report of the commission was not paid when the commission was still interrogating judgment debts, a situation it found outrageous and unacceptable.<\/p>\n

[contextly_sidebar id=”KOH1PL9xzc0besIsnkOVe8itcBUHyziq”]\u201cAt the time the Company petitioned this Commission on 5th<\/sup> August 2013, this post judgment interest had not been paid. The Company therefore indicated in the petition that this post-judgment interest had again attracted another interest from September 2010 to 30th<\/sup> September 2013 to the tune of GHc5, 271,014.05<\/strong> bringing it to a total of GHc9, 430,024.43<\/strong>….however, before this Commission could go into the matter, and unknown to the Commission, he then Deputy Attorney-General Hon. Mr. Barton Odro had already directed the Ministry of Finance in a letter dated 22nd<\/sup> September, 2011 to pay the post-judgment interest of GHc4, 159,010.38 <\/strong>to the Company, which the Ministry duly paid two years later.\u201d<\/p>\n

This payment according to the commission was also done on the blind spot of the then Attorney General, Martin Amidu.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is interesting to note that the substantive Minister of Justice and Attorney-General at the time Hon. (Mr.) Martin A. B. K. Amidu said he knew nothing about the directives given by his deputy to the Ministry of Finance for the said payment since he did not authorize him to do so.\u201d The report stated.<\/p>\n

When this Commission requested the then Deputy Attorney-General Mr. Barton Odro to explain why he wrote that letter to the Minister of Finance without any authorization from the substantive Attorney-General,\u201d he wrote back to say that Mr. Martin Amidu never queried him for writing that letter granted he did so without authority\u201d.<\/p>\n

This Commission was however of the view that if the Deputy Attorney-General wrote the letter without the authority of the substantive Attorney-General, \u201cthen he had no authority to do so notwithstanding the fact that he was not queried.\u201d<\/p>\n

Below are some of the findings, observations and recommendations of the commission on three petitions which was presented to the commission by African Automobile Limited (AAL) on the judgment debt.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE LTD v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL \u2013 <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    SUIT NO. RPC 194\/2008<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In the petition addressed to this Commission, the Company titled the suit; \u2018International Automobile Limited v MDAs\u2019. Meanwhile, the actual title of the suit was as stated above; i.e. \u201cInternational Automobile Limited v The Attorney-General\u201d. It was the Attorney-General who was sued in this matter. None of the MDA\u2019s alleged to be indebted to the Company was mentioned in the Writ of Summons. The list of the MDAs was rather provided under paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim.<\/p>\n

    The failure of the Attorney-General to Defend action<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Sadly enough, the Attorney-General did not file any Statement of Defence against the claim. However, the trial court, upon an application by counsel for the Company, ordered a referee by name Ben Korley to go into accounts of the parties to determine the true indebtedness of the State to the Company.<\/p>\n

    The Attorney-General did not submit any documents on the alleged debt to the referee as it could not obtain any; neither did it file any defence to the action. This was because it never contacted the said agencies of Government that allegedly owed the debts for their comments. The referee therefore relied on the documents submitted to it by the Company and the alleged agreement which was never executed by the defendants to conclude that the defendants owed the Company International Automobile Limited as at 31st<\/sup> December 2008 the sum of GHc306, 585.60<\/strong> but not GHc57, 544.05<\/strong> as endorsed on the writ of summons.<\/p>\n

    How the referee arrived at this conclusion beats the imagination of the Commission because the Company itself had stated in its claim that the outstanding debt of the three agencies of Government as at the time the action was instituted on 8th<\/sup> May 2008 was GHc57, 544.05<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    The court accordingly entered ex-parte judgment against the Attorney-General on 7th<\/sup> April 2011 in the sum of GHc306, 585.60<\/strong> as stated by the referee and made an order for interest to be calculated on the principal sum from 31st<\/sup> December 2008 to the date of judgment (i.e. 7th<\/sup> April 2011) on the prevailing commercial lending rate. The Company then calculated its own interest on a monthly compounded interest based on the terms unilaterally revised by the Company on 21st<\/sup> April 1997 and arrived at an interest of GHc494, 242.47<\/strong> on the sum of GHc306, 585.60<\/strong> for a period of just two (2) years, four (4) months bringing the total judgment debt plus interest as at 7th<\/sup> April 2011 to GHc800, 828.07<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    When the Company petitioned the Commission, it indicated that the judgment debt had now ballooned to GHc1, 548,576.50<\/strong> as at 30th<\/sup> September 2013. So in effect, a meagre servicing and maintenance debt of just Six thousand, seven hundred and thirty-three Ghana cedis and one pesewa (GHc6, 733.01)<\/strong> as at April 2004 had in just a matter of nine (9) years miraculously grown into a huge debt of One million, five hundred and forty-eight thousand, five hundred and seventy-six Ghana cedis, fifty pesewas (GHc1, 548,576.50)<\/strong> due to the negligence of some public officials to perform their duties as required of them.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. AFRICAN<\/strong> AUTOMOBILE LTD v MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \u00a0 <\/strong>& DEVELOPMENT & ATTORNEY-GENERAL \u2013<\/strong>\u00a0 SUIT NO. RPC 345\/2007<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/u><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/u><\/p>\n

      The second petition was in respect of a case titled as above. The facts of this case are that, the Company (African Automobile Limited) sued the then Ministry of Employment, Manpower & Development and the Attorney-General in the Commercial Division of the High Court, claiming the following:<\/p>\n

      Recovery of the sum of GHc50, 279.96<\/strong> being outstanding sums owed the plaintiff as at 30th<\/sup> September 2003<\/em><\/p>\n

      Interest on the said sum from date of judgment until the date of final payment<\/em><\/p>\n

      Costs <\/em><\/p>\n

      The suit was filed on 5th<\/sup> November 2007.<\/p>\n

      The defendants defaulted in entering appearance and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment on the above claims. The default judgment was later set aside upon application by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was then ordered to file a Statement of Defence to the claim. However, the Statement of Defence filed by the Attorney-General on 9th<\/sup> July 2008 was an apology of a defence. It was a five-paragraphed Statement of Defence in a general traverse denying the claim. This was because the Attorney-General\u2019s Department never obtained anything from the Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development (the alleged debtor) upon which it could file a meaningful defence.<\/p>\n

      Reference to a referee<\/strong><\/p>\n

      At the pre-trial stage, the court per an order dated 24th<\/sup> September 2008, appointed a referee to go into accounts of the parties to determine the true indebtedness of the defendants to the plaintiff. The order further requested the parties to present their relevant documents in connection with the transaction to the referee. The referee appointed was the same Mr. Ben Korley.<\/p>\n

      The plaintiff presented its documents to the referee but the defendants could not present any. The referee presented his report based on the documents obtained from the plaintiff to the Court. The High Court, coram Gertrude Torkonoo, J. (as she then was) gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of One hundred and twelve Ghana cedis and six pesewas only (GHc112.06)<\/strong>, which the referee found as the principal outstanding sum due the plaintiff as at 1996 when the facility was withdrawn. The court awarded interest on this figure at the prevailing commercial lending rate to be calculated from January 1996 to the date of final payment.<\/p>\n

      Appeal against Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Company filed an appeal against the decision of the trial court at the Court of Appeal, and sought further reliefs from the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It, however, agreed with the trial High Court that the outstanding indebtedness of the Ministry to the Plaintiff\/Company as at January 1996 was One hundred and twelve Ghana cedis and six pesewas only (GHc112.06<\/strong>) as was entered by the trial Court, but disagreed with it on the rate of interest used in calculating the interest on this outstanding amount.<\/p>\n

      Before allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal referred the matter again to the same referee (Mr. Ben Korley) to compute interest on the outstanding amount from the date of the default to 31st<\/sup> October 2008.<\/p>\n

      The rate of interest applied was a revised one different from the 1990 rate which the Company claimed it circulated to all its customers and which this Commission has quoted supra. This new credit facility was revised on 21st<\/sup>April 1997. It was the same revised rate of interest that was applied in the International Automobile Ltd case discussed supra.<\/p>\n

      Recompilation of Interest after the judgment of the Court of Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n

      When the referee re-computed the interest on the orders of the Court of Appeal due to what the Court of Appeal referred to as mistakes in the first calculation after its judgment of 24th<\/sup> February 2011, the referee arrived at a colossal figure of Sixteen million, five hundred and forty thousand, five hundred and ninety six Ghana cedis, twenty-two pesewas (GHc16, 540,596.22)<\/strong> as the accumulated debt plus interest of the defendants as at July 2010 instead of the GHc31, 609.45<\/strong> that the Court of Appeal had entered as the amount the Ministry owed the Company.<\/p>\n

      Instead of the amount becoming less than the GHc31, 609.45<\/strong> since the interest was to be calculated from February 1999 to July 2010 instead of from July 1996 to July 2010, the amount miraculously jumped from GHc31, 609.45<\/strong> to GHc16, 540, 596.22<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong>This was what the referee stated in his report dated 23rd<\/sup> March 2011, which he presented to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal one month after the Court of Appeal had disposed of the appeal: –<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em>\u201cA claim was filed by the African Automobile Limited (Plaintiff) in the Superior Court of Judicature in the High Court of Justice, Commercial Division against the Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development and the Attorney-General (Defendants) for the sum of GHc50, 279.96<\/strong> as at 31st<\/sup> January 2003.<\/em><\/p>\n

      The case was heard at the High Court, Commercial Division. The Plaintiff appealed against the ruling of the High Court and sought some reliefs from the Court of Appeal.<\/em><\/p>\n

      In the ruling of the Court of Appeal, I was requested to compute interest on the outstanding amount due from the defendant from default occurring after the 15th<\/sup> of February 1999 instead of July 1996 that was reflected in the first report.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em>Following the revised computation, I conclude that the defendant owed the Plaintiff in the sum of GHc16, 540,596.22<\/strong>. The summary is as follows:<\/em><\/p>\n

      Outstanding cost of services as at February 1999\u00a0\u00a0 =\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc112.07<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

      Accumulated interest as at June 2010\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 = GHc16, 540,484.15<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

      Total\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0= GHc16, 540.596.22<\/strong>\u201d<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      The above report was what the referee submitted to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 23rd<\/sup> March 2011 upon the orders of the Court of Appeal after it had delivered its judgment on 24th<\/sup> February 2011 admitting that the indebtedness of the defendant as at February 1999 was just GHc112.07<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      This means that the interest alone that accumulated on this principal amount of GHc112.07<\/strong> from February 1999 to June 2010 [a period of about eleven (11) years] was a titanic GHc16, 540,484.15<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      This Commission finds this interest covering a period of just eleven years quite outrageous. Incidentally, it was this judgment debt which the Company, in its petition to this Commission, said had now become GHc618, 690,141.79 <\/u><\/strong>as at 30th<\/sup> September 2013; i.e. a period of just three (3) years.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      What this means is that based on the rate of interest used in the calculation of the Ministry\u2019s indebtedness, which the Company claimed it agreed on with the Ministry, the interest alone on the debt of GHc112.07<\/strong> from February 1999 to June 2010 (a period of eleven (11) years) was GHc16, 540,484.15<\/strong>. Again after judgment, the interest alone from July 2010 to 30th<\/sup> September 2013 (a period of just approximately three (3) years) is GHc602, 149,657.64. <\/strong>How interesting!<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      When the Company addressed its petition to this Commission, it served a copy on the Ministry now known as \u2018MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS\u2019. After the Ministry had received a copy of the petition, the Minister in charge of the Ministry Hon. Nii Armah Ashietey addressed a letter to the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice expressing misgivings about the alleged indebtedness of his Ministry. His comments and surprise in the said letter on the outrageous nature of the rate used all along in the calculation of the interest on the alleged debt of GHc112.07<\/strong> from 1999 up to date, was not different from that of this Commission. I quote the letter written on the letterhead of the Ministry and dated 21st<\/sup> October 2013 below:<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u201cSUIT NO. RPC 345\/2007<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE LIMITED vrs<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER AND DEVELOPMENT\u201d<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

      In April, 1997 the then Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development entered into a contract with African Automobile Limited to procure and service vehicles for them.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Court of Appeal, unlike the trial court which dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the rate of interest was unconscionable, accepted the rate used in the calculation saying it could not change the terms of the agreement executed by officials of the Ministry and the Plaintiff Company. The appellate Court, however, commented as follows: –<\/p>\n

      \u201cIt is very disturbing that state officials would enter into agreements that have terms so detrimental to the interest of the State and thereafter sit by and watch the perpetuation of a breach of the said agreement to continue for over ten years plunging the State into such a big debt. Our duties however do not permit us to rewrite the terms of the agreement. It is not within our power to help the situation. As already said the parties are bound by the terms they agreed to in the contract\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      In, fact, as a judge myself, I totally agree with my colleagues on the Court of Appeal Bench who determined the appeal. This is because; it was a whole Chief Director of the Ministry who executed the agreement with the Company.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      This Commission is of the strongest view, however, that like the first case involving the International Automobile Ltd and the Attorney-General discussed above, this is a case the Attorney-General must revisit by forcing the Plaintiff (African Automobile Limited) to a negotiating table as the rate of interest used in calculating the interest, which was not disclosed anyway, on a meagre servicing debt of GHc112.07<\/strong> as at 1999 to a colossal sum of GHc16, 540,596.22<\/strong> as at June 2010 and then to GHc618, 690,141.79<\/strong> from July 2010 to 30th<\/sup>September 2013, is highly unconscionable and unacceptable. That rate of interest is against public policy since no bank or financial institution can levy such a rate of interest. This is unheard of and unacceptable under any financial transaction in the whole wide world since the Company could not have been given far more than what it actually deserved using the Restitutio ad Integrum <\/em>principle.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      What baffled this Commission on the so-called judgment debt is that, after the Court of Appeal had entered the sum of GHc31, 609.45<\/strong> as the judgment debt the Ministry owed plus interest as at July 2010 and ordered the referee to go back to correct errors in his report, the referee came back with this huge figure of GHc16, 540,596.22 <\/strong>one month after the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision against the sum of GHc31, 609.45<\/strong> already entered by the Court of Appeal. How the referee came by this figure is what this Commission cannot comprehend. It is this new figure that the Company is claiming from the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations as debt owed.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      III. AFRICAN<\/strong> AUTOMOBILE LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL – RPC 193\/2008<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Though the title the Plaintiff\/Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Company) gave to the above case in his third petition was \u2018African Automobile Limited v MDAs\u2019, the real title of the case was what has been stated above; i.e. \u201cAfrican Automobile Limited v Attorney-General\u201d.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      In fact, evidence before the Commission indicated that the Plaintiff\/Company did not notify the MDAs involved when it pursued the action in court. The claim of the Company in this third action was for:<\/p>\n

      Recovery of the following sums; (a) GHc657, 445.87<\/strong> and (b) US$318, 782.66<\/strong> or its cedi equivalent <\/em><\/p>\n

      Interest on the aforesaid sums from the date of judgment till date of final payment<\/em><\/p>\n

      Costs<\/em><\/p>\n

      This suit was filed on 8th<\/sup> May 2008; i.e. the same date the first suit \u2018International Automobile Ltd v The Attorney General\u2019 already discussed above, was filed. Interestingly, the two suits had the same pleadings except that while three MDAs were mentioned in the first suit as the debtors, this suit mentioned eighteen (18) MDAs. The eighteen MDAs named in this suit included the very MDAs mentioned in the first suit; i.e. Department of Urban Roads, Ghana Police Service and then Office of the President (Chief of Staff). These eighteen (18) MDAs with their alleged indebtedness were:<\/p>\n

      Bureau of National Investigations: – Workshop \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0 \u00a0GHc5, 776.24<\/p>\n

      Bureau of National Investigations: – Vehicles \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0GHc1, 623.30<\/p>\n

      Chief of Staff (Office of the President)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc223, 188.79<\/p>\n

      Department of Urban Roads (PMU), Accra\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0GHc7, 829.54<\/p>\n

      Ghana Immigration Service \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc13, 189.58<\/p>\n

      Land Valuation Board \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0GHc3, 913.98<\/p>\n

      Meteorological Service Department \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc2, 987.13<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Education (Non-Formal Division) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc49, 477.71<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Environment, Science & Technology\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0GHc8, 047.55<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc22, 193.06<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Food & Agriculture\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc238, 395.96<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Trade & Industry\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc11, 220.92<\/p>\n

      Ministry of Roads & Industry \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc11, 730.70<\/p>\n

      Min. of Land & Forestry (Chief Conservator of Forest)-\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc14, 702.74<\/p>\n

      Min. of Works & Housing (Technical Service Centre) –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc18, 830.70<\/p>\n

      National Development Planning Commission \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc11, 026.16<\/p>\n

      Regional Coordinating Council (Cape Coast)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc5, 413.81<\/p>\n

      Regional Coordinating Council (East Bolga)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc7, 171.10<\/p>\n

      Ghana Police Service \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 GHc727.22<\/u><\/p>\n

      TOTAL\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0GHc657, 445.83<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Chief of Staff Office (Office of the President)<\/p>\n

      (Vehicles Account)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 US$318, 782.66<\/strong><\/p>\n

      This means there were two separate claims; a cedi claim and a dollar claim.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      <\/a>Failure of Attorney-General to defend action<\/strong><\/p>\n

      In this action too, the Attorney-General only entered appearance to the suit but filed no Statement of Defence to the claim. The company therefore filed a motion for judgment in default of defence, which the A-G later opposed in an affidavit in opposition. The parties, however, agreed on the appointment of a Judicial Service Auditor to reconcile the accounting differences between the parties since the MDAs mentioned in the suit, when contacted by the A-G\u2019s Office, questioned the figures with some even denying owing the Company any servicing debts.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The Company later applied to the trial Court to vary its order appointing the Judicial Service Auditor to reconcile their accounting differences since he was delaying in doing so. The Court accordingly varied the order and appointed the same Mr. Ben Korley to go into the accounts of the parties.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The Attorney-General, aside of not filing any Statement of Defence, did not present any documents to the referee as the MDAs concerned presented none, saying they had nothing on their records showing that they owed the Company the sums claimed.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      When the referee who went into the accounts and submitted his report to the trial Court, which formed the basis of the Court\u2019s judgment, was invited to testify before the Commission, he admitted that he received no documents from the Attorney-General as directed by the Court. This was what he said in answer to a questionnaire sent to him by this Commission: –<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u201cMy understanding in dealing with the court is to route every request through the counsels. I did my report which I filed with the court with copies for the defendant. My expectation was for the report to be given to the appropriate agencies for validation and feedback. No feedback was received from the defendants. I am not aware that most MDAs examined by the Commission denied ever owing African Automobile Limited. I could only have access to the MDAs for evidence through their counsel and I wrote to the Attorney-General\u2019s Department but received no response\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

      So, on the basis of the documents that the Company submitted to the referee, he submitted his report to the trial Court indicating that; as at 2005, the MDAs owed the Company (AAL) the total sum of GHc71, 748.37<\/strong>, which amount represented services rendered on vehicles belonging to the eighteen (18) MDAs from 1992 to 2005.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Again, with regard to the vehicle account in relation to the Chief of Staff (Office of the President), which included invoices expressed in dollars, he applied Bank of Ghana Interbank exchange rates and arrived at the figure of GHc73, 903.94 <\/strong>as the outstanding amount on the vehicle account as at 2005. These two put together totalled GHc145, 652.32<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The interest rates applied were the same rates applied under the terms the Company signed with the Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development but which the other MDAs alleged they never executed with the Company. By the Company\u2019s own admission, it applied these terms with all the MDAs but could not provide any document indicating that the said MDAs, apart from the Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development, ever executed any such agreement with it.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

      <\/a>\u00a0RECOMMENDATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

      This Commission recommends, as was done in the other two suits involving \u2018International Automobile Limited v The Attorney-General\u2019 and \u2018African Automobile Limited v Ministry of Employment, Manpower & Development\u2019 that, notwithstanding the fact that the outrageous judgment debt of GHc8, 379,124.71<\/strong> and the post-judgment interest of GHc4, 159,010.38<\/strong> have already been paid, unlike the two others which have not yet been paid, the Government should force AAL to a negotiated settlement table to determine the actual indebtedness of the State to the Company to avoid the State paying monies that the Company does not deserve.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Again, the Government should, as a matter of urgency, conduct investigations into the functions of Heads of Departments including Chief Directors of the various Ministries, Financial Administrators and Transport Officers in all the MDAs to find out who in the MDAs did not perform their duties properly leading to the non-payment of servicing costs upon completion of such servicing, which have led to these unwarranted payments of judgment debts and other judgment debts entered against the State, several years after such servicing. This is because, this Commission is aware that monies for such jobs or expenditures are budgeted for by every MDA every year for submission to Parliament for approval.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      Again, before the Public Procurement Act, 2003, [Act 663] came into effect, public procurement was governed by the Financial Administration Regulations (FAR) 1979 [LI 1234] and Stores Regulations (SR) issued in 1984. Section 48 (1) of the FAR in this respect required that heads of departments may not place orders or contract for goods or services until such time that\u00a0 appropriations have been made and funds released to them. Section 678 of the FAR also stipulated that; \u201cExcept or as provided for under regulation 48, no indent, requisition or purchase order may be issued unless funds are available under a Financial Encumbrance (FE) and such documents shall be endorsed with the Financial Encumbrance (FE) number and a certificate that funds are available to meet the estimated cost of deliveries\u201d.<\/em> There was no indication that all these regulations were complied with by the heads of the various MDAs.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The Commission also recommends that Government, through the Office of the Chief of Staff at the Presidency, should circulate a directive to all MDAs and even MMDAs, not to enter into any contract or agreement, (either written or oral), that would commit the State to the payment of huge sums of money upon default, or any payment at all, without any reference whatsoever to the Office of the Attorney-General for the Attorney-general\u2019s attention. It was the egregious agreement Mr. Bebaako Mensah, as Chief Director, signed for and on behalf of the Ministry of Employment, Manpower and Development with AAL that the management of AAL used as a basis to calculate the obnoxious or obsequious interest on all the outstanding debts of the other MDAs resulting in the huge financial outlays by Government.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The Commission is of the view that Mr. Ben Korley did not perform his functions as a referee with honesty and integrity. As a referee, he should have reported back to the trial court on the failure of the A-G\u2019s Department to furnish him with the required documents which could assist him to do his computations fairly as directed by the court, for further directions by the court. He did not do so but relied solely on AAL\u2019s documents to prepare his skewed reports in favour of AAL. This failure resulted in the outrageous figures he churned out and presented to the court, which were not a true reflection of the State\u2019s indebtedness to AAl. The Commission therefore recommends that the courts should be wary in employing Mr. Ben Korley and his Company Interlysis as referees in future when such matters crop up during trials since he is not reliable. To be precise, this Commission thinks he should be blacklisted as a referee for the courts.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      By: Raymond Acquah\/citifmonline.com\/Ghana<\/strong><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Judgement Debt Commission has indicted former deputy Attorney General and first deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ebo Barton Odro for directing the Ministry of Finance to pay over GHC 4million to African Automobile Limited as post judgment interest in 2013. This, according to a leaked report of the commission was not paid when the commission […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":28445,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2,5],"tags":[38],"yoast_head":"\nAfrican Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Judgement Debt Commission has indicted former deputy Attorney General and first deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ebo Barton Odro for directing the Ministry of Finance to pay over GHC 4million to African Automobile Limited as post judgment interest in 2013. This, according to a leaked report of the commission was not paid when the commission […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/citi97.3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-07-04T05:24:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-04T07:40:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/Barton-Oduro-citifmonline.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jonas Nyabor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@citi973\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@citi973\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jonas Nyabor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/\",\"name\":\"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-07-04T05:24:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T07:40:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/476b2fb2e9233445afbfa2662d85fe6b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/\",\"name\":\"Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always\",\"description\":\"Ghana News | Ghana Politics | Ghana Soccer | Ghana Showbiz\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/476b2fb2e9233445afbfa2662d85fe6b\",\"name\":\"Jonas Nyabor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b74e004fce505330b7ba17aeaae177b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b74e004fce505330b7ba17aeaae177b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jonas Nyabor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/author\/jonas\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always","og_description":"The Judgement Debt Commission has indicted former deputy Attorney General and first deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ebo Barton Odro for directing the Ministry of Finance to pay over GHC 4million to African Automobile Limited as post judgment interest in 2013. This, according to a leaked report of the commission was not paid when the commission […]","og_url":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/","og_site_name":"Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/citi97.3","article_published_time":"2015-07-04T05:24:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-04T07:40:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":600,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/Barton-Oduro-citifmonline.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jonas Nyabor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@citi973","twitter_site":"@citi973","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jonas Nyabor","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/","url":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/","name":"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-07-04T05:24:59+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T07:40:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/476b2fb2e9233445afbfa2662d85fe6b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2015\/07\/african-automobile-limited-judgment-debt-barton-odro-indicted\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"African Automobile limited judgment debt: Barton Odro indicted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/","name":"Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always","description":"Ghana News | Ghana Politics | Ghana Soccer | Ghana Showbiz","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/476b2fb2e9233445afbfa2662d85fe6b","name":"Jonas Nyabor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b74e004fce505330b7ba17aeaae177b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b74e004fce505330b7ba17aeaae177b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jonas Nyabor"},"url":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/author\/jonas\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131331"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131331\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}